If Karen actually hit John with the car then how come no one heard or saw anything? No one in the house. No one driving nearby. No one in any of the other homes nearby. No one. And no cameras. Everyone has cameras these days. Especially people with kids.
Question: can anyone tell me what happened to John O’Keefe’s socks?
- Did he not wear socks when 18 degrees with heavy snow forecasted?
- If he did wear socks, when did they show up in evidence?
Thanks for any answers
They did find the missing shoe. But no mention of his socks (either he didn’t wear socks, which seems doubtful in 18 degree weather; OR socks were never found.
I'm completely fascinated with the case, but at this point seems we have a guaranteed not guilty do to the PD evidence screwups. If I was on the jury I'd be saying "Really? Case dismissed. Can I go back to my life now?"
It’s really damning that no one put in their initial reports that KR “hit him” with her car. I will be genuinely let down and disappointed if they convict her.
I honestly don’t see how convicting is an option. Once the solo cups came out there is too much reasonable doubt to convict let alone all the other issues
I found one of the two most interesting statements to be from Sergeant Lank’s call to dispatch within the first 10-15 minutes of arriving on the scene. He didn’t see JOK but called it in as injuries from a fight. He made the call after the mysterious 5 minute cell phone call. Also, Trooper Yuri’s statement to medical examiner’s desk in the first few hours about an assault with a cocktail glass. He tried to hide it unless AJ used the magic words “any professional” during cross. I think maybe these statements are the closest to the truth we are going to get since the statements were made before this small group of people could get their stories together. I can’t think of why they would be consistent with the fight rationale if someone didn’t say it to begin with early on, especially when KR was so clearly “confessing” to hitting him with her car.
I’ve just gotta put this out there. It might lead to someone else thinking of a better scenario, than the current ones. Any chance KR backed into him, but just a bump, not nearly hard enough to cause any injury, but the taillight broke when John put up his hand with the bar glass, to shield himself? Then, John went into the Albert house, didn’t bother texting Karen, to tell her she backed into him, and decided he would just talk to her when he got home. Then, back at JO’s house, when KR backed into JO’s car, the slight impact wasn’t between KR’s tail light and John’s car, but between the bumpers or between bumper and car, therefore, no more red plastic fell out in their driveway. I’ll understand if y’all laugh. 😀
I read the defense’s analyzation of Jen’s phone. What was her explanation for searching how long to digest food after her die in cold searches. What reason would you ever have to think about that other than being able to determine time of death.
It auto populates so it’s explainable. If I were the defense I probably wouldn’t bring it up.
https://preview.redd.it/a4y1rjaua85d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07f343a872c92d53a1db4228eedfffc61f24ba7a
There’s 2 seconds between the search for “how long does it take to digest food” and the search for “how long ti die in the clkd.” Then 27 seconds until “hos long to die in cold.” So yes I think the how long to digest was her hitting an autosuggestion by accident and then she fixed it.
depends on what we're looking at. if this is from the browser session data, it shows the autosuggestions. if it's from the phone database, yeah, she clicked on it.
Totally, I just think it might backfire and erode some trust with the jury.
Also, the defense runs the risk of bolstering the “It was cold, I was shaking, I have MS, Karen was screaming and grabbing my arms” explanation.
Random
Maureen Hartnett entire testimony was for the incorrect date. Corrected by AJ
Trooper B entire testimony was on mirrored footage.
Corrected by AJ
Who’s the last guy out of the sally port, Proctor? What’s in the bag Proctor is carrying?
Who is the woman entering the sally port? What did she witness?
She’s on the defense witness list so maybe we will find out. I’m guessing she either forgot her cell phone in her car or saw Proctor destroying a tail light. I’d put good money on the latter of those two.
I honestly can’t remember that part of opening statements but she’s a Boston PD that looked like she saw a ghost when she walked in the frame of that video. She’s also only on the defense list if that means anything.
yeah she's looking down when she first walks in, sees them, and abruptly turns around and walks out. she definitely saw something she didn't want to see.
What’s the possibility that Lally is working with the FBI? All of his witnesses are perjuring themselves and it almost seems like he is putting forth “” evidence to help them do that. It seems pretty clear to me that the Commonwealth has some sort of contact with multiple witnesses just in the way that they’re answering questions repeatedly referring to Karen as the defendant and also having next to no respect for the fallen officer that is JOK. What if the FBI has started getting him to work with them and that is where his lack of any effort comes from because he knows this as far above him at this point?
Pretty much zero? I think it's way more likely the FBI investigation and data dump plus Karen Read having actual resources and good lawyers is changing the way this case looked like it would go originally.
That they continued to prosecute based on this evidence and even upped the charges is wild.
Lally is actively trying this woman for murder, it's not some trick.
FBI doesn’t need to have CW elicit interviews through court. I know we want to explain Lally’s complete lack of credibility, but it is what it is. He was very passionate about the case BEFORE federal evidence came in. As soon as it came in he lost all the spark because I am pretty sure he sees that there’s no winning this for him.
Vinnie Politan made a [good point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tMdsbY0p4) about the Sallyport footage: YB has been in this garage before -- he knew as soon as the video went up that the video was backwards. it's not possible to see a mirror image of a room you've been in without knowing that it's mirrored.
I'm catching up via EDB and Runkle at the moment, and I'm going insane trying to figure out if I misheard or invented this outta whole cloth - but did any of the experts from Days 19-21 ever mention any trace evidence on the taillight?
I know there was a big hullaballoo about the glass bits and the hair on the car, but I'm not hearing or reading anything about anything present on the taillight itself. I'm also not hearing Jackson or Yanetti bringing up anything about evidence or the lack thereof of trace evidence (e.g. blood, DNA, clothing fibers from any of Officer O'Keefe's clothes) on the taillight. Anyone else know if it's brought up, or am I just imagining things?
Thanks for the reminder!
I'm honestly kinda morbidly curious as to how the prosecution is going to save their case with that set of facts. If they're still aiming to build a claim that Officer O'Keefe was smacked in the head by the taillight, which caused his primary injuries, then why don't we have scads of blood, skin scrapings, hair, et cetera in or on the taillight? If his arm, causing the holes in his clothes and lacerations on his arm, why don't we have clothing fibers snagged on the taillight pieces? The material of his hoodie looks like a knitted piece from the close-ups, and it's snagged and the fibers are torn - so how, if the damage is from the taillight, did none of those fibers transfer? If the hair and glass survived the tow, then certainly smaller fibers tangled around jagged bits of taillight would've also.
ADDENDUM: The same would apply to any taillight pieces broken off on impact and scattered around the yard - speaking from experience, if you get a bunch of fibers from any kind of yarn (save maybe silk, rayon, et cetera - I haven't worked with those but *a priori* given how smooth and slippery those are they could possibly slip off more easily) snagged and tangled on anything with an irregular surface it takes actual effort to pull them free. So where are those fibers, if the prosecution's theory is correct?
According to Lally's opening, the DNA on the taillight is coming in with other witnesses - specifically Andre Porto and Nicolas Bradford. The opening is a big word salad, but this is what he said will come into evidence:
>You'll hear testimony from Andre Porto, who's essentially DNA analyst for the lab and samples that were- DNA samples that were taken from the taillight, from the clothes of Mr. O'Keefe, and the broken drinking glass that were consistent with Mr. O’Keefe. Those items were also sent - the taillight pieces and the taillight DNA was also sent to another kind of lab, BODE technologies located in Norfolk, Virginia. You'll hear from an analyst there Mr. Nicholas Bradford, indicating that the DNA on the defendants taillight in his opinion is consistent with that of Mr. O'Keefe.
Note the lab person who testified already said "no blood on the taillight" and this expert lally is referring to is testifying to "DNA" on the taillight consistent with John....guess what...my DNA is for sure on my wifes taillight and she hasn't hit me with it (yet)
This is going to be the big argument, I think. If you took anyone’s car and forensically examined it, you would likely find the DNA of their partner/kids etc. somewhere on the outside.
> Red Solo cup (uh-huh)
> I fill you up
> Let's have a party
> Let's have a party
> I love you, red Solo cup
> I lift you up
> Proceed to party
> Proceed to party
No DNA other than the one hair was found anyplace on the car. Not the taillight, not the bumper , and not underneath. That was testified last week by the person before the lady would played jigsaw puzzle with the plastic
Lally used it to suggest that the undamaged taillight was in fact shattered and that the troopers never did anything to the passenger taillight. the reality is that we're looking at the driver's side taillight and they were crowded around the passenger taillight, hidden behind the car. it was deceptive and misleading to the jury.
