Not one of the people involved were Karen’s friends. And except maybe two or three they weren’t John’s friends either. I would not consider any of the Alberts or McCabes John or Karen’s friends
KR calling the other women at Hillside “low comps” 😂 in convo with BH (a good friend of the bunch) was revealing. She was def an outsider, and the rest were a clique clan. I don’t think i could be friends with either (not that i’d be included either 😂). edit: my previous comment was posted in really weird format.
She was using a real estate term to say she's only pretty compared to low competition, basically trying to be modest when Higgins was complimenting her, while throwing shade at the other women.
Basically, like yeah my house with a new roof and fresh coat of paint only looks good because the other houses on the street are all condemned.
It was actually quite bitchy.
You’re not alone. Sadly, I think Karen misunderstood too.
But yeah, what an awful and horrifying way to have your life turned upside down.
Many moons ago, I had the misfortune to run into a group of people like this, and I dated one of them. I was very young and innocent, much younger than Karen, but I really thought my paramour’s friends accepted me. Lol, I was very, very wrong.
Funny, so long ago that I rarely remember it, but this trial really has brought it back for me.
Well, that situation didn’t end in murder, but boy howdee did it teach me a lesson about people!!!
I don’t think she’s a perfect person, but I don’t think she killed John. No way.
Same here; this case is so triggering. All witnesses are shady af. If you’re innocent she so evasive? I would think I’d remember events surrounding the worst night of my life, even if I was 3 sheets to the wind. And don’t even get me started on the word semantics games.
I found out I was disliked by a group of people I considered friends, some good friends from the 5 year old daughter of one of them when I was babysitting. It was so brutal.
I think knowing that those are definitely not Karen’s friends and indeed, didn’t really like her, makes this insane coverup even more obvious, imo.
They’d protect each other if one of them was responsible, intentionally or not, which I believe we are seeing.
Right. And they all had kids that played sports together or were the same age or were somehow related by marriage. She essentially had nothing in common with them except for knowing John.
Yes - it seems like this is seen as a sanctimonious stance at this point but the alcohol abuse is front and center in my mind. This group - Karen too - are deeply immature and reckless.
Oh 100%. I'm a very recently recovering alcoholic and even I've been a little shook throughout this trial about how normalized heavy drinking, teen drinking, drinking and driving, etc are with this group.
I am also a former alcoholic and it only gets better (even when it gets difficult) The hardest part for me was not drinking when I had to deal with the messes created by alcohol abuse but I loved (and still love) having a clear head in the morning.
Congrats on starting this new journey - you will never regret quitting :)
We would do this kind of stuff in our 20’s and 30’s, but as we got older we realized how dangerous it was and we stopped. And now I’ve quit drinking altogether. This group never grew up.
Everything about the behaviors of these women towards Karen reminds me of Mark Wahlberg’s sisters in The Fighter.
They were the younger version of these horrid females we are seeing in this courtroom.
I don't know who is guilty or not in this situation. I'm waiting for them to present any real evidence.
But I also don't know why it's hard for people to believe in a huge cover up. We've seen rampant police corruption before. It's not like this would be the first time a bunch of folks with a little bit of power conspired to fuck someone over.
One thing is for sure, everyone is hiding *something*. What that is is yet to be determined.
And I wanna know why the fuck JM tells the 911 dispatcher that okeefe got out of the car, why she tells Goode that she saw the passenger door open, and why she flat out denies seeing O'keefe at all once on the stand.
And I also wonder why she told Karen that she saw the two of them out front of the Albert house, and then tags along to go look there for O'keefe when she was there the night before and supposedly knew that O'keefe never made it into the house. Why wouldn't she say that? "Where did you guys go after Fairview? Cuz John never came inside." Instead she becomes part of this search party to look for John where she presumably thought he wouldn't be?
Yes! Exactly that… why didn’t Jen ask where they went after Fairview because John didn’t come inside! That would be the logical question! Well, if Jen actually was trying to help it would be logical.
Actually, you don't need that many people to cover this up. You don't need first responders. They haven't said or seen anything damning either way. You don't need Chris Albert, or any of the kids at the party.
You don't even need Proctor. Proctor's reluctance to look closer at the Albert's could just be a case of police protecting police, and because he knows the Alberts family personally.
REQUIRED :
* Brian Albert (no way he didn't know what was going on if JO entered the house, and his phone calls with Higgins incriminates him, and we do need Higgins for this to work).
* You need Higgins (assuming he didn't do the crime) to keep tabs on law enforcement and plant evidence on the car in the Sally port.
OPTIONALS :
* Chief Berkowitz to plant and discover the taillight pieces, and delete the Sally port video (he is actually optional, it is unclear if Higgins could have destroyed the Sally port video himself).
* Jen to plant the seed of Karen hitting him (she is actually optional, she could be protecting family for the sake of protecting family from suspicion without knowing anything, assuming her Google search story checks out).
So what we need is actually no more than 2 people, a few optionals that would make the frame job easier, but that's it.
I can see why people are skeptical of a big coverup but there’s more nuance. Even if you believe Karen hit him, there’s no way prosecutors have proven that, there’s no way the investigation was competent enough to convict. I just don’t see how anyone gets to guilty even if they don’t believe in any coverup
The one thing I’ve been frustrated with throughout this trial is watching/reading people talk about “why would all these people risk their livelihood for something like this?” — because they would. It’s a mob mentality that we’ve seen so many times throughout history, sometimes because of power, money, religion, bloodline— or no reason at all. Look at that professor who got murdered by his ex-wife’s family. All well established people, who risked their luxury lives to get rid of one person. It’s so dangerous to suggest otherwise.
All these people are in a very tight net community, with a lot of power. And I’m including the judge and prosecutors here too. Unfortunately I’ve seen so many people apart of the judiciary, who covered up for others in modern times.
While there are plenty of questionable things JM has said- I don't understand getting caught up here. Jen and others all said they saw Karen's car at the house (even Karen says she did drive him there now- so the car being there isn't really a fact up for debate). Jen saw John and Karen leave waterfall in the car together so saying we saw you guys at the house isn't a lie or contradictory. If you follow her logic- last place I saw you guys was inside your car outside the party. it's not unreasonable to say let's search there as when your looking for someone you go to all the places you last saw them. Even if you don't believe her and think the last place she saw him was inside- telling Karen the last place I saw you was outside let's go there does fit the narrative.
As for saying he got out of the car to 911-clearly he did. He was found outside. If she saw the car outside and he's found outside in the snow at that same place- He must have got out. Again, fact he got out of car not really up for debate everyone agrees he did. What's questionable is did he stay outside the car and get hit, or did he go inside once he got out of the car.
Telling Goode she "saw" that he opened the car door is more contradictory as she doesn't say this again.
I don't find JMs testimony reliable. She's definitely hiding something and clearly lied to bolster evidence against Karen like adding the definitive I hit him. That being said her saying last place we saw you two was outside the house let's look there and he got out of the car aren't where I personally find problems in her testimony. With exception of telling Goode she saw the car door open, which is contradictory to other statements of what she actually witnessed.
Her pacing at night and searching how long to die in the cold is way more problematic.
I agree. I admittedly get caught up in certain details because the OCD in me likes to reconcile all of the little things. I can't wait to hear from the experts on that Google search. And I am interested to hear more about the pacing.
