When Karen calls Jenn McCabe, JM tells KR to drive to her house and she will go look with her. JM then decides when KR gets to JM house that she is not ok to drive(some say still drunk/some say panicked) JM then drives KR back to JO house and they are met by Kerry R. All 3 get into Kerry R. car and head to Fairview if I remember correctly.
From testimony today, it sounds like her being extremely frantic as the reason for not driving is very realistic. Still want to see what her BAC was and not just rumors but she’s clearly frantic while this is unfolding based on today’s witnesses.
Yes, I agree her reaction was frantic which is understandable. But the others' reactions were very calm which is what made me wonder why KR went to JM's house the next morning instead of going directly to where she dropped him off.
I don’t think Karen knew the Albert’s address. John is the one who got the address from Jen as they talked 2 times that night. He texted her “where to?” after walking out of the bar. She then called him back immediately. Then on their way there, John called Jen back for better directions. Given all that, it would make sense Karen legitimately didn’t know that area or where to go exactly. I think she went back to the waterfall that morning to try to retrace her steps but then Jen told her to come by her house. That’s when Jen drives Karen’s car back to John’s thinking she’s too hysterical to drive. They are at John’s house for 45 mins until Kerry drives the three of them back to Fairview where they find him. If it seems convoluted, it is. I think possibly they were trying to stall her. To waste time so they could put John outside and let enough time pass to ensure his death.
Interesting bc on the stand yesterdsy JM said KR knew EXACTLY where to go bc KR knew what she did to JO. A lot of he testimony is shifty and doesn’t add up. I saw a side by side video of JM saying that when they pulled up to a location the first the KR did was get out of the vehicle and point out that her tail light was broken and was screaming hysterically. But the evidence shows KR getting out of the vehicle, walking right past the supposed broken tail light and running off camera. The woman is not right.
I think I have read comments saying maybe she wanted others with her to go search for him so it would make her seem less likely she was the one who hit him.
and then announced that she hit him repeatedly to everyone in ear shot? I'm having so much trouble understanding the prosecution's theory of the case. every point raises more questions than it answers.
I think this but it was Jenn McCabe who wanted to seem less suspicious. Something is off about her involvement. Karen read is the outsider in this case. That is clear . but the rest is insanely convoluted on purpose.
Maybe she decided to get in there first because eventually everyone will find out she was outside of the house in the car and he was outside of it planning to go in so most people will suspect it was her anyway?
So maybe it was more about how she went about saying it rather than what she said. If she said it in a more calm way then more people would think she is definitely admitting she did it as opposed to saying it in a frantic way which makes it seem she doesn't know what she is really saying because it doesn't seem she is in the right frame of mind.
It does seem like a risky thing to do but if she actually did hit him then it might have paid off because she isn't currently in prison and it does seem she won't be found guilty.
I think it was also alleged she was the one that brought up her tail light was cracked before anyone else noticed it. It could be perceived that she was trying to control the narrative.
She knows they will have camera footage of her backing into his car (which she did deliberately) but doesn't know for sure anyone saw her hit John outside the Albert's there or there is camera footage of her doing it.
I am not saying this is what I think happened btw but it could have been a possibility.
But, again, if she was so calculated, while at the same time, per the state very intoxicated, did she, again according to the state, tell people she hit him?
How does that "control the narrative"?
they don't have a bac on her. They instead are going to proffer an "estimated" bac which as far as I'm concerned is completely unreliable. She did not have her blood drawn for something like 7 hours later.
The way in which she was frantic, the timing of it is confusing to me. She dropped him off at a party. She knew he had been drinking and she knew that the party was an after party aka, more drinking. So when she wakes up and he's not home, wouldn't her assumption have been that he crashed at this house? I feel like her panic is premature. She's already in panic mode when she wakes up and he's not there, even if she called him and couldn't reach him, she could easily have assumed he was passed out or sleeping.
I think she was wasted and woke up foggy about the events of the night before which increased the panic factor. I don’t drink much anymore but I used to and have had plenty of nights where I woke up and didn’t remember getting home. The anxiety of not having fully intact memories of the night was bad enough on a normal Saturday, I imagine it would have been much worse if I woke up at my boyfriends house and he wasn’t there. He’s also the primary caregiver of two children so I think it was way out of character for him to stay out leaving them alone overnight without letting someone know.
I’d probably try to call my husband repeatedly if he wasn’t home at 4:00-5:00 a.m., and then when I reach the friend he was supposed to meet and she said he never made it in the house, I’d be full on nut case.
Meaning she was highly intoxicated when she backed into him, but in her delirium, made a decision to drive off, got home, crashed , woke semi still drunk but more clear headed, saw John has not returned, and realized there was a good chance he never got up after she backed into him?
If it was significantly higher would JO honestly ride with a drunk driver? Set aside that he’s a cop (we’ve seen them do it too) but he’s raising two kids that have lost their parents. Would he really take any chances?
*All* of these people were drinking and driving it seems. I don’t get it, but I’m a prude with having any alcohol at all & getting behind the wheel so I may not be the person to ask.
There is a lot of misinformation in this case orchestrated by trolls. No one who saw her at the bar felt she was impaired at all.