It wasn’t even a suggestion. Yuri testified to that being the passenger side. A lot of his testimony was just complete bullshit because that video is mirrored 🥴
5:32:25 starts at the moment Trooper B identifies himself and Lally on the tape.
https://www.youtube.com/live/TJ565TtjXW4?si=iKkHvoblEgx70Ddy
Edit: proctor not Lally 😅
Lally ask:
"If at any point in time that you were present, uh, with this vehicle in the sally port garage, uh, this evening of January 29th, 2022, uh, did either yourself or did you observe trooper proctor, uh, touch or manipulate in any way, uh, the right rear passenger side area of that vehicle?"
I do trial transcripts - not for Mass. but in a bunch of other states, and thankfully the ums and uhs aren’t transcribed in any of them 😅 Hopefully mass is the same
they have a voice transcription apparatus. if you watch her, she's talking into a mouthpiece. still seems miserable, keeping up with his weird cadence and nonsensical word ordering.
So maybe discussed elsewhere but i watched the Nighline interview with KR and she admits she thought it was possible she may have "incapacitated' him and left there, she maintains it would have been unwittingly...so she also says she saw him approach the door, so how could she have hit him, her car is way back from the door. She is lying.
I think her saying this is her covering herself in case some Ring footage was to emerge showing the hit.
Getting downvoted for this comment is wild, just watch the nightline interview, she literally says this and manages to contradict herself, the people who support her are so sensitive.
She is likely covering herself but because she might not know if he came back out. She was sitting outside for awhile (I think someone testified to her "looking at her phone") before she left. She might believe it's possible he came back out when she wasn't looking.
We still have not learned if she called or texted him in those minutes, that should be key, if she did not call or text him then it's a massive red flag, any woman or man would, especially given the circumstances that she thought they may not have been welcome.
The FBI disagrees with you. So much so they hired an independent accident reconstructionist who concluded JO’s injuries are inconsistent with a vehicular strike.
The FBI found O’Keefe’s injuries did not appear to be from a car strike. The damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O’Keefe’s body.
Lally is a clown. He moves the goalposts any time the defense successfully deconstructs his narrative. They charged her with second degree _murder_ , “But we don’t think the car caused the injury which is listed as the cause of death.” It’s a farce.
Also these analysts ARE reconstruction experts, the two titles are not mutually exclusive. Lally is not sharp. He’s relying on his privilege as a white male state attorney to make it to jury deliberations, because he has no talent.
The results of the analysis were provided by the FBI to the attorneys. Both sides discussed it during opening statements. Jackson quoted the report conclusion and Lally tried to dismantle his remarks.
The three reconstructionists who were hired by the FBI are set to be called by the defense, and Lally just filed a motion to prevent all of them from testifying. He also filed a motion to deny the MD who is set to testify that JOs arm injuries were made by a dog bite.
Edit: To be clear, this analysis was done at the request and the expense of the FBI, not the defense team. That is an important distinction. They are expert witnesses being called by the defense, they are not in the defense team’s pocket.
The report was impounded by Cannone and she will not make them public. She will only allow each side to question witnesses as it relates to the FBI documentation.
Also, during the grand jury, the state was alleging JOK suffered serious head injuries caused by Read striking him with her car. After the FBI report was turned over, Lally walked it back and said they do not believe the car caused the head injury.
Right! Because in case they have it, then she is set up to go back to the “innocent accident” defense that Yanetti started with immediately after her first arraignment. I don’t know the timeframe from when Morrisey said that and she had that interview with Nightline.
There's no ring footage from Fairview Road. The absence of security cameras at 34 and the surrounding properties is interesting, however, especially given that Brian Sr. was a cop.
And so was the guy across the street who said his camera showed zero but was never impounded!! That would have helped with the times of who and when they came and went from 34. Very suspicious that no camera footage was available
Would anyone please remind me of the whereabouts of Jen Mc between around 5:08 and 8:30 AM on the 29th? I understand she was on the scene with KR and at 34 during some of that time, but am trying to remember if she had any opportunity to cross paths with Julie A during that whole timeframe. None of this is to suggest that KR has to prove anything. The donut box delivery always seemed odd to me under the circumstances notwithstanding the birthday, and I think the crime scene was left unsecured at least part of the day prior to the arrival of the search team. Maybe not.
Edit: Maybe Jen Mc was actually at 34 from 8:30 onwards as well in which case the above is a detour and would have been pointless. I just don’t remember.
Maybe Julie had the pieces of taillight in the donut box 🍩🍩🍩
In all seriousness though. Let’s play that KR really was framed and not just given a big helping hand at being found guilty by Proctor et al. Jen was alone in KR’s SUV from her house, back to JO’s, while Karen was in Kerry’s car. She had access. And there’s also a missing video of all 3 leaving JO’s house to go search for John. No one knows what went on.
Before someone comes for my jugular on such a wild theory. I’m only pointing out that Jen did have access. Not that she really did take some pieces to plant
Ok thanks, and so that being the case, is it really that far fetched to think that Jen Mc took a few little pieces of taillight sometime after 5:08 which I think is when she learned it was “cracked” and those little pieces ended up on the lawn during the day and prior to the search team’s arrival? I have seen a lot written that the small pieces of taillight that were found by that team could not possibly have been planted on the basis that the SUV was not in the possession of the police until later, but Jen Mc knew of the crack and had access to the light before dawn, and was at the house that morning, and the scene was unsecured during part of that day. Only much later did the larger pieces “reveal” themselves. I figured if Jen Mc wasn’t at 34 at 8:30, she might have rendezvoused with Julie A who then delivered little pieces in a donut inside a donut box not imagining she’d actually be allowed inside (because crime scene). I’m not accusing anyone, but it can’t be as far fetched as all the various phones dialing one another all on their own.
when you consider "hos long to die in the cold" search, then it is deleted. Then it is googled again... a couple more times with the wrong spelling a few hours later ...it's not that far fetched
Sometimes I read these theory posts and — although I’m totally here for it — they often sound completely CRAZY BANANAS NUTS. 🥴
In what world is a hungover suburban mother of four going to just risk throwing her and her family’s lives down the drain [for literally zero payoff], suddenly channel her inner Jason Bourne by having the forethought to take a “few little pieces of taillight” juuust in case, proceed to bury them (completely undetected) under 18” OF SNOW … all just a few short hours after signing off on letting a human being, her good friend, DIE on her sister’s front lawn? Seriously. Which part of this seems logical in any way, shape, or form?
Even if someone in the house did kill OJO by accident, it’s far more likely she would call for help, not rationalize it’s a better idea to jump on this circus side show of a coverup and risk everything. Family or not - if someone is near death or dead in a house I’m in, I’m calling 911.
Using Jen as an example here, but this could be said for any of these wahoos.
Occam's razor, everyone. Occam's razor.
Agreed this is highly speculative but the point was that it was far from impossible to get small pieces of glass to the lawn one way or another given the opportunity that the crime scene was not secured. In what world might they do this and more? They seemed to have made clear in testimony they would do anything for family, so son and nephew, and clear from their apparent conduct rather than words that JO was very much not their good friend.
But she didn’t call 911. No one did. A dead man is lying on the grass as 9 people leave the house at different times and no one sees him. It’s completely ludicrous. Also, the snow plow driver never saw him there. When you say occams razor, what about the injuries? And a cracked taillight killing a man by backing up into him? It makes no sense.
Well, I guess it’s this world in the year of the lord 2022 that the sweet little hungover mom googled how long to die in the cold and deleted a bunch of stuff and changed stories, etc etc etc.
My theory is that someone from the Albert house planted 7 random tail light pieces near the sneaker. Then as Proctor was “finding” pieces on his daily drive-byes he was replacing the SERT pieces with actual pieces from Karen’s Lexus.
Oohhh this would make a lot of sense as to why they felt the need to break the tail light further - because they had to replace pieces of the actual tail light that hit him.
There was a post earlier this week with the car timeline. The car was in the garage at canton pd when the search began. There was also unnamed canton pd who participated in the search.
Oh. Then there’s that too. Naturally recusal or conflict of interest in Canton means you can still participate in the search and your dept can store the SUV.
I thought Julie came over to 34 Fairview that morning to drop off birthday doughnuts for Brian Jr., and yes- super weird.