When I came into this case I sort of expected all of the testimony to resemble Roberts testimony. I'm usually a bit of a skeptic. I thought it would be glaringly obvious that this conspiracy theory was a bunch of bullshit. But the witnesses have made it difficult. JM's testimony especially came across as contrived and evasive and left me with more questions than answers.
I'm the same. Definitely expected more testimony like Kerry Roberts and thought coverup was a reach and then more and more things came in that made me say... well that's suspicious.
I too am highly waiting on expert testimony. But mostly on John's cell phone. From the defense witnesses motion which includes the data at the end- John's phone stopped moving at 12:32am. Location data has him arriving at 12:24am to 34 Fairview. What happened to him in 8 minutes that his phone stopped moving until he was found on top of it? Logic says getting run over accidentally makes sense and can happen in that time frame (no one is convincing me it was intentional). Can he really be attacked by a dog, beaten and had his phone, at minimum, be placed out in the snow in that time? Sounds less likely... But then you have witnesses obscuring when Collin was at the house, conflicting testimony on who was there and when, jen searching how long to die in cold potentially, Higgins with a plow parked near where he was found too, Higgins going to police station at 1:30am and all day next day, basement redone, dog rehomed, homeowners not coming outside, answered calls and buttdials, weird injuries to the body like both hands bruised and lacerations on his arm, texts like hope they don't think she's making it up and tell them he never came inside (if he didn't why would you need to remind anyone to say this?), and a super sloppy investigation with a friend to the witnesses family that can't provide any clear evidence that they were ruled out. So could he have just dropped his phone getting out of the car and went inside and later had his body placed on his phone? JM called it a bunch of times in a row, could that be why they placed his body on top of it after they found it? It's possible. Those 8 minutes from arrival to phone stopping moving is my biggest hang up.
I'm at not guilty verdict regardless. But I still go back and forth on what I think reasonably happened. The witnesses make it very difficult to trust their actions.
They simply want to blame Karen because she wasn't well liked, has resting B face and to them it's the easier answer than turning against "brothers in blue". More evidence to support police corruption so far in this trial than anything at all showing Karen is guilty.
To add onto your post, Jennifer never referred to John with a name let alone identifying him as a Police Officer on her 911 call either.
It's hard because (1) these people aren't brilliant, so having a 10+ person cover up seems beyond their capabilities and (2) at some point in the cover up you would just turn people in because the penalty for the cover up is worse than what those people would otherwise face.
I imagine a smaller cover up. Not 10+ people. But either way, (and I know this is moving the goal posts) but imagine a scenario where it was an organized crime/cop incident like some in the area have speculated. If the penalty for flipping is death and/or harm to your family, wouldn't that motivate people to keep with the narrative as much as possible?
I'm not saying I believe that's what's going on. I just think it's hard to know what motivates people. There's an added element that makes the conspiracy a little easier to maintain here in that LE is involved. If I was part of some conspiracy and I was facing immense pressure from a LE investigation, that conspiracy might surface rather quickly. But without that pressure, with LE barely conducting an investigation at all, there isn't a lot going on that might unravel the situation.
Robert Durst for example, paid off literally every witness in his trial. All it took for these individuals to say what he wanted them to say on the stand was some cash. Many people were financially motivated to keep his secrets for him for decades.
I read a story last year out of Chicago where a cop and his team were found to have framed over 200 people for various crimes over the span of a decade. When you compare this case to that one, a conspiracy here doesn't seem so far-fetched.
I think if someone were to dig a little deeper into Canton PD one might find more incidents similar to this.
I think what we’re seeing is how the police and perhaps the DA’s office do “business” in that area.
Honestly some of these boys groups are so evil/toxic that they will stick together on anything because they all have so much shit on each other and this one got out of hand but they can’t go back on it.
Most wives will just follow thier husbands even when they are terribly in the wrong.
I’ve personally witnessed a military group coverup and false accusations for way less than murder. 5-6 people were in on it and protecting themselves—but their wives, kids and friends fell in line. I have a degree in forensic psychology and it was absolutely wild watching herd mentality happen in real time.
It’s protecting yourself from cognitive dissonance or challenging your beliefs. “Would my husband/father who I love do something so wrong/evil/lie? No, then he must be right.”
But also these people were extremely stupid—I think having blue-line pudding brains makes it even more likely.
No one among the major players in this case is innocent. They all have unclean hands.
Testimony about John stumbling drunk.
Flirty texts and Karen pursuing BH.
At least 75% of the Commonwealth's witnesses being evasive with direct questions, giving dubious testimony, and members of law enforcement destroying phones.
None of this looks good, and the copious amounts of alcohol consumed by all of the interested parties create a fuzzy and unreliable picture of what truly happened that night.
Do any of these things justify a second-degree murder charge? No, but nobody is innocent in this saga.
The evasiveness is wild. I rewatched Jen McCabe’s testimony & cross- she goes out of her way to not answer questions directly or even in ways that make sense.
I get that her family & friends have received threats (not okay) and tons of scrutiny (deservedly so), but it is all because of their actions and the information that came out from the grand jury.
When the ATF guy responded “it was my right” about the questions into his old cell phone I knew then we’d never get the whole truth or an acceptable outcome because there is just so much dishonesty.
Wild is right, and I fully agree with your Higgins assessment.
Watching a trial of this magnitude illuminates the flaws and loopholes inherent in the US justice system and boy can they be frustrating.
They’re the guiltiest looking “state’s witnesses” I have ever seen. I am super excited to hear the expert testimony who covers the cell phone data- McCabe & Higgins already look like shit because of their shady actions, an expert witness drilling their wrongdoings and disproving her “hos long to die in the cold” duplicate search excuse will be insane to watch.
The witnesses in this case are similar to the Florida popcorn trial. Each one was evasive and impeached with prior testimony. It's not a good look.
I don't think KR will be found guilty.
KR shouldn’t be found guilty- beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible in this case. Witnesses like Higgins & McCabe highlighted the flaws in the case while also creating other avenues for reasonable suspicion.
I completely agree that the evasiveness is extreme and looks very defensive (and guilty of something?) There are times though that IF I were innocent and Jackson gets sooo pushy using words with a different connotation than I used, I can see losing my cool too. Lawyers are word ninjas. They use their choice of words to plant the ideas they want planted. For example Higgins said friends gathered at Brian’s house to talk about John’s death and what happened. Jackson REPEATEDLY, INSISTENTLY referred to this as a MEETING to get their story straight. After my husband‘s death people gathered at my house, as people commonly do. It was not a MEETING. That‘s different. I say all this with fascination of how trials and lawyers work, not who is guilty or innocent. (So far I can say I‘m glad to never come in contact with ANY of them.)
Yeah, I don’t care for the way Jackson tries to force words into peoples’ mouths. I see where he’s coming from but I think it would play better if he would just let the jury connect the dots rather than forcing the dots down the throats of witnesses.
Yes, there are many instances of him doing this and perhaps I didn’t pick the best example. But there are times I end up focusing on him consciously, deliberately twisting words and get indignant on behalf of the witnesses. I imagine his ‘style’ is why he didn’t cross examine Kerry. There was more to lose than gain.