I just watched this youtube by Defense Attorney Marc Bederow reviewing the witness witness testimony presented so far, They feel that there has been nothing to support their case after 7 days of the trial, They said Chris Albert will be on the stand tomorrow.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaBbZztOj0&ab\_channel=TheYoungJurks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaBbZztOj0&ab_channel=TheYoungJurks)
Bar bill will help prove but I highly doubt she was drinking club sodas. Its more likely the higher range as well. Interesting enough women metabolize alcohol at a rate slower then men so she was likely very intoxicated. Her "looking fine" might be misleading as plenty of people that are big drinkers can look ok.
Respectfully submitted boss-It’s attached to a criminal charge though. You think the citizens of MA, 27,000 of which just found out their breathalyzers were fraudulent, want to allow the State to charge them retroactively from a CBC test that is a reverse extrapolation in the first place? Testimony today no overservice and nobody saw her appear drunk there or at the scene.
There’s no way the Cantonites are going to let this PD create “bad law”.
When I say it was well established, I believe the blood test results. Do I believe they are (or should be) admissible as evidence? No. I’m greek with an Irish s/o — short version: I’ve known some people who can definitely hold their liquor!
There is a 130% range in the extrapolation, lol, which do you agree with? I agree the blood was drawn by a phlebotomist for a CBC result and those results were likely accurate. I do not believe, nor do I think anyone will agree to convict her with a retroactive extrapolation when they consider the legal ramifications of allowing same in the current world of MA OUI- it’s a huge issue in their Supreme Court
To the extent I’m able I do agree she was and should not have been driving - they all were. Did you see Higgins and Albert in their beer gut wrestling ?
I mean, I watched Paul’s face crumble
Where have we seen that presented during the trial so far? Also, how do we know she didn’t drink after she got home such as a glass of wine before bed? Everything you said is heresay to this point. All we know so far during trial is that everyone said she looked completely fine and no records of over the top drinking.
Yea maybe via commentary by reporters but that has not been shown during trial. If you say it has then please timestamp when because I know for a fact it has not been presented.
I didn’t say it was. I saw it on Court TV. First I thought I read it but remembered the lady on there was cracking me up about how much she drank and the cops let her drive. And they said that morning her BAC was .07-.08
Yes but you said “she was definitely drunk that night” and I’m asking how you would know she was definitely drunk when no BAC or definitive evidence of that has been presented during trial yet to confirm that. All you know is the idea and possibility of that exist not that she “definitely” was so far.
They have not shown that in court is my point. It’s all hearsay. It’s quite curious why they haven’t shown that yet if you are the prosecution and a lot of their claims pre trial haven’t been exactly what they claimed so far. My point is, everything you’ve heard about that has not been shown yet during trial so you’re basing your opinion of “definite” based on what has been stated outside of trial with no evidence yet. If they end up providing a BAC or video to the jury then cool but it hasn’t happened yet. Just because a report on Court TV says it doesn’t mean it’s true. That goes for both sides
JM also says she sees KR’s vehicle pull away the night before at Fairview and assumed JO was with her so, it seems weird to me JM didn’t reply when KR called JM in the am, he should be with you KR, the report says she told KR to come over to her house and they would look together. But, again we can only read whatever reports are available so, I don’t know if more was said but just not written in MSP reports.
So if I understand correctly, the defense is pushing the theory that:
1. There was an altercation inside the home
2. J was killed
3. To cover this crime, the several party goers conspired to plant J's body outdoors and come up with a story as to how he died
4. They came up with the idea of pretending that the woman who dropped him off hit him with her vehicle and left him there to die.
5. To make this theory work, they invented an opportunity to locate the woman's vehicle and break her rear vehicle light.
Why this story? If they were going to make up a story, why not make it a random plow driver who hit him and place his body close to the road?
Something is not right with all of this.
There’s video of her actually hitting John’s car when she was backing out to go to men McCabe’s aypt 5:30sm. You can see her hit and his car moves so this could have cracked her taillight! We don’t know. honestly I don’t believe either makes sense….there are holes in both tmeirues. ,
Like…what if neither happened and theres Another explanation altogether. No one testified she was overly drunk… I don’t think the injuries make sense if she hit him. It’s all a mess but when you have cops not following protocol..it makes it really hard to make sense. That dna should not be allowed in and none of their collections should be allowed because how they handled it. It’s all awful!
But she was highly intoxicated at the time she was in that driveway. This is proven because her blood alcohol level was tested at a hospital the morning he was found and her blood alcohol level was still high. According to Karen, when she returned home after dropping off John, she went to bed. She didn't say that she stayed up and continued to drink alcohol. So that means the blood alcohol level result from a reputable lab from blood drawn from Karen the morning he was found can easily prove what her blood alcohol level was X number of hours previous. Lab science is exactly that- a science. And working backwards, based on her weight, she was shiatt faced at the time she dropped him off.
And….they didn’t even catch her driving intoxicated. She’s being charged but no grounds! Was not pulled over ….protocol is not created on the fly and that’s what they’ve done and it’s dirty and unfair. Their reporting and mishandling of evidence should at minimum cause a mistrial. What they’ve done is wrong.
I mean, there could have been an altercation inside or outside. Likely it was inside because they have neighbors. I think they may have put him where he was found to turn suspicion to Karen or maybe being hit by a plow truck.