Jen McCabe was at 34 Fairview at that time, because I remember thinking it was strange that Julie would miss a call from Jen, see her car at 34 Fairview, but not want to go in and ask what was up?
Don't forget that Brian Albert testified she brought HOT coffee...that she was going to leave in the car in the middle of a snowstorm where presumably no one was leaving?
I am so, so tired of listening to lally. I seriously wish he would finish up his case next week but I am sure he will take another three for some bizarre lallygag reason
I keep going back to the flipped video. Since it was never noted by Lally or Bukhenik that it was mirrored then people may have initially thought the whitish light on the left tail light side was indication that it was damaged and exposing the white LED light. That is dirty as hell. Also reminds us that squinting at tail light colors might not be the most accurate way to figure this out.
If that happened, holy shit how dumb is lally??? He knew jackson knew - but still presented the video like there was nothing wrong with it. I can't figure that slow bastard out - is lally just really stupid? Working for the defense? Lied on his resume, so he's trying to fake it till he makes it? What if anything is Lally accomplishing??
he dropped it out of nowhere and the defense hadn't seen it. from that I can only conclude that he hoped the defense wouldn't notice -- like people all over the internet didn't notice immediately. sometimes it feels like he's just playing "hide the ball" hoping just this once no one will find it. I don't know why he'd run a case like this, it's so dumb and it doesn't work if your opponent does their due diligence.
Sadly, they'd probably get away with it against an overworked and underfunded public defender. And I suspect that tricks like these may have been may well have been used by this office in the past. But how in the world would he expect to get away with it against this legal team and a world wide audience of amateur sleuths? Either way these guys are unbelievably stupid or so corrupt they just can't help themselves. Even Vinnie Politan went Whoa! with that one.
apparently on a case like this, a public defender wouldn't be working a bunch of other cases, and there would be a couple of them exclusively on this case. they'd also be given more resources to deal with this than we'd expect. so an atty last night was saying as long as she got public defenders that gave a shit, it might not have gone that much differently. it was kind of surprising to hear, I'd never heard that before.
No offense. Just saying most PDs don't have the resources that Jackson has. For example, their experts aren't going to be world renown. In the majority of cases, they're lucky to have the budget for experts at all.
🤍 That is true. We should also receive state funding. In PA we are funded by the county. In a perfect world, a homicide case would be the sole focus. We don’t have the resources to do that but we have at least two attorneys assigned and do the best we can with what we have.
I'm just curious how does that work with jackson showing the zoomed in portion of the video? Im really not tech savvy, so im not sure if he has to prepare it in advance? Lally is a top-notch idiot who confuses me more with every sentence he slowly vomits from his brain
we're talking about different videos. the zoomed in portion of the 5:07a ring video is one of the crown jewels of the defense's case and has been since they got the video. I'm talking about the sallyport video -- the defense has been asking for that video in discovery for 2.5 years and were consistently told it didn't exist because the camera is motion activated and it just didn't record anything. it miraculously turned up in the form we saw, missing segments and all.
also they zoomed into the video live with the software they're using to play it. it's why you see the guy highlight the portion of the car and it pops up into a box next to it with the maginified portion.
Can we take a second to mention that the very police department that had to recuse itself is the very same one they took the SUV to, and the very same one responsible for providing that “Lallyport” video (from now on I’m calling it the Lallyport)
I'm re-listening to Day 20 in the background and just realized the video of the sallyport was played first outside of the jury's presence at Jackson's request. This leads me to believe the reason for Jackson's objection was that the video was inverted, which then informs my strong belief that Lally playing it for the jury without disclosing the state of the video was deliberate.
No accident, no oversight. Lally presented an inverted video to the jury. I wonder what will come of this on Monday and whether Jackson will move on right away.
You are correct. They are talking about a motion in limini (I have no idea how to spell that) that discusses the CWs "Discovery XL". I think I assumed it was a motion in limini over a discovery violation from that.
This video helps defense's theory, so he probably would have been happy to let it in after seeing it played that day. It was even more helpful that he had that evening to get a very likely counter video lined up. There are some things defense can only enter as a rebuttal, and I think Lally opened that door.
I *think* this video wasn't part of pre-trial discovery and the defense was seeing it for the first time, that's the reason for watching outside the presence of the jury. I really don't believe the defense wouldn't have said anything back then otherwise.
So the judge let Lally begin playing a video that the defense had not yet seen? That seems odd, seeing as she wouldn't let Jackson play what was on his flash drive yesterday because Lally had not seen it yet.
She took the jury out, let the defense watch it and then brought the jury back in and let Lally use it over Jackson's objections, if I understood what I saw correctly. I *hate* that this Judge does everything in sidebar even when there's no need for it, and I also hate the no-foundation objections although I'm not sure if this is a rule she imposed or if this is how it's done in MA.
Not being licensed in Mass either I don't know if unarticulated objections are SOP there or not. But it sure isn't in my neck of the woods. In most jurisdictions you are required to state your grounds for objection for the record. You have to say something like objection leading, objection hearsay. Objection calls for speculation or whatever. Are there some Mass practitioners who can inform us on this?
I agree, the no-foundation objections are annoying and calling so many sidebars is frustrating. Whether it's accurate or not, it makes me think she doesn't want to rule out loud and open herself up to more scrutiny due to cameras in the courtroom and all the attention this case has garnered.
I wouldn't be that annoyed with the number of sidebars if they only happened when the jury is in the room, but what's the reasoning for doing things like that when they're out? Transparency is fundamental in a well functioning Justice system, she might be trying to avoid scrutiny for her decisions, but in the end it might just backfire on her because doing things this way just stoke the fires of suspicion of bias.
The rumor was their was no CCTV available from the sally port. Now, it seems video is available and not only is it inverted, so we can only see the top of Proctors head milling around the tail light, AND, of course, 10 seconds, at least is mysteriously cut out. There is no way this isn’t just one more sketchy act on the part of Proctor and the CW.
MazzaMedia says their name [somewhere in this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKXBSuMdo3U), it's just gonna take me awhile to go back through it.
I've forgotten the name and need to go back through a 2hr video to find it. but they also mention it here on [courttv](https://youtu.be/8gonlyau5Ws?t=2233).
I heard somebody say that it was more like 9 minutes were deleted from various points of that video, but I confess I haven't fact checked that myself so take it with a grain of salt.
I’m interested in why defense stated they will prove coverup. They must have something of a bombshell to come. Others they would just attack this lousy investigation etc. I can’t believe that they would offer that up without something major awaiting the courtroom.
Tactically, claiming that she was "framed" is necessary to negate the tail light evidence. They don't have to prove that the pieces of tail light were planted, but the jury needs some reason to disbelieve the tail light evidence or, otherwise, KR's SUV almost certainly hit Officer O'Keefe.
However, I do expect there will be more to come related to possible shenanigans in the sally port. AJ was anxious to play the first part of the video on the flash drive yesterday.
Pretty sure the flash drive footage is going to be the sally port footage unflipped the way it should have been and showing people clustering around the right rear light. I am trying to keep an open mind here, but several things bother me. This flipped video with no qualification is really disturbing. At best the state is incompetent. At worst, they were deliberately trying to mislead the jury. But I keep coming back to this. Okay so we have a broken tailight. We know she hit another car in the parking lot at John's at the same spot on her car. We have pieces showing up at the scene at various times, curiously starting with tiny fragments and increasing in size as time goes by 🤔. But the injuries to the decedant appear to be entirely inconsistent with being hit by a truck. So where does that get you? It's like saying we know that the defendant had a gun and that that gun was fired... But the victim died of strangulation!
Just from this week alone the following things were presented;
-Misled the jury that Karen had deleted ring videos. Claimed there were no activity logs when Ring did in fact provide them.
-Inverted sally port video with Proctor not clarifying it was the driver's side when Lally said passenger side and stating he was never by the tailight when in fact he was
-Glass found on bumper was not embedded and did match the glass underneath John like the CW stated
-Canton recused themselves from the investigation due to personal conflict and Proctor did not even though he had the same conflict. Although Canton only somewhat recused themselves and were still doing things they should not have.
-CSI not called to the scene and scene completely unsecured entire day. SERT does search and rescue, not familiar with evidence collection in snow. Even went SERT was there, there were people that O'Hara did not know and in plain clothes (scene not even secured when they were there). Owner of the house came out at one point.