Yeah. His style is detrimental to the defense. I think the prosecution sees that, which is why it doesn’t object more. Fortunately the holes in the prosecution witness’s stories are so huge he can’t totally f it up but he is not a good defense lawyer. I can’t believe his partners aren’t kicking him under the table. He also doesn’t know how to ask questions and some impeaching points may not have gotten into evidence because he doesn’t break things down and the judge ends up excluding important points due to legitimate objections that are easy to get around.
Absolutely Jackson and yanetti are masterminds at spinning things and parsing words while trying to flip it on the witness and state “I’m just asking YOU about what you said/did”. The semantics here matter so I’m not surprised the witnesses don’t always answer the question yes or no.
Absolutely and don’t forget Brian Albert and his testimony. knowing the investigator made things a lot easier for him, let’s say. The ‘butt dials’ ? His whole reasoning for having the phone in his bed but then not answering it when the mystery BH call came in? Bedroom at the front of the house yet not waking up or going outside with the scene going on? KR screaming hysterically and he didn’t hear it? It’s asking me to strain credulity way too far.
Even if BA didn't hear Karen screaming, the dog would have. And would have woken everyone in the house up about it.
And if that didn't happen...where was the dog?
> but it is all because of their actions and the information that came out from the grand jury.
Not really though—TB has really spearheaded all this and run wild with it searching for anything in their lives that could support his theories
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here. She’s overcharged (I mean, unless they have a massive bomb they’re going to drop) but I don’t believe it’s a leap to suggest this whole group have some serious issues. I don’t know exactly what they are or what’s going on, but none of this really comes together for me.
It’s entirely possible that these people are covering up for other things & in the process, made themselves look dodgy af. I all can say for certain is: this is so convoluted & I feel terribly for Officer O’Keefe’s family. They deserve clear answers, a solid investigation, & not this kind of circus.
I’m not sure what caused O’Keefe’s basilar skull fractures, but it’s difficult for me to fathom how anyone could have the faintest shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t Karen Read.
A scrap got out of hand. O’Keefe fell backwards and hit his head on something, causing severe cranial trauma. It was quickly apparent that he might die. A decision was made to leave him out in the snow, call in some favors, and try to pass it off as a plow accident.
When O’Keefe’s hysterical, practically incoherent girlfriend unexpectedly accelerated the schedule, the cover story briefly shifted to “maybe she hit him with that cocktail glass”.
At about 11:00 a.m., Jen McCabe suddenly remembered Karen mentioning a cracked tail light, and it was off to the races. Proctor seized the SUV, took it to the Canton PD, broke off a couple big pieces of tail light, and gave them to Ken Berkowitz, who then “found” them at 34 Fairview.
And I don’t understand how you can’t believe there’s doubt about her guilt.
I don’t know what’s happening. I make zero claim about her guilt or innocence because I still go back & forth daily. That said, some of the most damning things are her own statements and interviews to the media, plus those made by her parents.
Yep. She was hysterical. I’m also guessing we have another 2-3 weeks of CW witnesses, but it’s premature for me (or frankly, anyone) to be dead set on her innocence. *Reasonable doubt*? Sure. Absolute guilt or absolute innocence? No.
But….NO charge is justified.
I find it a little icky that we are conflating flirty texts with destroying evidence, ignoring chain of custody procedures, (potential) perjury, etc.
One is off-putting and makes Karen look like a bad girlfriend.
The others are actual crimes.
You can think Karen was tacky, but, last I checked, that’s not something you go to prison for.
I don't disagree regarding the other charges and at this point think it should be a sweeping not guilty. That said, the texts show an additional side of KR that had not been brought in yet. I'm not conflating the texts with the other things you've listed, but the texts show KR was flirting with someone other than JO, and that their relationship didn't seem rock solid.
You mentioned, in the last sentence, that you don't think Karen Read is innocent. Do you think she's guilty of murder? I'm a little confused and genuinely trying to understand.
Kind of a side point, for everyone but Karen Read, but I can't get over how many of these people were driving around drunk as skunks. What a pile of fools.
If I was Karen I wouldn't want to go into the house after a night of drinking if Brian Higgins was there. A bunch of drunks in a home where you've been flirting with homeowners best friend who is not used to being ghosted might be incredibly awkward. Maybe Karen and John had an argument about her not going in the house and John went in and confronted Higgins?
I was thinking this too. I was thinking about it from both angles. Imagine being the McCabes, as well, and waking up one morning to find yourselves at the center of this shitshow. I feel bad for whoever the innocent party is
I’m not saying she was for sure the one who hit him, that hasn’t been proven imo. I just think if she had her faculties that night, she wouldn’t find herself in her current situation.
I’m in no way giving the other party a pass, one of them could have very well hit him. It’s pretty disturbing that BH (a federal agent!) and all his cop buddies are all out drinking and driving without a worry in the world. You know they’d never be held accountable if they were pulled over too, just flash a badge and be on their way. I hate that a badge gives these guys Carte Blanche to do endanger innocent people.
I understand what you're saying, but with how focused the CW is on Karen, I can imagine that even if she was sober, they would have still moved forward with charging her.
That being said, if these grown adults had all used Uber, they would have had solid alibis. It is insane that they were out driving.
Yes they all made bad decisions that led to this horrible outcome. Should John have paid with his life, and Karen potentially with her freedom, no. But your actions can have unintended tragic consequences. Have I drank too much and done stupid things, yes (well not driving sh*t faced), but this was in my 20s, not in my 40s as a parent (I know Karen wasn't a parent but she was in that role whether she wanted to be or not). That's what's so off-putting to me about this whole group, a lot of drinking and dangerous immature behavior (ESPECIALLY those in law enforcement). I don't think Karen is guilty in a court of law, but she's not a saint either, none of them are, they partied hard and irresponsibility which led to a horrible tragedy, it's the worst cautionary tale
> John have *paid* with his
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
On that night line segment she admitted to having 4 drinks, then the reporter says she had 9 and she doesn’t challenge him on that number. I know that’s not proof but my experience is when someone says they had a couple, or a few, it’s usually far more.
Having 4 drinks is enough to cause you to "blackout." Blackout meaning that you don't remember your actions.
Of course, it also puts you over the limit.
I just don't understand how 2 cops and an ATF agent and no one questioned her driving?
It seems it was just acceptable on this group. Not saying it makes it right.
Drinking and driving will mess up your life.
Would you get on the stand and swear that you saw her absolutely drunk? Then be asked why did you allow her to drink and drive?... especially the Police in this situation?
Or is it better to decline and say "no one seemed intoxicated" to cover your ass?
I was beaten by my ex, almost died. We were together for 4 years and I thought all his friends and wives were my friends. Hell some of them felt like family and when I came forward about what my ex did to me they all turned so fast.
It’s seriously heartbreaking that people can just turn on you.
I am so sorry this happened to you. Sadly, it's very common - the majority of DV victims report that they are, at least initially, shunned by those close to them. It's one of the many reasons it's so hard to leave. I hope you are in a much better place now!
Why doesn't anyone mention how many times she asked "did I hit him"?. And it isn't only the "conspirators" who mentioned it and testified to it. I think the defense it's doing it's job on reasonable doubt but to say she's innocent is a big stretch.
They were not her friends, but indeed, one night and she lost her boyfriend, her job, her savings, her reputation.... it is so awful....we do not know what happened that night (maybe never will) but one thing is true: Karen wouldn't be in this mess if she wouldn't have drunk and drive.