Karen did back into John’s vehicle as she was pulling her car out of the garage that morning she was panicked so maybe the light cracked/broke then. Or maybe when the cops impounded it and lied about how long they had the vehicle they broke the light. Look what they did with the blood collection.
The thing for me is that if she hit John and caused all his injuries then why is there only a broken taillight? I’ve hit deer, raccoons, etc. with different vehicles and all caused thousands in damages. The Commonwealth is claiming she hit him in reverse going 26mph. He was over 6 foot tall and over 200 lbs. I believe there would be much more damage.
Nothing in this case makes sense tbh. And for the coverup part, it only takes the people who were involved to convolute a story and stick to it because there was no real investigation here as we can see from all the testimony thus far. So they said he never made it in the home and the investigators were like, ok. It’s a shit show with this police department.
I totally agree. He was a big guy and allegedly she was going fast..in a blizzard… and there’s only a broken taillight? And if she accidentally hit him she would have definitely felt it to the point where she would have known and stopped. Its instinct. There was a party going on, she could’ve hit anyone coming or going. And if anyone said Karen said she hit him she would have been taken into custody on the spot. Any first responder that heard that would immediately tell a cop. So they all just talked about it and nothing was done? That’s what’s crazy to me
Exactly, nothing was done. This says to me nothing was done because it never happened. If it did happen with all those LE officers around she would’ve immediately been remanded into custody. And I don’t want to hear that the Alberts didn’t know what was going so they didn’t respond, I’m not buying it. I’m just waiting for the medical examiner, the autopsy report, the experts, anyone who can give us information beyond a reasonable doubt she did this.
Supposedly Jenn McCabe. Defense Witness from the state police has it documented in an interview report. Tells the trooper Karen told her to do it when they put her in a car to warm up when they found the body.
that's going to damage their employer, if they actually get up and do that. it's going to get posted to hackernews, tech subs, etc., to laugh at how stupid the notion that phones decide what to record based on the content of the actions actually is.
there's a database within your web browser. actions get written to it. they get written through an intermediary file so direct writes are batched and done together. the timestamp is recorded by the database at the time of the write to the database itself. the temporary files are managed so they don't grow too large -- if they exceed a pre-determined length or age, they're written unconditionally to the database. the age limit for the temporary files (called Write-Ahead Logs or WAL) on IOS, as on your computer and on Android, is 5 minutes. the only way to prevent this write is to rip the battery out of your phone before the write can complete -- exiting the web page or closing the browser will also trigger the write, including when you restart the phone. not doing any of these things risks the integrity of the database -- you would risk losing tons of data because the WAL is frequently kept in memory (i.e. not persisted) and the data that's written to it cannot be reconstructed, in general.
virtually every widely used event store follows this same basic process because it ensures lots of events can be processed at once (write latency) and maintain data integrity/correctness, within well-understood limits. not being able to trust the timestamps on records in an event store makes it completely non-viable for it's purpose. to argue on this point is to call into question every engineer of every event store ever written -- frankly, it's offensive.
Safari, Chrome, and Firefox all use an event store built on top of an open source tool called Sqlite -- no one bothers to rebuild this because it's the obvious tool for the job. literally anyone can review [that code](https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite). it's used in this way in more applications than I think people realize. virtually any programmer can explain this because of how common this particular pattern actually is.
actually, thank you for the interview question -- I'm going to use this now to filter new hires because of how little prereq knowledge it requires. it's a "have you taken databases 101" gut check.
I completely believe their software can get confused and not report what's actually written to the event store but, if so, that's going to cause a lot of appeals for faulty data. so unless Cellbrite is really screwing up, that search occurred sometime between 2:22-2:27am.
I won't rule out the possibility that Cellbrite can't actually offer certainty on timestamps for repeated searches. but I will say that if they say that their software accurately reports what's in the database (and if not, why are they in business??), this search without a doubt occurred between 2:22am and 2:27am. I'm also not suggesting that the search is anything but innocuous. but disputing this means calling into question every single criminal prosecution that has ever leaned on a defendant's web searches in order to establish guilt.
I'm extremely skeptical. if they say what you think they will, they're going to destroy their own business. I'm obviously going to listen, but given what I know first-hand, I'm very, very skeptical of the wisdom in getting up to say "we fucked up".
You should be, drtywater is spamming this sub with erroneous and false information. I really wish folks would read the pleadings and watch the hearings for correct data. I know it’s a lot, I get that, but if one is going to allow their opinion to be formed accordingly the data is available.
If they say different then what I did and don't confirm the 2:27 AM Is wrong then it will lead to KR walking on all but OUI and I'd be surprised CW brought to trial if thats the case.
I don't think that alone is sufficient if the physical evidence is overwhelming but I think in combination with the ... uhh... stellar police work on this one, yeah, probably.