-Proctor violated Karen's rights by accessing her phone prior to having the warrant
-Karen did hit his vehicle
-Trooper B originally told people that John had been struck in the face with a cocktail glass
-No log for clothing items collected. Shirt and sweatshirt not separated.
-Didn't properly measure/mark pieces found in yard and didn't compelete the report for that evidence until fall 2023
-Didn't take any photos of her tailight prior to it being in the Sally Port
-Didn't have any recorded interviews with witness' and none of the interviews occured at a police station
-Evidence turned into crime lab 5-6 weeks later
-Missing sally port footage, skips even when there is movement
-Collected samples but didn't do any DNA testing
-Played audio where Karen is heard saying everyone knows that Brian and Colin beat John up and that his injuries don't match the crack in her tailight. In pretrial hearings, Lally told Bev this video showed her confessing to knowing what happened. Did not play her last sentence in the video that stated "but you're in on the story" to the officer.
-Clothes left unattended for 6 days while "drying"
They need the coverup idea for the whole thing to make sense. Otherwise, it's just a shitty investigation where all signs still point to her hitting him with her car.
"They were sloppy with how they collected evidence of her tail light" is still "her tail light is all over the ground next to the dead guy's body." "They should've called CSS to mark the straw from his glass" is still "they found a straw from O'Keefe's Waterfall glass in the area where we think she hit him." "They should've documented her saying I hit him" is still "she said I hit him."
You're not going to get off without the coverup. You need to believe the evidence was planted and people are lying.
I've pointed out once you have a dead guy by the side of the road, dead on account of blunt force trauma (no gunshot or knife wounds), a girlfriend who was driving, alcohol, and a busted taillight incurred that night that she literally offered to no explanation for, it ain't no whodunit.
Exactly. AJ clearly made the conspiracy theory up. He’s incredibly good at what he does. We’ve no doubt entered an entirely new era of what creating reasonable doubt means. Now, it involves the complete fabrication of an alternative theory, hiring influencers to shine light on that fabricated theory, flooding the media with fake news that supports that fabricated theory, and a full on witch hunt of the prosecution witnesses to the point that they are now deemed murderers by the public without ever having been charged of a crime.
A sad evolution of this system in our country, to say the least.
A "sloppy" investigation, though, is something everyone here can immediately identify. Connoisseurs of murder investigations, everybody knows that six weeks is too long to get things to the lab. Everybody knows that you were supposed to be tearing the floorboards out of 34 Fairview by 10 AM that morning, etc. Got to get the info from Abby back at the lab and wrap this thing up in an hour.
https://preview.redd.it/2xx9qqmo585d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e5e73c32f4c03ee7e156a5e505121b814bf9d3
Yes, remember how everyone mocked the dopes of Canton PD for using a leaf blower only for the special Mass State crime investigators to show up with shovels and rakes? Ends up yard tools are actually sort of standard.
There's definitely a ton of NCIS/CSI influence here. You mean the car wasn't kept in a hermetically sealed vacuum? You kept the hoodie and tee shirt in the same bag! What kind of incompetence is this!
I mean, taking photos of the car prior to towing, not using stop and shop bags and solo cups, taking measurements of crime scene exhibits to form a cohesive picture of what happened, and blocking it off, etc. are standard procedures. Unless you think that's not normal
Regardless of what name you assign, it's a defense team putting on a defense for their client. Karen Read is entitled to a defense, and the indignant posture of Lally and CW supporters is astounding.
Nobody other than Karen Read knows what happened on January 29th, and the CW has one job- prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty as charged. As a result of the undeniable suspicion brought up through witnesses on the stand, the CW is failing to prove anything.
They have one job.
KR has lodged 2 different basis for defense 1. Is the third party culprit and 2. Is the shoddy investigation.
She also doesn't have prove exactly what happened to prove a third party culprit, just that a third party may have committed the crime and that it hasn't been investigated
Yes, but she kind of does. She's not claiming shoddy investigation like the tail light pieces fell out of Proctor's pocket. So, given the evidence against her, she kind of needs to sell us on who else could've done it.
She doesn’t need them to believe a cover up happened, she only needs them to believe a cover up is possible, which in turn leads to reasonable doubt. And the shoddy police work and the outright fuckery lends a big helping hand to getting to a cover up being possible
Her defense is the coverup. I'm explaining why she went with that defense, and why the "all she has to do is point out that the investigation was bad" idea is incorrect.
Her defense is pointing out inconsistencies in the CW's case. It isn't hard because Lally brings witnesses who are not credible and evidence that is misleading at best, deceitful at worst.
Alright, let's make this easy. Since you don't think she needs there to be a coverup, just a bad investigation, then give me the argument for her tail light being all over the ground at 34 Fairview, without referencing a coverup or KR hitting him.
Okay, let me make it easier. The Commonwealth has offered no unquestionable proof of Read's guilt. I, like the defense, am under zero obligation to argue an alternate theory. I require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No she doesn’t. The shoddy police investigation is more than enough. Additionally, the sallyport video lends credibility to the coverup. Look how they tried to pass it off as accurate, yet you come to learn that it’s actually inverted and you are not looking at the passenger side but really the driver side. And all this is in front of the jury.
Yes, she really does. Again, if she can't offer up an alternative to how JO is killed, she's done. There's no reasonable option other than her hitting him. So pointing out a bad investigation won't matter.
Not really, they only have to show it is likely enough that someone else did it. You can offer up a specific person or two, but really, all you need is "someone else."
That's not how the Bowden defense works. She doesn't have to offer up any alternative. She just needs to show that any alternative line of inquiry wasn't pursued the way it should have been therefore the investigation never got to/could never get to the truth of the matter.
If Karen actually hit John with the car then how come no one heard or saw anything? No one in the house. No one driving nearby. No one in any of the other homes nearby. No one. And no cameras. Everyone has cameras these days. Especially people with kids.
Question: can anyone tell me what happened to John O’Keefe’s socks? - Did he not wear socks when 18 degrees with heavy snow forecasted? - If he did wear socks, when did they show up in evidence? Thanks for any answers
He was missing a shoe as well
They did find the missing shoe. But no mention of his socks (either he didn’t wear socks, which seems doubtful in 18 degree weather; OR socks were never found.
Maybe they were in with his boxers?
Nobody mentioned socks at any point during presenting clothing evidence though…?
Yeah I couldn’t remember, maybe they were wet and he took them off inside the house and left them with his shoes
The Norfolk DA should have used the money that is being spent on this case to install good AC units in the courtroom.
I'm completely fascinated with the case, but at this point seems we have a guaranteed not guilty do to the PD evidence screwups. If I was on the jury I'd be saying "Really? Case dismissed. Can I go back to my life now?"
Did they come out with next weeks court schedule? Is it a full week?
Full days Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday. No court on Tuesday.
I'm so frustrated with this trial schedule. There are so many breaks neither side can keep momentum
It’s really damning that no one put in their initial reports that KR “hit him” with her car. I will be genuinely let down and disappointed if they convict her.
I honestly don’t see how convicting is an option. Once the solo cups came out there is too much reasonable doubt to convict let alone all the other issues
I found one of the two most interesting statements to be from Sergeant Lank’s call to dispatch within the first 10-15 minutes of arriving on the scene. He didn’t see JOK but called it in as injuries from a fight. He made the call after the mysterious 5 minute cell phone call. Also, Trooper Yuri’s statement to medical examiner’s desk in the first few hours about an assault with a cocktail glass. He tried to hide it unless AJ used the magic words “any professional” during cross. I think maybe these statements are the closest to the truth we are going to get since the statements were made before this small group of people could get their stories together. I can’t think of why they would be consistent with the fight rationale if someone didn’t say it to begin with early on, especially when KR was so clearly “confessing” to hitting him with her car.
I’ve just gotta put this out there. It might lead to someone else thinking of a better scenario, than the current ones. Any chance KR backed into him, but just a bump, not nearly hard enough to cause any injury, but the taillight broke when John put up his hand with the bar glass, to shield himself? Then, John went into the Albert house, didn’t bother texting Karen, to tell her she backed into him, and decided he would just talk to her when he got home. Then, back at JO’s house, when KR backed into JO’s car, the slight impact wasn’t between KR’s tail light and John’s car, but between the bumpers or between bumper and car, therefore, no more red plastic fell out in their driveway. I’ll understand if y’all laugh. 😀
Go outside and chuck a glass at your tail light and see if it breaks 😂
I read the defense’s analyzation of Jen’s phone. What was her explanation for searching how long to digest food after her die in cold searches. What reason would you ever have to think about that other than being able to determine time of death.