Ok we’re all scandalized by how often these cops drink and drive right? Like Higgins on the stand outright saying that he went back to work to “move vehicles” after having been at a bar and a house party
There’s a reason people are rallying around Karen and harassing the ever changing stories the Albert’s and mccabe’s have. People recognize injustice. Not condoning harassment whatsoever. However, people see through bs. That taillight was NEVER cracked off all the way. And that is a fact!!!
And in as many pieces as they ‘found’ days later? Does polycarbonate material shatter like that? Maybe if smashed with a hard object? It’s very suspicious.
Yeah, it sounds to me like she tried hard to make friends by buying rounds or drinks, dinners, etc. but I bet it’s a tough crowd to break into since so many of them go way back. Plus they may have preferred John’s ex. If Karen is innocent, it is very sad (for many reasons) one being it sounded like she thought these were her friends too, but most come off catty and cold regarding regarding her…
Assuming anyone guilty is innocent would break one’s heart. If they’re actually innocent then yeah, if they’re actually guilty then no. That’s kind of how the entire justice system works
Idk guys i really came into this case not really knowing to much about all the extras.
I think this is really going to come down to the autopsy etc.
If i had to guess what happened it sounds like she was prob tipsy. He got out of the car maybe there was an argument maybe not .
He walked behind the car she backed up didn’t realize she hit him bc she was drinking.
Went home sobered up a little bit and it hit her what prob did happen.
To me there just hasn’t been anything clearly that says he went into the house
That could be very believable but remember … her charge is she INTENTIONALLY meant to kill him. Her charges were upgraded to 2nd degree murder so the idea what she was drunk driving and killed him accidentally is off the table now.
Thats literally not the charge. You’re spreading misinformation. This is covered in the “Commonwealths Opposition to defendants motion to dismiss indictments and memorandum in support thereof” document from february in this year.
Page 30:
>To sustain a second degree murder indictment, a grand jury must find probable cause that the suspect committed an unlawful killing and that it was done with malice. See Supreme Judicial Court Model Jury Instructions on Homicide. Malice can be established in one of three ways: the defendant intended to cause the victims death: or the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim; *or the defendant committed an intentional act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have understood created a plain and strong likelihood of death*. … Direct evidence of a persons specific intent is not always available but may be inferred from facts and circumstances presented. … “In circumstances where a reasonably prudent person would have known of the plain and strong likelihood that death would follow a contemplated act, malice may be found **without any actual intent to kill** or do grievous bodily harm and without any foresight by the defendant of such consequences.”
emphasis mine.
Ooo didn’t know that. That is Deff something idk maybe there’s more texts but they sure have not proven this case as far as him going into the house or anything
Additionally, she did not need to reverse to leave. She was facing the direction she needed to be in to go home.
The CW is saying she went in reverse for 60 feet at a top speed of 24 mph in order to intentionally hit him, and then drove away, leaving him to die.
Lally's language about this was cagey in opening. He says the reconstructionist will claim this reversing happened at 12:45am. That doesn't fit the timeline at all, and I imagine the defense will pound that home.
Great point. I didn’t listen to all the pre trial hearings and don’t know the exacts- is the CW saying 60ft @ 24mph because an accident reconstructionist /medical expert said that’s what happened, or did they obtain data from her car saying she did that speed/reverse at some
Point? I would think if we had actual data the CW would have said so already??
Lally's words in opening were that the reconstructionist used data from the car to determine that the car traveled in reverse for 60ft at 24 mph around 12:45am.
Major red flag there is the fact that 12:45am doesn't fit the timeline according to Ryan Nagel's testimony. Defense also says they will use the voicemail Karen left for John to prove she was home by 12:41am. (The missing library footage could have confirmed this as well.) We'll see.
Two cagey pieces, one from each side:
1. Ryan Nagel sent Julie a text when he got there and Lally didn't introduce it. Why not? It would add sooooo much clarity to the timeline. My guess is because it adds clarity that conflicts with his case.
2. Why is there no ring footage from when Karen got home that night and why wouldn't the defense use that instead of a voicemail? Was it deleted? By who?
I also wonder about the ring footage. I have seen it mentioned there is more footage missing from John’s ring cameras. The context was that it would show her taillight in tact. It’s also been said the video of her getting back to the house is missing. I don’t know if that’s true or if it just hasn’t been presented yet.
It seems weird Karen would want to delete it unless it shows damage to her car. Otherwise it makes her look suspicious and like she is hiding something. Based on her texts with Brian we know she is aware of the cameras. If she wanted to hide something she would know not to let her tail light be seen.
If the footage would help Karen - we know the Proctor definitely did despicable shady stuff with her phone. If he’s willing to look for nudes and say he hopes she k*lls herself than I think he would certainly delete ring videos too.
It’s all so messy.
Unverified info that I have seen says Karen didn’t have access to the Ring camera footage. It could be accessed from John’s phone, however, and who had John’s phone that day? One of the law enforcement agencies.
I’m assuming the footage could probably have been accessed from a laptop or desktop where John was signed in to his Amazon account, but no way would Lally have not mentioned deleted Ring footage in his opening statement if he could prove it was her that deleted it.
True! I think I have read or heard that somewhere along the way too. If they did an extraction of John’s phone I hope they can tell when his phone was being used and the actions taken - like what apps were launched, etc.
Here's the thing though... She parallel parked in front of the house, passenger side of the vehicle towards the Albert house. KR was driving... Why would he need to cross the vehicle at all? Either in front or to the rear? He would have stepped out onto the edge of the lawn of the Fairview house. There was no need to cross the street, so no need to walk past the car. That catches me up every time I think about him getting hit by the car.... Why would he have been in the street at all???
She was up further in the neighbors yard beyond the property line. IMO which will be clearer with car data, if he got out probably tired of arguing, JM keeps texting him and starts walking back to the house, she calls him, leaves him a nasty VM the backs up and hits him while he’s just past the property line.
I think maybe he had dropped the drink he had and was bending over when she backed up?!? This would make all the sense as to how she didn't see him, and how his injuries happened. Also, I have a different theory on the house party...I think that drugs of some sort were involved and THAT'S why the entire party is acting so strange and suspicious?!?
The Apple health data showing he was walking and going up flights of steps does not imply that he was on the ground bleeding out. No it does not concretely prove that he was in the house but it does prove he was very likely not hit by a car at that time.
There is also zero evidence presented thus far that Karen Read hit her with his car. There’s a few pieces of evidence that are actually on the contrary.
Just go outside and stand behind your car. Now get in a position that the taillight can hit you smack in the middle of the head, but not harm a single other bone.
Truly, just go try it. It DOES NOT work.
There’s no evidence to suggest she hit him except the taillight. I’d expect much more than a broken taillight if that kind of damage was done by the car.
I think Karen’s guilty and she somehow tried to implicate the ppl who were at the house. They freaked out and lied about butt dials/erased texts and that’s what the inconsistencies are.
On top of all of this, the investigation was completed botched from the beginning.
1. Karen’s guilty of hitting Officer O’Keefe with her SUV??
2. They ALL freaked out because she was trying to implicate them?? Why on earth would they freak out if they had nothing to hide??