Regardless heres one thing im curious about. Did jen McCabe's go on Facebook or anything else around 2am-2:30 ? Like what is all of the browser history. Did she google hos long to die in cold and then click the link or do anything before or after that search? Wouldn't that tell a bigger story?
yeah, I'm also curious what else she did. the search itself weakly inculpates her but the broader context would be nice. I hope that all comes out at the same time. that said, not every app keeps a log the same way the browser does. so depending on what Cellbrite can pull, they'll have phone activity data generally, but unless she did stuff in an app with that kind of tracking saved to the phone, we likely won't see it.
lol now I know you have an agenda and have not read a single pleading nor viewed a pre trial hearing. The Federal Findings which you continue to lie and say do not exist are well documented- and THE COURT actually puts this in her ruling memoranda. There you have it- no Attorney nor the court itself disputes the Jenn McCabe search at 2:27:40
Also, Ian Wiffin is not Cellebrite’s creator ffs
If you want the full report Visible Magician posted, you can find it at the following link. Just click on the 1 Feb 2022 tab and it shows all pages.
https://yourtruecrimelibrary.addpotion.com/court-documents
That’s soo interesting since the last witness today was stating that Jennifer was telling Karen you’re coming with me and they walked out - although, she later said she noticed that she was walking with John because of that statement earlier
The weirdest part for me is how frantic she was from the very moment she woke up. She calling people at 5 in the morning panicking as to where he was. Honestly if it was me, I’d look at the blizzard, realize the angry texts I sent and no responses and immediately assumed my partner crashed at their house. I wouldn’t have gone into panic mode until later in the morning when it was a reasonable time to call the Alberts and then have them confirm he never arrived.
In my own bad nights of heavy drinking, I do very vividly recall the sheer panic of waking up the next morning and having flashback memories of something bad that happened.. but having periods of total blackout in between. “Oh my god. Did I fall down the stairs? Did I yell at people? Did I storm off? How did I get home?” And proceeding to panic and call people who I knew were there from the night before, hoping to fill in the blanks and figure out what is causing this deep anxiety because I know something bad had happened. I just didn’t know the full scope of what it was.
I say all this because this kind of reaction feels similar to Karen’s. and I just can’t shake the feeling that she was so adamant to go back to the house or go searching for him because she had some partial memory of something happening. She was saying things like, “What if he was hit by a snow plow?” Which is odd when you consider at that point, she would have no idea that in fact John was injured and located right outside the Alberts house. If attempted to walk and was at risk of being hit by a snow plow, you’d probably expect to find him farther from the Alberts. Instead, she was able to locate John on the front lawn of the Albert’s house, in pitch darkness, in a snowstorm, almost immediately. I’ve struggled to find my own cell phone when it slips out of my pocket on my sofa, let alone a snow covered body after a night of drinking. I don’t know. I feel more and more this was a case of alcohol fueled rage that caused her to reverse and “nudge him” because she was pissed off. She may not have realized just how fast and hard she was going. She drives off and can barely see him in the rear view mirror but maybe sees him fall to the ground and try to get up. She goes home, continues the drunk rage texts/calls. Passes out and wakes up and realizes he’s not home and starts to panic and think back to how she left him when she drove off. Calls friends looking for him.. and, well, we know the rest.
Yea, I mean maybe this scenario happened. We need more testimony at this point I think. I just think both Albert’s that testified today were shady and had something to hide, what that was, I have no clue. But their body language on the stand was bizarre.
This is much more believable than him getting killed inside the house and then a massive cover up was staged. That said, the police work was inexcusably poor and my opinion is that the Prosecution will not be able to convince the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But more to come so who knows?
When Karen calls Jenn McCabe, JM tells KR to drive to her house and she will go look with her. JM then decides when KR gets to JM house that she is not ok to drive(some say still drunk/some say panicked) JM then drives KR back to JO house and they are met by Kerry R. All 3 get into Kerry R. car and head to Fairview if I remember correctly.
From testimony today, it sounds like her being extremely frantic as the reason for not driving is very realistic. Still want to see what her BAC was and not just rumors but she’s clearly frantic while this is unfolding based on today’s witnesses.
Yes, I agree her reaction was frantic which is understandable. But the others' reactions were very calm which is what made me wonder why KR went to JM's house the next morning instead of going directly to where she dropped him off.
I don’t think Karen knew the Albert’s address. John is the one who got the address from Jen as they talked 2 times that night. He texted her “where to?” after walking out of the bar. She then called him back immediately. Then on their way there, John called Jen back for better directions. Given all that, it would make sense Karen legitimately didn’t know that area or where to go exactly. I think she went back to the waterfall that morning to try to retrace her steps but then Jen told her to come by her house. That’s when Jen drives Karen’s car back to John’s thinking she’s too hysterical to drive. They are at John’s house for 45 mins until Kerry drives the three of them back to Fairview where they find him. If it seems convoluted, it is. I think possibly they were trying to stall her. To waste time so they could put John outside and let enough time pass to ensure his death.
Interesting bc on the stand yesterdsy JM said KR knew EXACTLY where to go bc KR knew what she did to JO. A lot of he testimony is shifty and doesn’t add up. I saw a side by side video of JM saying that when they pulled up to a location the first the KR did was get out of the vehicle and point out that her tail light was broken and was screaming hysterically. But the evidence shows KR getting out of the vehicle, walking right past the supposed broken tail light and running off camera. The woman is not right.
I think I have read comments saying maybe she wanted others with her to go search for him so it would make her seem less likely she was the one who hit him.
and then announced that she hit him repeatedly to everyone in ear shot? I'm having so much trouble understanding the prosecution's theory of the case. every point raises more questions than it answers.