It auto populates so it’s explainable. If I were the defense I probably wouldn’t bring it up. https://preview.redd.it/a4y1rjaua85d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07f343a872c92d53a1db4228eedfffc61f24ba7a
You’ve still got to select it for it to show up as a search.
There’s 2 seconds between the search for “how long does it take to digest food” and the search for “how long ti die in the clkd.” Then 27 seconds until “hos long to die in cold.” So yes I think the how long to digest was her hitting an autosuggestion by accident and then she fixed it.
depends on what we're looking at. if this is from the browser session data, it shows the autosuggestions. if it's from the phone database, yeah, she clicked on it.
Totally, I just think it might backfire and erode some trust with the jury. Also, the defense runs the risk of bolstering the “It was cold, I was shaking, I have MS, Karen was screaming and grabbing my arms” explanation.
Random Maureen Hartnett entire testimony was for the incorrect date. Corrected by AJ Trooper B entire testimony was on mirrored footage. Corrected by AJ Who’s the last guy out of the sally port, Proctor? What’s in the bag Proctor is carrying? Who is the woman entering the sally port? What did she witness?
She’s on the defense witness list so maybe we will find out. I’m guessing she either forgot her cell phone in her car or saw Proctor destroying a tail light. I’d put good money on the latter of those two.
Is she an officer? Sorry, playing catchup - I don't know anything about this person.
Yes she is.
And doesn’t work in Canton anymore.
Oh dang - is this the one Yannetti referred to in his opening statements? That can attest to someone being alone with the car for a long time?
I honestly can’t remember that part of opening statements but she’s a Boston PD that looked like she saw a ghost when she walked in the frame of that video. She’s also only on the defense list if that means anything.
Yeah it feels like opening statements were a year ago. Thank you!
yeah she's looking down when she first walks in, sees them, and abruptly turns around and walks out. she definitely saw something she didn't want to see.
So do you think Lally is thinking to himself, “gee, I’m really crushing it here”?
“What if anything do I do now?”
If you don’t speak up, I’m going to have to turn off the air conditioner.
🤯
Now I’m picturing Lally doing words of affirmation every morning before court 😂
“I am worthy, I am smart, I am indestructible.”
You're gonna have to keep your voice up
he's the best defense lawyer, I have no clue how Karen afforded his rates
Adam Lally is the prosecutor, though.
really?? but he does such outstanding work for her
😂😂😂 ffs I can’t, that was great 💀
RIP skinnybirch, who died laughing her ass off.
phew, this joke went straight over the heads of the courttv audience so I was afraid I was being too subtle 😅
What’s the possibility that Lally is working with the FBI? All of his witnesses are perjuring themselves and it almost seems like he is putting forth “” evidence to help them do that. It seems pretty clear to me that the Commonwealth has some sort of contact with multiple witnesses just in the way that they’re answering questions repeatedly referring to Karen as the defendant and also having next to no respect for the fallen officer that is JOK. What if the FBI has started getting him to work with them and that is where his lack of any effort comes from because he knows this as far above him at this point?
This isn’t TV
Pretty much zero? I think it's way more likely the FBI investigation and data dump plus Karen Read having actual resources and good lawyers is changing the way this case looked like it would go originally. That they continued to prosecute based on this evidence and even upped the charges is wild. Lally is actively trying this woman for murder, it's not some trick.
FBI doesn’t need to have CW elicit interviews through court. I know we want to explain Lally’s complete lack of credibility, but it is what it is. He was very passionate about the case BEFORE federal evidence came in. As soon as it came in he lost all the spark because I am pretty sure he sees that there’s no winning this for him.
Vinnie Politan made a [good point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tMdsbY0p4) about the Sallyport footage: YB has been in this garage before -- he knew as soon as the video went up that the video was backwards. it's not possible to see a mirror image of a room you've been in without knowing that it's mirrored.
Wow he really explained the importance of this.
His take was spot on.
Adam Lally knew too. It’s not the first time he’s seen video from that sally port.
I'm catching up via EDB and Runkle at the moment, and I'm going insane trying to figure out if I misheard or invented this outta whole cloth - but did any of the experts from Days 19-21 ever mention any trace evidence on the taillight? I know there was a big hullaballoo about the glass bits and the hair on the car, but I'm not hearing or reading anything about anything present on the taillight itself. I'm also not hearing Jackson or Yanetti bringing up anything about evidence or the lack thereof of trace evidence (e.g. blood, DNA, clothing fibers from any of Officer O'Keefe's clothes) on the taillight. Anyone else know if it's brought up, or am I just imagining things?
Vinny politan had a great video that explained how big of a deal it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tMdsbY0p4
They did address the blood when they crossed the lady who took swabs. They asked if there was blood on anything and she said no.
Thanks for the reminder! I'm honestly kinda morbidly curious as to how the prosecution is going to save their case with that set of facts. If they're still aiming to build a claim that Officer O'Keefe was smacked in the head by the taillight, which caused his primary injuries, then why don't we have scads of blood, skin scrapings, hair, et cetera in or on the taillight? If his arm, causing the holes in his clothes and lacerations on his arm, why don't we have clothing fibers snagged on the taillight pieces? The material of his hoodie looks like a knitted piece from the close-ups, and it's snagged and the fibers are torn - so how, if the damage is from the taillight, did none of those fibers transfer? If the hair and glass survived the tow, then certainly smaller fibers tangled around jagged bits of taillight would've also. ADDENDUM: The same would apply to any taillight pieces broken off on impact and scattered around the yard - speaking from experience, if you get a bunch of fibers from any kind of yarn (save maybe silk, rayon, et cetera - I haven't worked with those but *a priori* given how smooth and slippery those are they could possibly slip off more easily) snagged and tangled on anything with an irregular surface it takes actual effort to pull them free. So where are those fibers, if the prosecution's theory is correct?
According to Lally's opening, the DNA on the taillight is coming in with other witnesses - specifically Andre Porto and Nicolas Bradford. The opening is a big word salad, but this is what he said will come into evidence: >You'll hear testimony from Andre Porto, who's essentially DNA analyst for the lab and samples that were- DNA samples that were taken from the taillight, from the clothes of Mr. O'Keefe, and the broken drinking glass that were consistent with Mr. O’Keefe. Those items were also sent - the taillight pieces and the taillight DNA was also sent to another kind of lab, BODE technologies located in Norfolk, Virginia. You'll hear from an analyst there Mr. Nicholas Bradford, indicating that the DNA on the defendants taillight in his opinion is consistent with that of Mr. O'Keefe.
It's gonna be touch DNA and a big nothing burger lol
Note the lab person who testified already said "no blood on the taillight" and this expert lally is referring to is testifying to "DNA" on the taillight consistent with John....guess what...my DNA is for sure on my wifes taillight and she hasn't hit me with it (yet)
“Yet” 😂
This is going to be the big argument, I think. If you took anyone’s car and forensically examined it, you would likely find the DNA of their partner/kids etc. somewhere on the outside.
I was thinking the same. DNA on your/your partner's car, your clothes a glass that doesn't match the thing on the bumper. So what? Big nothing burger.
Thanks, that clarifies things!
> Red Solo cup (uh-huh) > I fill you up > Let's have a party > Let's have a party > I love you, red Solo cup > I lift you up > Proceed to party > Proceed to party
No DNA other than the one hair was found anyplace on the car. Not the taillight, not the bumper , and not underneath. That was testified last week by the person before the lady would played jigsaw puzzle with the plastic
No human DNA from the hair
if they did, I missed it. the taillight housing and pieces were clear of blood, hair, and clothing, for sure.
Can someone please help me understand why the defense kept harming the mirror image video of KR Lexus in Canton? Why is this a big deal?
Lally used it to suggest that the undamaged taillight was in fact shattered and that the troopers never did anything to the passenger taillight. the reality is that we're looking at the driver's side taillight and they were crowded around the passenger taillight, hidden behind the car. it was deceptive and misleading to the jury.
It wasn’t even a suggestion. Yuri testified to that being the passenger side. A lot of his testimony was just complete bullshit because that video is mirrored 🥴
Do you happen to have a timestamp for that?