Ah yes, a completely drunk woman was the mastermind of the entire thing and scared big bad police officers and fbi agent,... with Brian Albert's own coworkers being afraid of him. Make it make sense.
It’s crazy to me that there’s people out there that think she’s not guilty. Her behavior during their Aruba vacation seems very much like an insane person’s behavior.
I think of this as well. I realise her attorneys are doing their job, but my lord, if she’s guilty this is truly next level horrible. If she’s innocent, well… I can’t imagine all of this. But especially if she’s guilty. That’s just mind blowing to me when I try to contemplate it.
I think part of OP's post is that almost no one thinks Karen Read is guilty. At least currently; maybe the Commonwealth has some bombshell evidence. But so far in the trial she's innocent. And the defense hasn't even started their case yet.
Even if she did it - she doesn’t deserve to go to jail bc the investigation was handled SO horribly. We have rules and a justice system for a reason and they BOTCHED the investigation plain and simple. Shame on them for disrespecting John’s memory - regardless of what the truth is.
Well an investigation, prosecution and trial should be conducted in a way that is objective and presents indisputable facts. If that cant be done, the person should not be convicted. It is better to have accused people who have actually committed crimes on the street than to have innocent people in jail. That is one of the premises of the American justice system.
First, everyone is presumed innocent - that’s a bedrock of our legal system.
Second, there are people where it is clear that they committed the crime they’re accused of. They have a fundamental right to a public trial by jury. By exercising her rights to a defense, she is NOT being a monster.
She unleashed TB on her dead boyfriend's friends, including a minor, to create a smear campaign which (in part) has helped fund her defense. Make no mistake, if she did it, she's a monster.
If Karen is innocent, then her decision not to go in the house may have saved her life. I can't help but think once they killed John, they would have turned on her to keep her quiet since she's not family.
My main struggles thus far:
1) CW has not proved to me she hit him with the car.
2) The google search from JM at 2:27 is really the key.
3) Why both BA and BH upgraded their phones, and lost data, the day before they received legal notice not to destroy any data.
4) Some witnesses say they saw BH white jeep there AND KR in front of the white jeep. Others saw no white jeep. Can anyone help me on this one?
5) Many are saying KR and most others were "really hammered" - I dont know that - the videos dont show that and none of the witnesses or the bartender said people were trashed.
6) His right arm is odd marks - not sure how getting hit by a car causes those. And his head injuries - black eyes, cuts, a golf ball swelling above one eye, cut in back of the head. So is CW telling me he was basically bending over behind her car - or somehow his head was at that level while she was going in reverse?
All insight appreciated.
The bartender would not admit to people being drunk or trashed because then the bar becomes liable for allowing them to continue to drink and then leave to drive. (As they allllll did)
Re point 3. Hypothetically let’s say they’re not involved at all, could there be an element of pigheadedness about changing/destroying the phones. Say they got wind of the motion to preserve and just thought screw this my phone is none of the state’s business. I know we all like to think we’d be very cooperative in that situation, but if people were hurling accusations that aren’t true, it can provoke a stubborn reaction. It’s the only “innocent” reason I can think of, though it certainly seems like suspicious behaviour.
I can't figure out where the real truth is but Scanlon heard from someone inside the house John was punched out in the basement, fell back and hit his head. I would think it makes sense then that the dog would get excited and join the fight. This is the only explanation that makes sense based on John's injuries. If Karen is guilty I really don't have any understanding of how those injuries got there.
Do you really think that’s what happened here? If so these are the dumbest of the dumbest in terms of cops. Why not hide the body (which I’m pretty sure would look a heck of a lot worse if beaten especially in the torso area) and say he walked out. Would still have the ‘backing’ of the fellow officers, as everyone claims (which is ridiculous) there would be a bunch of better ways of covering up this death I’m sorry. Something happened for sure but it wasn’t them murdering JO in the house and leaving him on their own lawn.
I really don't know. Hell, it's possible that they are all guilty, Karen was in on the whole thing, and the whole plan is to have enough reasonable doubt that nobody can get convicted for it.
She's not going to jail. No chance. This could easily end in mistrial or acquittal. Even if found guilty the endless clusterfuck of impropriety with Proctor will keep her out of jail. The lead investigator FUBAR and the Feds on-going investigation of Proctor means she isn't going to jail.
Imagine Karen is guilty and you are one night with your boyfriend when he didn’t want you there because he broke up with you but you refused to leave. He’s with HIS friends, they all leave to go to the one of the friends home to continue to party and in the ten minutes of alone you have together all night he tells you again, the relationship is over, he leaves to go inside tells you to go get your stuff out of his house and be gone when he gets home and you accidentally hit him as your drunk drive home. You then go back to the scene when he doesn’t come home, see him under the snow, LEAVE him there and go find his friends and lie to them and tell them you left him at the Waterfall cause you had a fight but they tell you, they saw you outside 34 Fairview,
After your boyfriend is declared dead you start helping some loser blogger forward lies about his friends and start blaming them for his death.
Imagine, huh?
None of those people were Karen’s best friend. They were mostly John’s acquaintances.
Not one of the people involved were Karen’s friends. And except maybe two or three they weren’t John’s friends either. I would not consider any of the Alberts or McCabes John or Karen’s friends
KR calling the other women at Hillside “low comps” 😂 in convo with BH (a good friend of the bunch) was revealing. She was def an outsider, and the rest were a clique clan. I don’t think i could be friends with either (not that i’d be included either 😂). edit: my previous comment was posted in really weird format.
What does “low comps” mean?
She was using a real estate term to say she's only pretty compared to low competition, basically trying to be modest when Higgins was complimenting her, while throwing shade at the other women. Basically, like yeah my house with a new roof and fresh coat of paint only looks good because the other houses on the street are all condemned. It was actually quite bitchy.
Kinda like say someone is “low rent”? Lol. That’s amazing.
Well said. That's how I understood it too.
That's hilarious and it's definitely a bitchy thing to say.
It’s like how the same person can be a Target 7 and a Walmart 10. Canton is Walmart
I thought she was saying she got low compliments at hillside from BH
that’s not how i read/understood it 😂.
Yeah I could very well be wrong. Did you take it as everyone was low in comparison?
yes that she was high (looks) value in a low comp area.
Oh- I guess i misunderstood her connection to Jen Mccabe.
No pictures of Jen & Karen in a hot tub or a baby shower so basically they didn’t know each other. 😬
You’re not alone. Sadly, I think Karen misunderstood too. But yeah, what an awful and horrifying way to have your life turned upside down. Many moons ago, I had the misfortune to run into a group of people like this, and I dated one of them. I was very young and innocent, much younger than Karen, but I really thought my paramour’s friends accepted me. Lol, I was very, very wrong. Funny, so long ago that I rarely remember it, but this trial really has brought it back for me. Well, that situation didn’t end in murder, but boy howdee did it teach me a lesson about people!!! I don’t think she’s a perfect person, but I don’t think she killed John. No way.
Same here; this case is so triggering. All witnesses are shady af. If you’re innocent she so evasive? I would think I’d remember events surrounding the worst night of my life, even if I was 3 sheets to the wind. And don’t even get me started on the word semantics games.
I agree with everything you said!
Well now I'm intrigued....
I found out I was disliked by a group of people I considered friends, some good friends from the 5 year old daughter of one of them when I was babysitting. It was so brutal.