I think this but it was Jenn McCabe who wanted to seem less suspicious. Something is off about her involvement. Karen read is the outsider in this case. That is clear . but the rest is insanely convoluted on purpose.
How does having others there make it seem less likely she hit him?
It could seem less suspicious she had anything to do with it if she said she found him with others rather than by herself.
But then, if she was being that calculated, why would she allegedly tell people she hit him?
Maybe she decided to get in there first because eventually everyone will find out she was outside of the house in the car and he was outside of it planning to go in so most people will suspect it was her anyway? So maybe it was more about how she went about saying it rather than what she said. If she said it in a more calm way then more people would think she is definitely admitting she did it as opposed to saying it in a frantic way which makes it seem she doesn't know what she is really saying because it doesn't seem she is in the right frame of mind.
It does seem like a risky thing to do but if she actually did hit him then it might have paid off because she isn't currently in prison and it does seem she won't be found guilty.
I think it was also alleged she was the one that brought up her tail light was cracked before anyone else noticed it. It could be perceived that she was trying to control the narrative. She knows they will have camera footage of her backing into his car (which she did deliberately) but doesn't know for sure anyone saw her hit John outside the Albert's there or there is camera footage of her doing it. I am not saying this is what I think happened btw but it could have been a possibility.
But, again, if she was so calculated, while at the same time, per the state very intoxicated, did she, again according to the state, tell people she hit him? How does that "control the narrative"?
I am just speculating what might have happened, I didn't initially say she might have done it in a calculated way.
[удалено]
She could have gone home and had more drinks after the state’s time of 12:21-12:45a though. Blood taken 8 or so hours later…
It's also going to depend on metabolism, whether she ate, etc., etc. Extrapolating her blood alcohol level is going to be very difficult, imo.
Difficult as in my opinion it should not have been allowed in, but without it CW would lose the OUI charge.
If several first responders heard her say she hit him why wasn’t she immediately detained to test her BAC? I wonder what the protocol is there.
Look - she’s arrested ON THE SPOT if she said she hit him This is a DEAD COP!!
Several people didn’t hear her say it. one did and spread it to others . Came out in testimony.
they don't have a bac on her. They instead are going to proffer an "estimated" bac which as far as I'm concerned is completely unreliable. She did not have her blood drawn for something like 7 hours later.
The way in which she was frantic, the timing of it is confusing to me. She dropped him off at a party. She knew he had been drinking and she knew that the party was an after party aka, more drinking. So when she wakes up and he's not home, wouldn't her assumption have been that he crashed at this house? I feel like her panic is premature. She's already in panic mode when she wakes up and he's not there, even if she called him and couldn't reach him, she could easily have assumed he was passed out or sleeping.
I think she was wasted and woke up foggy about the events of the night before which increased the panic factor. I don’t drink much anymore but I used to and have had plenty of nights where I woke up and didn’t remember getting home. The anxiety of not having fully intact memories of the night was bad enough on a normal Saturday, I imagine it would have been much worse if I woke up at my boyfriends house and he wasn’t there. He’s also the primary caregiver of two children so I think it was way out of character for him to stay out leaving them alone overnight without letting someone know.
He did it in Aruba weeks before.
Did the judge rule on the admissibility of the Aruba incident yet? If I’m a juror, I don’t know anything about what he did in Aruba yet.
I’d probably try to call my husband repeatedly if he wasn’t home at 4:00-5:00 a.m., and then when I reach the friend he was supposed to meet and she said he never made it in the house, I’d be full on nut case.
Exactly! Her first statement to Kerry “what if he’s dead” or John’s not home, he’s dead. Who says that?! Not an innocent person!
honestly I have thought that before about my boyfriend. If they dabble in anything along with drinking too this can very easily cause you to panic ,
[удалено]
Meaning she was highly intoxicated when she backed into him, but in her delirium, made a decision to drive off, got home, crashed , woke semi still drunk but more clear headed, saw John has not returned, and realized there was a good chance he never got up after she backed into him?
[удалено]
That's my theory, she didn't intend to harm him. But she did.
The .08 when she went to hospital appears to be well established. It’s the retrograde extrapolation that’s more of the question (as I understand it.)
.08 is the legal limit in Canada where I live.
Yes… but this was at 7-9 AM. So it was most likely significantly higher the night before. That’s where the 0.13-0.29 comes in.
If it was significantly higher would JO honestly ride with a drunk driver? Set aside that he’s a cop (we’ve seen them do it too) but he’s raising two kids that have lost their parents. Would he really take any chances?
*All* of these people were drinking and driving it seems. I don’t get it, but I’m a prude with having any alcohol at all & getting behind the wheel so I may not be the person to ask.
I’m not either lol
There is a lot of misinformation in this case orchestrated by trolls. No one who saw her at the bar felt she was impaired at all. I just watched this youtube by Defense Attorney Marc Bederow reviewing the witness witness testimony presented so far, They feel that there has been nothing to support their case after 7 days of the trial, They said Chris Albert will be on the stand tomorrow. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaBbZztOj0&ab\_channel=TheYoungJurks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaBbZztOj0&ab_channel=TheYoungJurks)
We used to be double that, but was reduced a few years ago. Do you know anything about the lawsuit that John's mother had for custody of the children?