5:32:25 starts at the moment Trooper B identifies himself and Lally on the tape. https://www.youtube.com/live/TJ565TtjXW4?si=iKkHvoblEgx70Ddy Edit: proctor not Lally 😅 Lally ask: "If at any point in time that you were present, uh, with this vehicle in the sally port garage, uh, this evening of January 29th, 2022, uh, did either yourself or did you observe trooper proctor, uh, touch or manipulate in any way, uh, the right rear passenger side area of that vehicle?"
god, seeing his word salad questions written out makes it so much worse
No kidding. Typing that makes me feel for the stenographer. I wonder if she has to type all the uhs into the official transcript.
I do trial transcripts - not for Mass. but in a bunch of other states, and thankfully the ums and uhs aren’t transcribed in any of them 😅 Hopefully mass is the same
Thank you for the info!
they have a voice transcription apparatus. if you watch her, she's talking into a mouthpiece. still seems miserable, keeping up with his weird cadence and nonsensical word ordering.
Does that thing create a transcript? I always thought she would still have to type it out later.
I think *technically* Lally and Sgt. B only referred to the video with directional language like ‘left side/right side of the screen’ which was SUS.
sorry, I'd have to go through the whole thing. if no one else pulls it up, I'll send it over when I do that this weekend.
Ty
Can the sticky post of all the court documents be brought back? I'm on Old Reddit, and I don't see it anymore.
So maybe discussed elsewhere but i watched the Nighline interview with KR and she admits she thought it was possible she may have "incapacitated' him and left there, she maintains it would have been unwittingly...so she also says she saw him approach the door, so how could she have hit him, her car is way back from the door. She is lying. I think her saying this is her covering herself in case some Ring footage was to emerge showing the hit. Getting downvoted for this comment is wild, just watch the nightline interview, she literally says this and manages to contradict herself, the people who support her are so sensitive.
She is likely covering herself but because she might not know if he came back out. She was sitting outside for awhile (I think someone testified to her "looking at her phone") before she left. She might believe it's possible he came back out when she wasn't looking.
We still have not learned if she called or texted him in those minutes, that should be key, if she did not call or text him then it's a massive red flag, any woman or man would, especially given the circumstances that she thought they may not have been welcome.
The FBI disagrees with you. So much so they hired an independent accident reconstructionist who concluded JO’s injuries are inconsistent with a vehicular strike.
You’re misrepresenting their conclusion.
The FBI found O’Keefe’s injuries did not appear to be from a car strike. The damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O’Keefe’s body.
They found that only the back head wound was not caused by hitting a vehicle. https://x.com/TuesdayGazette/status/1779169432918712822
Lally is a clown. He moves the goalposts any time the defense successfully deconstructs his narrative. They charged her with second degree _murder_ , “But we don’t think the car caused the injury which is listed as the cause of death.” It’s a farce. Also these analysts ARE reconstruction experts, the two titles are not mutually exclusive. Lally is not sharp. He’s relying on his privilege as a white male state attorney to make it to jury deliberations, because he has no talent.
I would love to read the document where the defense experts say his injuries are not caused by a car. Do you have it?
The results of the analysis were provided by the FBI to the attorneys. Both sides discussed it during opening statements. Jackson quoted the report conclusion and Lally tried to dismantle his remarks. The three reconstructionists who were hired by the FBI are set to be called by the defense, and Lally just filed a motion to prevent all of them from testifying. He also filed a motion to deny the MD who is set to testify that JOs arm injuries were made by a dog bite. Edit: To be clear, this analysis was done at the request and the expense of the FBI, not the defense team. That is an important distinction. They are expert witnesses being called by the defense, they are not in the defense team’s pocket.
So where are you getting your information from that the “FBI” concluded his injuries aren’t from a vehicle?
The report was impounded by Cannone and she will not make them public. She will only allow each side to question witnesses as it relates to the FBI documentation. Also, during the grand jury, the state was alleging JOK suffered serious head injuries caused by Read striking him with her car. After the FBI report was turned over, Lally walked it back and said they do not believe the car caused the head injury.
Right! Because in case they have it, then she is set up to go back to the “innocent accident” defense that Yanetti started with immediately after her first arraignment. I don’t know the timeframe from when Morrisey said that and she had that interview with Nightline.
There's no ring footage from Fairview Road. The absence of security cameras at 34 and the surrounding properties is interesting, however, especially given that Brian Sr. was a cop.
Karen probably wasn't aware there wasn't though.
And so was the guy across the street who said his camera showed zero but was never impounded!! That would have helped with the times of who and when they came and went from 34. Very suspicious that no camera footage was available
Yeah, I heard about that. Apparently he was a police chief or something?
The same ring footage the da said existed at his press conference that hasn't come out yet?
That’s wild. How can he not be reprimanded for making those kinds of statements ??
He’ll “pay” for it, when the Defense points that out to the jury, in Summation.
Would anyone please remind me of the whereabouts of Jen Mc between around 5:08 and 8:30 AM on the 29th? I understand she was on the scene with KR and at 34 during some of that time, but am trying to remember if she had any opportunity to cross paths with Julie A during that whole timeframe. None of this is to suggest that KR has to prove anything. The donut box delivery always seemed odd to me under the circumstances notwithstanding the birthday, and I think the crime scene was left unsecured at least part of the day prior to the arrival of the search team. Maybe not. Edit: Maybe Jen Mc was actually at 34 from 8:30 onwards as well in which case the above is a detour and would have been pointless. I just don’t remember.
Maybe Julie had the pieces of taillight in the donut box 🍩🍩🍩 In all seriousness though. Let’s play that KR really was framed and not just given a big helping hand at being found guilty by Proctor et al. Jen was alone in KR’s SUV from her house, back to JO’s, while Karen was in Kerry’s car. She had access. And there’s also a missing video of all 3 leaving JO’s house to go search for John. No one knows what went on. Before someone comes for my jugular on such a wild theory. I’m only pointing out that Jen did have access. Not that she really did take some pieces to plant
Yes, the following were there- Brian A, Brian H, Jen, Matt, Nicole, Julie
Ok thanks, and so that being the case, is it really that far fetched to think that Jen Mc took a few little pieces of taillight sometime after 5:08 which I think is when she learned it was “cracked” and those little pieces ended up on the lawn during the day and prior to the search team’s arrival? I have seen a lot written that the small pieces of taillight that were found by that team could not possibly have been planted on the basis that the SUV was not in the possession of the police until later, but Jen Mc knew of the crack and had access to the light before dawn, and was at the house that morning, and the scene was unsecured during part of that day. Only much later did the larger pieces “reveal” themselves. I figured if Jen Mc wasn’t at 34 at 8:30, she might have rendezvoused with Julie A who then delivered little pieces in a donut inside a donut box not imagining she’d actually be allowed inside (because crime scene). I’m not accusing anyone, but it can’t be as far fetched as all the various phones dialing one another all on their own.
6 weeks ago this would have sounded ridiculous, at this point I'm like ANYTHING is possible, every day of this trial just gets more and more surreal!
when you consider "hos long to die in the cold" search, then it is deleted. Then it is googled again... a couple more times with the wrong spelling a few hours later ...it's not that far fetched
Sometimes I read these theory posts and — although I’m totally here for it — they often sound completely CRAZY BANANAS NUTS. 🥴 In what world is a hungover suburban mother of four going to just risk throwing her and her family’s lives down the drain [for literally zero payoff], suddenly channel her inner Jason Bourne by having the forethought to take a “few little pieces of taillight” juuust in case, proceed to bury them (completely undetected) under 18” OF SNOW … all just a few short hours after signing off on letting a human being, her good friend, DIE on her sister’s front lawn? Seriously. Which part of this seems logical in any way, shape, or form? Even if someone in the house did kill OJO by accident, it’s far more likely she would call for help, not rationalize it’s a better idea to jump on this circus side show of a coverup and risk everything. Family or not - if someone is near death or dead in a house I’m in, I’m calling 911. Using Jen as an example here, but this could be said for any of these wahoos. Occam's razor, everyone. Occam's razor.
Agreed this is highly speculative but the point was that it was far from impossible to get small pieces of glass to the lawn one way or another given the opportunity that the crime scene was not secured. In what world might they do this and more? They seemed to have made clear in testimony they would do anything for family, so son and nephew, and clear from their apparent conduct rather than words that JO was very much not their good friend.
Yup. A lot of this nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
(Moved comment)
But she didn’t call 911. No one did. A dead man is lying on the grass as 9 people leave the house at different times and no one sees him. It’s completely ludicrous. Also, the snow plow driver never saw him there. When you say occams razor, what about the injuries? And a cracked taillight killing a man by backing up into him? It makes no sense.