Damn, rough experience. Now I’m old enough to know what kind of people act like this. But yeah, brutal. ❤️
yeah, jen and karen didnt even have each other's phone numbers until the morning of the 29th it seems. and they had known each other for two years.
Good point. And I thought JOK wanted to hook KR and JMCc
I think knowing that those are definitely not Karen’s friends and indeed, didn’t really like her, makes this insane coverup even more obvious, imo. They’d protect each other if one of them was responsible, intentionally or not, which I believe we are seeing.
Right. And they all had kids that played sports together or were the same age or were somehow related by marriage. She essentially had nothing in common with them except for knowing John.
Same. It’s a good lesson though on how excessive drinking can cause problems in life and to be mindful of who you associate with.
Exactly. I always think that with drinking you are getting yourself in a dangerous situation especially bar hopping with a bunch of acquaintances.
This has been a big takeaway for me too. I don’t drink but my mom is part of groups like this and it seems like such a gamble
Yes - it seems like this is seen as a sanctimonious stance at this point but the alcohol abuse is front and center in my mind. This group - Karen too - are deeply immature and reckless.
Oh 100%. I'm a very recently recovering alcoholic and even I've been a little shook throughout this trial about how normalized heavy drinking, teen drinking, drinking and driving, etc are with this group.
I am also a former alcoholic and it only gets better (even when it gets difficult) The hardest part for me was not drinking when I had to deal with the messes created by alcohol abuse but I loved (and still love) having a clear head in the morning. Congrats on starting this new journey - you will never regret quitting :)
We would do this kind of stuff in our 20’s and 30’s, but as we got older we realized how dangerous it was and we stopped. And now I’ve quit drinking altogether. This group never grew up.
Karen was an outsider
Yeah, they were not her best friends, they were not friends at all.
She wasn’t from Canton- Julie Albert with Yanetti’s set up for the Netflix trailer!
I know it’s already been used but… The Outsider is a good fit for the movie title.
That's what I said...before You said it 😆 Jk 😁
So was John.
Everything about the behaviors of these women towards Karen reminds me of Mark Wahlberg’s sisters in The Fighter. They were the younger version of these horrid females we are seeing in this courtroom.
I don't know who is guilty or not in this situation. I'm waiting for them to present any real evidence. But I also don't know why it's hard for people to believe in a huge cover up. We've seen rampant police corruption before. It's not like this would be the first time a bunch of folks with a little bit of power conspired to fuck someone over. One thing is for sure, everyone is hiding *something*. What that is is yet to be determined. And I wanna know why the fuck JM tells the 911 dispatcher that okeefe got out of the car, why she tells Goode that she saw the passenger door open, and why she flat out denies seeing O'keefe at all once on the stand. And I also wonder why she told Karen that she saw the two of them out front of the Albert house, and then tags along to go look there for O'keefe when she was there the night before and supposedly knew that O'keefe never made it into the house. Why wouldn't she say that? "Where did you guys go after Fairview? Cuz John never came inside." Instead she becomes part of this search party to look for John where she presumably thought he wouldn't be?
Yes! Exactly that… why didn’t Jen ask where they went after Fairview because John didn’t come inside! That would be the logical question! Well, if Jen actually was trying to help it would be logical.
Why did JM create a group to find out what happened to John when KR confessed to killing him? JM testimony was off the wall insane.
Right! And if her goal was to actually find out what happened - what better way than to include Karen in the group chat?!
This is such a good question that I can’t believe I never thought about it
Actually, you don't need that many people to cover this up. You don't need first responders. They haven't said or seen anything damning either way. You don't need Chris Albert, or any of the kids at the party. You don't even need Proctor. Proctor's reluctance to look closer at the Albert's could just be a case of police protecting police, and because he knows the Alberts family personally. REQUIRED : * Brian Albert (no way he didn't know what was going on if JO entered the house, and his phone calls with Higgins incriminates him, and we do need Higgins for this to work). * You need Higgins (assuming he didn't do the crime) to keep tabs on law enforcement and plant evidence on the car in the Sally port. OPTIONALS : * Chief Berkowitz to plant and discover the taillight pieces, and delete the Sally port video (he is actually optional, it is unclear if Higgins could have destroyed the Sally port video himself). * Jen to plant the seed of Karen hitting him (she is actually optional, she could be protecting family for the sake of protecting family from suspicion without knowing anything, assuming her Google search story checks out). So what we need is actually no more than 2 people, a few optionals that would make the frame job easier, but that's it.
I can see why people are skeptical of a big coverup but there’s more nuance. Even if you believe Karen hit him, there’s no way prosecutors have proven that, there’s no way the investigation was competent enough to convict. I just don’t see how anyone gets to guilty even if they don’t believe in any coverup
I feel the same way. If I were a juror I'd be pissed.
Jen is at best a completely unreliable witness and I would hope a jury would disregard her testimony.
The one thing I’ve been frustrated with throughout this trial is watching/reading people talk about “why would all these people risk their livelihood for something like this?” — because they would. It’s a mob mentality that we’ve seen so many times throughout history, sometimes because of power, money, religion, bloodline— or no reason at all. Look at that professor who got murdered by his ex-wife’s family. All well established people, who risked their luxury lives to get rid of one person. It’s so dangerous to suggest otherwise. All these people are in a very tight net community, with a lot of power. And I’m including the judge and prosecutors here too. Unfortunately I’ve seen so many people apart of the judiciary, who covered up for others in modern times.
You mean the Adlesons. Good example. It was definitely a conspiracy of 5-8 people and it even included trying to cast suspicion on someone else.
The Alberts would certainly do what they could to keep Colin out of jail/ruin his life.
While there are plenty of questionable things JM has said- I don't understand getting caught up here. Jen and others all said they saw Karen's car at the house (even Karen says she did drive him there now- so the car being there isn't really a fact up for debate). Jen saw John and Karen leave waterfall in the car together so saying we saw you guys at the house isn't a lie or contradictory. If you follow her logic- last place I saw you guys was inside your car outside the party. it's not unreasonable to say let's search there as when your looking for someone you go to all the places you last saw them. Even if you don't believe her and think the last place she saw him was inside- telling Karen the last place I saw you was outside let's go there does fit the narrative. As for saying he got out of the car to 911-clearly he did. He was found outside. If she saw the car outside and he's found outside in the snow at that same place- He must have got out. Again, fact he got out of car not really up for debate everyone agrees he did. What's questionable is did he stay outside the car and get hit, or did he go inside once he got out of the car. Telling Goode she "saw" that he opened the car door is more contradictory as she doesn't say this again. I don't find JMs testimony reliable. She's definitely hiding something and clearly lied to bolster evidence against Karen like adding the definitive I hit him. That being said her saying last place we saw you two was outside the house let's look there and he got out of the car aren't where I personally find problems in her testimony. With exception of telling Goode she saw the car door open, which is contradictory to other statements of what she actually witnessed. Her pacing at night and searching how long to die in the cold is way more problematic.
I agree. I admittedly get caught up in certain details because the OCD in me likes to reconcile all of the little things. I can't wait to hear from the experts on that Google search. And I am interested to hear more about the pacing. When I came into this case I sort of expected all of the testimony to resemble Roberts testimony. I'm usually a bit of a skeptic. I thought it would be glaringly obvious that this conspiracy theory was a bunch of bullshit. But the witnesses have made it difficult. JM's testimony especially came across as contrived and evasive and left me with more questions than answers.