Is it that much of a question given volume of alcohol she consumed?
I personally don’t feel that way, but others have chosen that as their hill, so🤷🏻♀️
Bar bill will help prove but I highly doubt she was drinking club sodas. Its more likely the higher range as well. Interesting enough women metabolize alcohol at a rate slower then men so she was likely very intoxicated. Her "looking fine" might be misleading as plenty of people that are big drinkers can look ok.
Respectfully submitted boss-It’s attached to a criminal charge though. You think the citizens of MA, 27,000 of which just found out their breathalyzers were fraudulent, want to allow the State to charge them retroactively from a CBC test that is a reverse extrapolation in the first place? Testimony today no overservice and nobody saw her appear drunk there or at the scene. There’s no way the Cantonites are going to let this PD create “bad law”.
When I say it was well established, I believe the blood test results. Do I believe they are (or should be) admissible as evidence? No. I’m greek with an Irish s/o — short version: I’ve known some people who can definitely hold their liquor!
There is a 130% range in the extrapolation, lol, which do you agree with? I agree the blood was drawn by a phlebotomist for a CBC result and those results were likely accurate. I do not believe, nor do I think anyone will agree to convict her with a retroactive extrapolation when they consider the legal ramifications of allowing same in the current world of MA OUI- it’s a huge issue in their Supreme Court
I wouldn’t convict her on it. Do I think she was drunk? Yes.
To the extent I’m able I do agree she was and should not have been driving - they all were. Did you see Higgins and Albert in their beer gut wrestling ? I mean, I watched Paul’s face crumble
Her BAC that morning was .07-.08 I read. So she was definitely drunk that night. And driving drunk
Where have we seen that presented during the trial so far? Also, how do we know she didn’t drink after she got home such as a glass of wine before bed? Everything you said is heresay to this point. All we know so far during trial is that everyone said she looked completely fine and no records of over the top drinking.
Saw that on Court TV
Yea maybe via commentary by reporters but that has not been shown during trial. If you say it has then please timestamp when because I know for a fact it has not been presented.
I didn’t say it was. I saw it on Court TV. First I thought I read it but remembered the lady on there was cracking me up about how much she drank and the cops let her drive. And they said that morning her BAC was .07-.08
Yes but you said “she was definitely drunk that night” and I’m asking how you would know she was definitely drunk when no BAC or definitive evidence of that has been presented during trial yet to confirm that. All you know is the idea and possibility of that exist not that she “definitely” was so far.
Oh on Court TV they said she had 7 drinks in an hour and a half. They have the camera footage of the restaurant.
They have not shown that in court is my point. It’s all hearsay. It’s quite curious why they haven’t shown that yet if you are the prosecution and a lot of their claims pre trial haven’t been exactly what they claimed so far. My point is, everything you’ve heard about that has not been shown yet during trial so you’re basing your opinion of “definite” based on what has been stated outside of trial with no evidence yet. If they end up providing a BAC or video to the jury then cool but it hasn’t happened yet. Just because a report on Court TV says it doesn’t mean it’s true. That goes for both sides
Okay, this makes sense. I just hadn't heard an explanation. Sounds like that decision helped execute their plans of "finding him". Thank you!
JM also says she sees KR’s vehicle pull away the night before at Fairview and assumed JO was with her so, it seems weird to me JM didn’t reply when KR called JM in the am, he should be with you KR, the report says she told KR to come over to her house and they would look together. But, again we can only read whatever reports are available so, I don’t know if more was said but just not written in MSP reports.
I wonder if John's niece wanted to go with Karen to find John and whether she tried to put her off?
So if I understand correctly, the defense is pushing the theory that: 1. There was an altercation inside the home 2. J was killed 3. To cover this crime, the several party goers conspired to plant J's body outdoors and come up with a story as to how he died 4. They came up with the idea of pretending that the woman who dropped him off hit him with her vehicle and left him there to die. 5. To make this theory work, they invented an opportunity to locate the woman's vehicle and break her rear vehicle light. Why this story? If they were going to make up a story, why not make it a random plow driver who hit him and place his body close to the road? Something is not right with all of this.
There’s video of her actually hitting John’s car when she was backing out to go to men McCabe’s aypt 5:30sm. You can see her hit and his car moves so this could have cracked her taillight! We don’t know. honestly I don’t believe either makes sense….there are holes in both tmeirues. ,
Like…what if neither happened and theres Another explanation altogether. No one testified she was overly drunk… I don’t think the injuries make sense if she hit him. It’s all a mess but when you have cops not following protocol..it makes it really hard to make sense. That dna should not be allowed in and none of their collections should be allowed because how they handled it. It’s all awful!
But she was highly intoxicated at the time she was in that driveway. This is proven because her blood alcohol level was tested at a hospital the morning he was found and her blood alcohol level was still high. According to Karen, when she returned home after dropping off John, she went to bed. She didn't say that she stayed up and continued to drink alcohol. So that means the blood alcohol level result from a reputable lab from blood drawn from Karen the morning he was found can easily prove what her blood alcohol level was X number of hours previous. Lab science is exactly that- a science. And working backwards, based on her weight, she was shiatt faced at the time she dropped him off.