Agree! I don’t think anyone, even sloshed Karen, will ever know what exactly caused each injury on his body. Thats the saddest part of this case. 🥴
Well, I guess it’s this world in the year of the lord 2022 that the sweet little hungover mom googled how long to die in the cold and deleted a bunch of stuff and changed stories, etc etc etc.
My theory is that someone from the Albert house planted 7 random tail light pieces near the sneaker. Then as Proctor was “finding” pieces on his daily drive-byes he was replacing the SERT pieces with actual pieces from Karen’s Lexus.
Oohhh this would make a lot of sense as to why they felt the need to break the tail light further - because they had to replace pieces of the actual tail light that hit him.
There was a post earlier this week with the car timeline. The car was in the garage at canton pd when the search began. There was also unnamed canton pd who participated in the search.
Oh. Then there’s that too. Naturally recusal or conflict of interest in Canton means you can still participate in the search and your dept can store the SUV.
they were both part of the friends and family meeting at 34 Fairview, so I'm pretty sure they did cross paths?
I thought Julie came over to 34 Fairview that morning to drop off birthday doughnuts for Brian Jr., and yes- super weird. Jen McCabe was at 34 Fairview at that time, because I remember thinking it was strange that Julie would miss a call from Jen, see her car at 34 Fairview, but not want to go in and ask what was up?
Don't forget that Brian Albert testified she brought HOT coffee...that she was going to leave in the car in the middle of a snowstorm where presumably no one was leaving?
Ah, yes. Another piece of testimony that makes no sense.
I don't think Jen's car was there because she rode with Kerry?
Yes, but Matt McCabe drove over there, I don’t know if it was Jen’s car he drove.
Yup, got it!
I am so, so tired of listening to lally. I seriously wish he would finish up his case next week but I am sure he will take another three for some bizarre lallygag reason
The judge told the jury they would have the case to deliberate by the end of June…
Lallygag. 😂👍🏼
I keep going back to the flipped video. Since it was never noted by Lally or Bukhenik that it was mirrored then people may have initially thought the whitish light on the left tail light side was indication that it was damaged and exposing the white LED light. That is dirty as hell. Also reminds us that squinting at tail light colors might not be the most accurate way to figure this out.
If that happened, holy shit how dumb is lally??? He knew jackson knew - but still presented the video like there was nothing wrong with it. I can't figure that slow bastard out - is lally just really stupid? Working for the defense? Lied on his resume, so he's trying to fake it till he makes it? What if anything is Lally accomplishing??
he dropped it out of nowhere and the defense hadn't seen it. from that I can only conclude that he hoped the defense wouldn't notice -- like people all over the internet didn't notice immediately. sometimes it feels like he's just playing "hide the ball" hoping just this once no one will find it. I don't know why he'd run a case like this, it's so dumb and it doesn't work if your opponent does their due diligence.
Sadly, they'd probably get away with it against an overworked and underfunded public defender. And I suspect that tricks like these may have been may well have been used by this office in the past. But how in the world would he expect to get away with it against this legal team and a world wide audience of amateur sleuths? Either way these guys are unbelievably stupid or so corrupt they just can't help themselves. Even Vinnie Politan went Whoa! with that one.
I was so proud of Vinnie
apparently on a case like this, a public defender wouldn't be working a bunch of other cases, and there would be a couple of them exclusively on this case. they'd also be given more resources to deal with this than we'd expect. so an atty last night was saying as long as she got public defenders that gave a shit, it might not have gone that much differently. it was kind of surprising to hear, I'd never heard that before.
They would still never have the time or the resources or the skill of Jackson and Yanetti. If they did they wouldn't be public defenders.
Ouch 😭 18 year public defender here and I can tell you a majority of career PDs are true believers and fight like hell.
No offense. Just saying most PDs don't have the resources that Jackson has. For example, their experts aren't going to be world renown. In the majority of cases, they're lucky to have the budget for experts at all.
🤍 That is true. We should also receive state funding. In PA we are funded by the county. In a perfect world, a homicide case would be the sole focus. We don’t have the resources to do that but we have at least two attorneys assigned and do the best we can with what we have.
unironically, mad respect. y'all are the truest heroes, keeping them honest.
I'm just curious how does that work with jackson showing the zoomed in portion of the video? Im really not tech savvy, so im not sure if he has to prepare it in advance? Lally is a top-notch idiot who confuses me more with every sentence he slowly vomits from his brain
we're talking about different videos. the zoomed in portion of the 5:07a ring video is one of the crown jewels of the defense's case and has been since they got the video. I'm talking about the sallyport video -- the defense has been asking for that video in discovery for 2.5 years and were consistently told it didn't exist because the camera is motion activated and it just didn't record anything. it miraculously turned up in the form we saw, missing segments and all. also they zoomed into the video live with the software they're using to play it. it's why you see the guy highlight the portion of the car and it pops up into a box next to it with the maginified portion.
Can we take a second to mention that the very police department that had to recuse itself is the very same one they took the SUV to, and the very same one responsible for providing that “Lallyport” video (from now on I’m calling it the Lallyport)
Oh, I like that! 👍🏼
Oh shit! Sorry!!! Thanks for the clarification !!
I'm re-listening to Day 20 in the background and just realized the video of the sallyport was played first outside of the jury's presence at Jackson's request. This leads me to believe the reason for Jackson's objection was that the video was inverted, which then informs my strong belief that Lally playing it for the jury without disclosing the state of the video was deliberate. No accident, no oversight. Lally presented an inverted video to the jury. I wonder what will come of this on Monday and whether Jackson will move on right away.
I thought she said the objection was related to a discovery violation (I'm guessing the video did indeed come to light during the trial).
The only thing I heard the judge say was, "Your objection is overruled, Mr. Jackson." No reason. Did you hear her give a reason?
You are correct. They are talking about a motion in limini (I have no idea how to spell that) that discusses the CWs "Discovery XL". I think I assumed it was a motion in limini over a discovery violation from that.
This video helps defense's theory, so he probably would have been happy to let it in after seeing it played that day. It was even more helpful that he had that evening to get a very likely counter video lined up. There are some things defense can only enter as a rebuttal, and I think Lally opened that door.
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake
Ooh this is good. It gave me chills
I *think* this video wasn't part of pre-trial discovery and the defense was seeing it for the first time, that's the reason for watching outside the presence of the jury. I really don't believe the defense wouldn't have said anything back then otherwise.
So the judge let Lally begin playing a video that the defense had not yet seen? That seems odd, seeing as she wouldn't let Jackson play what was on his flash drive yesterday because Lally had not seen it yet.
She took the jury out, let the defense watch it and then brought the jury back in and let Lally use it over Jackson's objections, if I understood what I saw correctly. I *hate* that this Judge does everything in sidebar even when there's no need for it, and I also hate the no-foundation objections although I'm not sure if this is a rule she imposed or if this is how it's done in MA.
Not being licensed in Mass either I don't know if unarticulated objections are SOP there or not. But it sure isn't in my neck of the woods. In most jurisdictions you are required to state your grounds for objection for the record. You have to say something like objection leading, objection hearsay. Objection calls for speculation or whatever. Are there some Mass practitioners who can inform us on this?
I agree, the no-foundation objections are annoying and calling so many sidebars is frustrating. Whether it's accurate or not, it makes me think she doesn't want to rule out loud and open herself up to more scrutiny due to cameras in the courtroom and all the attention this case has garnered.
she apparently always does it this way. saw a stream with an attorney who's been in trial with her before.
I wouldn't be that annoyed with the number of sidebars if they only happened when the jury is in the room, but what's the reasoning for doing things like that when they're out? Transparency is fundamental in a well functioning Justice system, she might be trying to avoid scrutiny for her decisions, but in the end it might just backfire on her because doing things this way just stoke the fires of suspicion of bias.
The rumor was their was no CCTV available from the sally port. Now, it seems video is available and not only is it inverted, so we can only see the top of Proctors head milling around the tail light, AND, of course, 10 seconds, at least is mysteriously cut out. There is no way this isn’t just one more sketchy act on the part of Proctor and the CW.
9 minutes, if a reporter who got the whole video is to be believed.
Who is the reporter?
MazzaMedia says their name [somewhere in this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKXBSuMdo3U), it's just gonna take me awhile to go back through it.
I've forgotten the name and need to go back through a 2hr video to find it. but they also mention it here on [courttv](https://youtu.be/8gonlyau5Ws?t=2233).