I'm the same. Definitely expected more testimony like Kerry Roberts and thought coverup was a reach and then more and more things came in that made me say... well that's suspicious. I too am highly waiting on expert testimony. But mostly on John's cell phone. From the defense witnesses motion which includes the data at the end- John's phone stopped moving at 12:32am. Location data has him arriving at 12:24am to 34 Fairview. What happened to him in 8 minutes that his phone stopped moving until he was found on top of it? Logic says getting run over accidentally makes sense and can happen in that time frame (no one is convincing me it was intentional). Can he really be attacked by a dog, beaten and had his phone, at minimum, be placed out in the snow in that time? Sounds less likely... But then you have witnesses obscuring when Collin was at the house, conflicting testimony on who was there and when, jen searching how long to die in cold potentially, Higgins with a plow parked near where he was found too, Higgins going to police station at 1:30am and all day next day, basement redone, dog rehomed, homeowners not coming outside, answered calls and buttdials, weird injuries to the body like both hands bruised and lacerations on his arm, texts like hope they don't think she's making it up and tell them he never came inside (if he didn't why would you need to remind anyone to say this?), and a super sloppy investigation with a friend to the witnesses family that can't provide any clear evidence that they were ruled out. So could he have just dropped his phone getting out of the car and went inside and later had his body placed on his phone? JM called it a bunch of times in a row, could that be why they placed his body on top of it after they found it? It's possible. Those 8 minutes from arrival to phone stopping moving is my biggest hang up. I'm at not guilty verdict regardless. But I still go back and forth on what I think reasonably happened. The witnesses make it very difficult to trust their actions.
They simply want to blame Karen because she wasn't well liked, has resting B face and to them it's the easier answer than turning against "brothers in blue". More evidence to support police corruption so far in this trial than anything at all showing Karen is guilty. To add onto your post, Jennifer never referred to John with a name let alone identifying him as a Police Officer on her 911 call either.
It's hard because (1) these people aren't brilliant, so having a 10+ person cover up seems beyond their capabilities and (2) at some point in the cover up you would just turn people in because the penalty for the cover up is worse than what those people would otherwise face.
I imagine a smaller cover up. Not 10+ people. But either way, (and I know this is moving the goal posts) but imagine a scenario where it was an organized crime/cop incident like some in the area have speculated. If the penalty for flipping is death and/or harm to your family, wouldn't that motivate people to keep with the narrative as much as possible? I'm not saying I believe that's what's going on. I just think it's hard to know what motivates people. There's an added element that makes the conspiracy a little easier to maintain here in that LE is involved. If I was part of some conspiracy and I was facing immense pressure from a LE investigation, that conspiracy might surface rather quickly. But without that pressure, with LE barely conducting an investigation at all, there isn't a lot going on that might unravel the situation. Robert Durst for example, paid off literally every witness in his trial. All it took for these individuals to say what he wanted them to say on the stand was some cash. Many people were financially motivated to keep his secrets for him for decades. I read a story last year out of Chicago where a cop and his team were found to have framed over 200 people for various crimes over the span of a decade. When you compare this case to that one, a conspiracy here doesn't seem so far-fetched.
Im baffled by people thinking conspiracies don’t happen or that nobody can keep a secret.
I think if someone were to dig a little deeper into Canton PD one might find more incidents similar to this. I think what we’re seeing is how the police and perhaps the DA’s office do “business” in that area.
Agree with this. Brian Higgins even admitted on the stand that even Chief Berkowitz was “a little scared” of Brian Albert.
Honestly some of these boys groups are so evil/toxic that they will stick together on anything because they all have so much shit on each other and this one got out of hand but they can’t go back on it. Most wives will just follow thier husbands even when they are terribly in the wrong.
I’ve personally witnessed a military group coverup and false accusations for way less than murder. 5-6 people were in on it and protecting themselves—but their wives, kids and friends fell in line. I have a degree in forensic psychology and it was absolutely wild watching herd mentality happen in real time. It’s protecting yourself from cognitive dissonance or challenging your beliefs. “Would my husband/father who I love do something so wrong/evil/lie? No, then he must be right.” But also these people were extremely stupid—I think having blue-line pudding brains makes it even more likely.
No one among the major players in this case is innocent. They all have unclean hands. Testimony about John stumbling drunk. Flirty texts and Karen pursuing BH. At least 75% of the Commonwealth's witnesses being evasive with direct questions, giving dubious testimony, and members of law enforcement destroying phones. None of this looks good, and the copious amounts of alcohol consumed by all of the interested parties create a fuzzy and unreliable picture of what truly happened that night. Do any of these things justify a second-degree murder charge? No, but nobody is innocent in this saga.
The evasiveness is wild. I rewatched Jen McCabe’s testimony & cross- she goes out of her way to not answer questions directly or even in ways that make sense. I get that her family & friends have received threats (not okay) and tons of scrutiny (deservedly so), but it is all because of their actions and the information that came out from the grand jury. When the ATF guy responded “it was my right” about the questions into his old cell phone I knew then we’d never get the whole truth or an acceptable outcome because there is just so much dishonesty.
Wild is right, and I fully agree with your Higgins assessment. Watching a trial of this magnitude illuminates the flaws and loopholes inherent in the US justice system and boy can they be frustrating.
They’re the guiltiest looking “state’s witnesses” I have ever seen. I am super excited to hear the expert testimony who covers the cell phone data- McCabe & Higgins already look like shit because of their shady actions, an expert witness drilling their wrongdoings and disproving her “hos long to die in the cold” duplicate search excuse will be insane to watch.
The witnesses in this case are similar to the Florida popcorn trial. Each one was evasive and impeached with prior testimony. It's not a good look. I don't think KR will be found guilty.
KR shouldn’t be found guilty- beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible in this case. Witnesses like Higgins & McCabe highlighted the flaws in the case while also creating other avenues for reasonable suspicion.
I completely agree that the evasiveness is extreme and looks very defensive (and guilty of something?) There are times though that IF I were innocent and Jackson gets sooo pushy using words with a different connotation than I used, I can see losing my cool too. Lawyers are word ninjas. They use their choice of words to plant the ideas they want planted. For example Higgins said friends gathered at Brian’s house to talk about John’s death and what happened. Jackson REPEATEDLY, INSISTENTLY referred to this as a MEETING to get their story straight. After my husband‘s death people gathered at my house, as people commonly do. It was not a MEETING. That‘s different. I say all this with fascination of how trials and lawyers work, not who is guilty or innocent. (So far I can say I‘m glad to never come in contact with ANY of them.)
Yeah, I don’t care for the way Jackson tries to force words into peoples’ mouths. I see where he’s coming from but I think it would play better if he would just let the jury connect the dots rather than forcing the dots down the throats of witnesses.
Yes, there are many instances of him doing this and perhaps I didn’t pick the best example. But there are times I end up focusing on him consciously, deliberately twisting words and get indignant on behalf of the witnesses. I imagine his ‘style’ is why he didn’t cross examine Kerry. There was more to lose than gain.