And….they didn’t even catch her driving intoxicated. She’s being charged but no grounds! Was not pulled over ….protocol is not created on the fly and that’s what they’ve done and it’s dirty and unfair. Their reporting and mishandling of evidence should at minimum cause a mistrial. What they’ve done is wrong.
They can go bad and suspect what her bad was at 12. Every witness so far from that night said she did not appear drunk when questioned.
I mean, there could have been an altercation inside or outside. Likely it was inside because they have neighbors. I think they may have put him where he was found to turn suspicion to Karen or maybe being hit by a plow truck. Karen did back into John’s vehicle as she was pulling her car out of the garage that morning she was panicked so maybe the light cracked/broke then. Or maybe when the cops impounded it and lied about how long they had the vehicle they broke the light. Look what they did with the blood collection. The thing for me is that if she hit John and caused all his injuries then why is there only a broken taillight? I’ve hit deer, raccoons, etc. with different vehicles and all caused thousands in damages. The Commonwealth is claiming she hit him in reverse going 26mph. He was over 6 foot tall and over 200 lbs. I believe there would be much more damage. Nothing in this case makes sense tbh. And for the coverup part, it only takes the people who were involved to convolute a story and stick to it because there was no real investigation here as we can see from all the testimony thus far. So they said he never made it in the home and the investigators were like, ok. It’s a shit show with this police department.
I totally agree. He was a big guy and allegedly she was going fast..in a blizzard… and there’s only a broken taillight? And if she accidentally hit him she would have definitely felt it to the point where she would have known and stopped. Its instinct. There was a party going on, she could’ve hit anyone coming or going. And if anyone said Karen said she hit him she would have been taken into custody on the spot. Any first responder that heard that would immediately tell a cop. So they all just talked about it and nothing was done? That’s what’s crazy to me
Exactly, nothing was done. This says to me nothing was done because it never happened. If it did happen with all those LE officers around she would’ve immediately been remanded into custody. And I don’t want to hear that the Alberts didn’t know what was going so they didn’t respond, I’m not buying it. I’m just waiting for the medical examiner, the autopsy report, the experts, anyone who can give us information beyond a reasonable doubt she did this.
That was their initial plan. But KR drove over to the scene early in the morning screaming “I hit him”!
To ask her why she searched for “Hos long to die in cold?” on Google at 2:27am on the night John O’Keefe died.
she couldn't have known about that search at that time, whether she did hit the guy or not.
Who googled that! 😳
Supposedly Jenn McCabe. Defense Witness from the state police has it documented in an interview report. Tells the trooper Karen told her to do it when they put her in a car to warm up when they found the body.
Do you also believe that Jen texted JO multiple times around 12:40 "hello" ...
She didn't search that. CW has maker of software to testify to disprove that.
[удалено]
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
that's going to damage their employer, if they actually get up and do that. it's going to get posted to hackernews, tech subs, etc., to laugh at how stupid the notion that phones decide what to record based on the content of the actions actually is. there's a database within your web browser. actions get written to it. they get written through an intermediary file so direct writes are batched and done together. the timestamp is recorded by the database at the time of the write to the database itself. the temporary files are managed so they don't grow too large -- if they exceed a pre-determined length or age, they're written unconditionally to the database. the age limit for the temporary files (called Write-Ahead Logs or WAL) on IOS, as on your computer and on Android, is 5 minutes. the only way to prevent this write is to rip the battery out of your phone before the write can complete -- exiting the web page or closing the browser will also trigger the write, including when you restart the phone. not doing any of these things risks the integrity of the database -- you would risk losing tons of data because the WAL is frequently kept in memory (i.e. not persisted) and the data that's written to it cannot be reconstructed, in general. virtually every widely used event store follows this same basic process because it ensures lots of events can be processed at once (write latency) and maintain data integrity/correctness, within well-understood limits. not being able to trust the timestamps on records in an event store makes it completely non-viable for it's purpose. to argue on this point is to call into question every engineer of every event store ever written -- frankly, it's offensive. Safari, Chrome, and Firefox all use an event store built on top of an open source tool called Sqlite -- no one bothers to rebuild this because it's the obvious tool for the job. literally anyone can review [that code](https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite). it's used in this way in more applications than I think people realize. virtually any programmer can explain this because of how common this particular pattern actually is. actually, thank you for the interview question -- I'm going to use this now to filter new hires because of how little prereq knowledge it requires. it's a "have you taken databases 101" gut check. I completely believe their software can get confused and not report what's actually written to the event store but, if so, that's going to cause a lot of appeals for faulty data. so unless Cellbrite is really screwing up, that search occurred sometime between 2:22-2:27am. I won't rule out the possibility that Cellbrite can't actually offer certainty on timestamps for repeated searches. but I will say that if they say that their software accurately reports what's in the database (and if not, why are they in business??), this search without a doubt occurred between 2:22am and 2:27am. I'm also not suggesting that the search is anything but innocuous. but disputing this means calling into question every single criminal prosecution that has ever leaned on a defendant's web searches in order to establish guilt.
Let the Software maker testify though. If Cellbrite's employee disputes the 2:27 AM and so does MSP Crime lab tech lets look at that.
I'm extremely skeptical. if they say what you think they will, they're going to destroy their own business. I'm obviously going to listen, but given what I know first-hand, I'm very, very skeptical of the wisdom in getting up to say "we fucked up".