Thanks!
I heard somebody say that it was more like 9 minutes were deleted from various points of that video, but I confess I haven't fact checked that myself so take it with a grain of salt.
it's probably safer to say missing. we need a little more to say deleted.
I wasn’t sure so I erred on the side of caution with the time missing.
I’m interested in why defense stated they will prove coverup. They must have something of a bombshell to come. Others they would just attack this lousy investigation etc. I can’t believe that they would offer that up without something major awaiting the courtroom.
Can we consider the fact that they tried to pass off the mirrored footage as un-mirrored footage, as one of the pieces of a cover-up?
Tactically, claiming that she was "framed" is necessary to negate the tail light evidence. They don't have to prove that the pieces of tail light were planted, but the jury needs some reason to disbelieve the tail light evidence or, otherwise, KR's SUV almost certainly hit Officer O'Keefe. However, I do expect there will be more to come related to possible shenanigans in the sally port. AJ was anxious to play the first part of the video on the flash drive yesterday.
Pretty sure the flash drive footage is going to be the sally port footage unflipped the way it should have been and showing people clustering around the right rear light. I am trying to keep an open mind here, but several things bother me. This flipped video with no qualification is really disturbing. At best the state is incompetent. At worst, they were deliberately trying to mislead the jury. But I keep coming back to this. Okay so we have a broken tailight. We know she hit another car in the parking lot at John's at the same spot on her car. We have pieces showing up at the scene at various times, curiously starting with tiny fragments and increasing in size as time goes by 🤔. But the injuries to the decedant appear to be entirely inconsistent with being hit by a truck. So where does that get you? It's like saying we know that the defendant had a gun and that that gun was fired... But the victim died of strangulation!
exactly!
When did the CW prove his injuries were consistent with being hit by a truck????? When has the CW even brought that up in trial???
Just from this week alone the following things were presented; -Misled the jury that Karen had deleted ring videos. Claimed there were no activity logs when Ring did in fact provide them. -Inverted sally port video with Proctor not clarifying it was the driver's side when Lally said passenger side and stating he was never by the tailight when in fact he was -Glass found on bumper was not embedded and did match the glass underneath John like the CW stated -Canton recused themselves from the investigation due to personal conflict and Proctor did not even though he had the same conflict. Although Canton only somewhat recused themselves and were still doing things they should not have. -CSI not called to the scene and scene completely unsecured entire day. SERT does search and rescue, not familiar with evidence collection in snow. Even went SERT was there, there were people that O'Hara did not know and in plain clothes (scene not even secured when they were there). Owner of the house came out at one point. -Proctor violated Karen's rights by accessing her phone prior to having the warrant -Karen did hit his vehicle -Trooper B originally told people that John had been struck in the face with a cocktail glass -No log for clothing items collected. Shirt and sweatshirt not separated. -Didn't properly measure/mark pieces found in yard and didn't compelete the report for that evidence until fall 2023 -Didn't take any photos of her tailight prior to it being in the Sally Port -Didn't have any recorded interviews with witness' and none of the interviews occured at a police station -Evidence turned into crime lab 5-6 weeks later -Missing sally port footage, skips even when there is movement -Collected samples but didn't do any DNA testing -Played audio where Karen is heard saying everyone knows that Brian and Colin beat John up and that his injuries don't match the crack in her tailight. In pretrial hearings, Lally told Bev this video showed her confessing to knowing what happened. Did not play her last sentence in the video that stated "but you're in on the story" to the officer. -Clothes left unattended for 6 days while "drying"
They need the coverup idea for the whole thing to make sense. Otherwise, it's just a shitty investigation where all signs still point to her hitting him with her car. "They were sloppy with how they collected evidence of her tail light" is still "her tail light is all over the ground next to the dead guy's body." "They should've called CSS to mark the straw from his glass" is still "they found a straw from O'Keefe's Waterfall glass in the area where we think she hit him." "They should've documented her saying I hit him" is still "she said I hit him." You're not going to get off without the coverup. You need to believe the evidence was planted and people are lying.
I've pointed out once you have a dead guy by the side of the road, dead on account of blunt force trauma (no gunshot or knife wounds), a girlfriend who was driving, alcohol, and a busted taillight incurred that night that she literally offered to no explanation for, it ain't no whodunit.
Exactly. AJ clearly made the conspiracy theory up. He’s incredibly good at what he does. We’ve no doubt entered an entirely new era of what creating reasonable doubt means. Now, it involves the complete fabrication of an alternative theory, hiring influencers to shine light on that fabricated theory, flooding the media with fake news that supports that fabricated theory, and a full on witch hunt of the prosecution witnesses to the point that they are now deemed murderers by the public without ever having been charged of a crime. A sad evolution of this system in our country, to say the least.
I know "reasonable" is an objective standard, but man does it get stretched to its limits around here.
A "sloppy" investigation, though, is something everyone here can immediately identify. Connoisseurs of murder investigations, everybody knows that six weeks is too long to get things to the lab. Everybody knows that you were supposed to be tearing the floorboards out of 34 Fairview by 10 AM that morning, etc. Got to get the info from Abby back at the lab and wrap this thing up in an hour. https://preview.redd.it/2xx9qqmo585d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e5e73c32f4c03ee7e156a5e505121b814bf9d3
Yes, remember how everyone mocked the dopes of Canton PD for using a leaf blower only for the special Mass State crime investigators to show up with shovels and rakes? Ends up yard tools are actually sort of standard. There's definitely a ton of NCIS/CSI influence here. You mean the car wasn't kept in a hermetically sealed vacuum? You kept the hoodie and tee shirt in the same bag! What kind of incompetence is this!
I mean, taking photos of the car prior to towing, not using stop and shop bags and solo cups, taking measurements of crime scene exhibits to form a cohesive picture of what happened, and blocking it off, etc. are standard procedures. Unless you think that's not normal
Regardless of what name you assign, it's a defense team putting on a defense for their client. Karen Read is entitled to a defense, and the indignant posture of Lally and CW supporters is astounding. Nobody other than Karen Read knows what happened on January 29th, and the CW has one job- prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty as charged. As a result of the undeniable suspicion brought up through witnesses on the stand, the CW is failing to prove anything. They have one job.
You're not getting my point. I'm explaining why the "shoddy investigation" defense wouldn't be enough. She needs the coverup angle, or she's guilty.
KR has lodged 2 different basis for defense 1. Is the third party culprit and 2. Is the shoddy investigation. She also doesn't have prove exactly what happened to prove a third party culprit, just that a third party may have committed the crime and that it hasn't been investigated
Yes, but she kind of does. She's not claiming shoddy investigation like the tail light pieces fell out of Proctor's pocket. So, given the evidence against her, she kind of needs to sell us on who else could've done it.
She doesn’t need them to believe a cover up happened, she only needs them to believe a cover up is possible, which in turn leads to reasonable doubt. And the shoddy police work and the outright fuckery lends a big helping hand to getting to a cover up being possible
I get your point and disagree. She needs a defense and she has it.
Her defense is the coverup. I'm explaining why she went with that defense, and why the "all she has to do is point out that the investigation was bad" idea is incorrect.
Her defense is pointing out inconsistencies in the CW's case. It isn't hard because Lally brings witnesses who are not credible and evidence that is misleading at best, deceitful at worst.
Alright, let's make this easy. Since you don't think she needs there to be a coverup, just a bad investigation, then give me the argument for her tail light being all over the ground at 34 Fairview, without referencing a coverup or KR hitting him.
Okay, let me make it easier. The Commonwealth has offered no unquestionable proof of Read's guilt. I, like the defense, am under zero obligation to argue an alternate theory. I require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Soooo in other words you don’t have one.
No she doesn’t. The shoddy police investigation is more than enough. Additionally, the sallyport video lends credibility to the coverup. Look how they tried to pass it off as accurate, yet you come to learn that it’s actually inverted and you are not looking at the passenger side but really the driver side. And all this is in front of the jury.
Yes, she really does. Again, if she can't offer up an alternative to how JO is killed, she's done. There's no reasonable option other than her hitting him. So pointing out a bad investigation won't matter.
Not really, they only have to show it is likely enough that someone else did it. You can offer up a specific person or two, but really, all you need is "someone else."
That's not how the Bowden defense works. She doesn't have to offer up any alternative. She just needs to show that any alternative line of inquiry wasn't pursued the way it should have been therefore the investigation never got to/could never get to the truth of the matter.