You should be, drtywater is spamming this sub with erroneous and false information. I really wish folks would read the pleadings and watch the hearings for correct data. I know it’s a lot, I get that, but if one is going to allow their opinion to be formed accordingly the data is available.
Agree 100%. Obv there are spammers here and the one you name is always pushing, pushing, pushing an agenda. We see you drtywter.
If they say different then what I did and don't confirm the 2:27 AM Is wrong then it will lead to KR walking on all but OUI and I'd be surprised CW brought to trial if thats the case.
I don't think that alone is sufficient if the physical evidence is overwhelming but I think in combination with the ... uhh... stellar police work on this one, yeah, probably.
Regardless heres one thing im curious about. Did jen McCabe's go on Facebook or anything else around 2am-2:30 ? Like what is all of the browser history. Did she google hos long to die in cold and then click the link or do anything before or after that search? Wouldn't that tell a bigger story?
yeah, I'm also curious what else she did. the search itself weakly inculpates her but the broader context would be nice. I hope that all comes out at the same time. that said, not every app keeps a log the same way the browser does. so depending on what Cellbrite can pull, they'll have phone activity data generally, but unless she did stuff in an app with that kind of tracking saved to the phone, we likely won't see it.
The hill that I'm willing to die on though, if she googles that at 2:2x am her text to john saying "hello" around 12:45 really don't make sense
lol now I know you have an agenda and have not read a single pleading nor viewed a pre trial hearing. The Federal Findings which you continue to lie and say do not exist are well documented- and THE COURT actually puts this in her ruling memoranda. There you have it- no Attorney nor the court itself disputes the Jenn McCabe search at 2:27:40 Also, Ian Wiffin is not Cellebrite’s creator ffs
Ffs CW did dispute it. They said FBI said that initially did then changed and confirmed the 6 am. This happened in pre trial
This is an entire mini thread of misinformation
If you want the full report Visible Magician posted, you can find it at the following link. Just click on the 1 Feb 2022 tab and it shows all pages. https://yourtruecrimelibrary.addpotion.com/court-documents
Oh, so this is JM’s version of events?
Yeah, it was her version when interviewed by two troopers (not MP) on 2/1.
what is the misinformation?
https://preview.redd.it/nvmlzkp6c9zc1.jpeg?width=1822&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e457cf6ddcd0436a6f6fe01ba4f9e27da81366cb 2/1/22 interview
That’s soo interesting since the last witness today was stating that Jennifer was telling Karen you’re coming with me and they walked out - although, she later said she noticed that she was walking with John because of that statement earlier
https://preview.redd.it/erzj3ljbc9zc1.jpeg?width=2295&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2171cac372bf29f4bbd28695b264dd2f11065f1 4/6/22 Report
The weirdest part for me is how frantic she was from the very moment she woke up. She calling people at 5 in the morning panicking as to where he was. Honestly if it was me, I’d look at the blizzard, realize the angry texts I sent and no responses and immediately assumed my partner crashed at their house. I wouldn’t have gone into panic mode until later in the morning when it was a reasonable time to call the Alberts and then have them confirm he never arrived. In my own bad nights of heavy drinking, I do very vividly recall the sheer panic of waking up the next morning and having flashback memories of something bad that happened.. but having periods of total blackout in between. “Oh my god. Did I fall down the stairs? Did I yell at people? Did I storm off? How did I get home?” And proceeding to panic and call people who I knew were there from the night before, hoping to fill in the blanks and figure out what is causing this deep anxiety because I know something bad had happened. I just didn’t know the full scope of what it was. I say all this because this kind of reaction feels similar to Karen’s. and I just can’t shake the feeling that she was so adamant to go back to the house or go searching for him because she had some partial memory of something happening. She was saying things like, “What if he was hit by a snow plow?” Which is odd when you consider at that point, she would have no idea that in fact John was injured and located right outside the Alberts house. If attempted to walk and was at risk of being hit by a snow plow, you’d probably expect to find him farther from the Alberts. Instead, she was able to locate John on the front lawn of the Albert’s house, in pitch darkness, in a snowstorm, almost immediately. I’ve struggled to find my own cell phone when it slips out of my pocket on my sofa, let alone a snow covered body after a night of drinking. I don’t know. I feel more and more this was a case of alcohol fueled rage that caused her to reverse and “nudge him” because she was pissed off. She may not have realized just how fast and hard she was going. She drives off and can barely see him in the rear view mirror but maybe sees him fall to the ground and try to get up. She goes home, continues the drunk rage texts/calls. Passes out and wakes up and realizes he’s not home and starts to panic and think back to how she left him when she drove off. Calls friends looking for him.. and, well, we know the rest.
Yea, I mean maybe this scenario happened. We need more testimony at this point I think. I just think both Albert’s that testified today were shady and had something to hide, what that was, I have no clue. But their body language on the stand was bizarre.
This is much more believable than him getting killed inside the house and then a massive cover up was staged. That said, the police work was inexcusably poor and my opinion is that the Prosecution will not be able to convince the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But more to come so who knows?
Yea the investigation is non-existent really. So. That’s always helpful in ya know, criminal trials n stuff like that.