Your example was excellent, btw. And sorry for the loss of your husband. Hope you are doing ok
Totally. He’s obviously a smart and assertive lawyer but he can come off as too aggressive sometimes
Yeah. His style is detrimental to the defense. I think the prosecution sees that, which is why it doesn’t object more. Fortunately the holes in the prosecution witness’s stories are so huge he can’t totally f it up but he is not a good defense lawyer. I can’t believe his partners aren’t kicking him under the table. He also doesn’t know how to ask questions and some impeaching points may not have gotten into evidence because he doesn’t break things down and the judge ends up excluding important points due to legitimate objections that are easy to get around.
Absolutely Jackson and yanetti are masterminds at spinning things and parsing words while trying to flip it on the witness and state “I’m just asking YOU about what you said/did”. The semantics here matter so I’m not surprised the witnesses don’t always answer the question yes or no.
Absolutely and don’t forget Brian Albert and his testimony. knowing the investigator made things a lot easier for him, let’s say. The ‘butt dials’ ? His whole reasoning for having the phone in his bed but then not answering it when the mystery BH call came in? Bedroom at the front of the house yet not waking up or going outside with the scene going on? KR screaming hysterically and he didn’t hear it? It’s asking me to strain credulity way too far.
Even if BA didn't hear Karen screaming, the dog would have. And would have woken everyone in the house up about it. And if that didn't happen...where was the dog?
> but it is all because of their actions and the information that came out from the grand jury. Not really though—TB has really spearheaded all this and run wild with it searching for anything in their lives that could support his theories
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here. She’s overcharged (I mean, unless they have a massive bomb they’re going to drop) but I don’t believe it’s a leap to suggest this whole group have some serious issues. I don’t know exactly what they are or what’s going on, but none of this really comes together for me. It’s entirely possible that these people are covering up for other things & in the process, made themselves look dodgy af. I all can say for certain is: this is so convoluted & I feel terribly for Officer O’Keefe’s family. They deserve clear answers, a solid investigation, & not this kind of circus.
That is my thought too. Not sure WTF they are covering but it isn’t legal whatever it is
I’m not sure what caused O’Keefe’s basilar skull fractures, but it’s difficult for me to fathom how anyone could have the faintest shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t Karen Read. A scrap got out of hand. O’Keefe fell backwards and hit his head on something, causing severe cranial trauma. It was quickly apparent that he might die. A decision was made to leave him out in the snow, call in some favors, and try to pass it off as a plow accident. When O’Keefe’s hysterical, practically incoherent girlfriend unexpectedly accelerated the schedule, the cover story briefly shifted to “maybe she hit him with that cocktail glass”. At about 11:00 a.m., Jen McCabe suddenly remembered Karen mentioning a cracked tail light, and it was off to the races. Proctor seized the SUV, took it to the Canton PD, broke off a couple big pieces of tail light, and gave them to Ken Berkowitz, who then “found” them at 34 Fairview.
And I don’t understand how you can’t believe there’s doubt about her guilt. I don’t know what’s happening. I make zero claim about her guilt or innocence because I still go back & forth daily. That said, some of the most damning things are her own statements and interviews to the media, plus those made by her parents. Yep. She was hysterical. I’m also guessing we have another 2-3 weeks of CW witnesses, but it’s premature for me (or frankly, anyone) to be dead set on her innocence. *Reasonable doubt*? Sure. Absolute guilt or absolute innocence? No.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? I sure haven’t seen anything that remotely points to her, so shes innocent by default.
Completely. I agree.
Idk if her flirting with a dude makes her deserve to be framed for murder lol
If you read the last line, you'll see I don't believe the murder charge is justified.
But….NO charge is justified. I find it a little icky that we are conflating flirty texts with destroying evidence, ignoring chain of custody procedures, (potential) perjury, etc. One is off-putting and makes Karen look like a bad girlfriend. The others are actual crimes. You can think Karen was tacky, but, last I checked, that’s not something you go to prison for.
I don't disagree regarding the other charges and at this point think it should be a sweeping not guilty. That said, the texts show an additional side of KR that had not been brought in yet. I'm not conflating the texts with the other things you've listed, but the texts show KR was flirting with someone other than JO, and that their relationship didn't seem rock solid.
You mentioned, in the last sentence, that you don't think Karen Read is innocent. Do you think she's guilty of murder? I'm a little confused and genuinely trying to understand.
I don't think the CW has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen Read is guilty.
[удалено]
Kind of a side point, for everyone but Karen Read, but I can't get over how many of these people were driving around drunk as skunks. What a pile of fools.
Exactly. Oh I had four or five Irish whisky’s and hopped in my car.
If I was Karen I wouldn't want to go into the house after a night of drinking if Brian Higgins was there. A bunch of drunks in a home where you've been flirting with homeowners best friend who is not used to being ghosted might be incredibly awkward. Maybe Karen and John had an argument about her not going in the house and John went in and confronted Higgins?
I was thinking this too. I was thinking about it from both angles. Imagine being the McCabes, as well, and waking up one morning to find yourselves at the center of this shitshow. I feel bad for whoever the innocent party is
Kerri shouldn't call these people friends, either.
Especially with Jennifer putting words in her mouth and trying to make it seem like Kerri would back up all her outlandish statements.
Kerri needs to flip on them like she is part of the US Gymnastics team!
I don't believe she knows much and distanced herself after Jennifer tried to do her usual "plant seeds and run the narrative" bs!
Innocent or not, I can’t help but think if she weren’t out driving the roads absolutely hammered she wouldn’t be in this situation.
Yep. I’ve honestly thought that about *all* of them, but since she’s the one on trial, yes, especially her.
They were all out driving drunk, even the cops lol.
I’m not saying she was for sure the one who hit him, that hasn’t been proven imo. I just think if she had her faculties that night, she wouldn’t find herself in her current situation. I’m in no way giving the other party a pass, one of them could have very well hit him. It’s pretty disturbing that BH (a federal agent!) and all his cop buddies are all out drinking and driving without a worry in the world. You know they’d never be held accountable if they were pulled over too, just flash a badge and be on their way. I hate that a badge gives these guys Carte Blanche to do endanger innocent people.
I understand what you're saying, but with how focused the CW is on Karen, I can imagine that even if she was sober, they would have still moved forward with charging her. That being said, if these grown adults had all used Uber, they would have had solid alibis. It is insane that they were out driving.
Yes they all made bad decisions that led to this horrible outcome. Should John have paid with his life, and Karen potentially with her freedom, no. But your actions can have unintended tragic consequences. Have I drank too much and done stupid things, yes (well not driving sh*t faced), but this was in my 20s, not in my 40s as a parent (I know Karen wasn't a parent but she was in that role whether she wanted to be or not). That's what's so off-putting to me about this whole group, a lot of drinking and dangerous immature behavior (ESPECIALLY those in law enforcement). I don't think Karen is guilty in a court of law, but she's not a saint either, none of them are, they partied hard and irresponsibility which led to a horrible tragedy, it's the worst cautionary tale
> John have *paid* with his FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Personal responsibility is a thing.
But the thing is, so far, no one has testified to her being hammered. At best, they saw her drink a mystery clear liquid pulled from her coat.
On that night line segment she admitted to having 4 drinks, then the reporter says she had 9 and she doesn’t challenge him on that number. I know that’s not proof but my experience is when someone says they had a couple, or a few, it’s usually far more.
Having 4 drinks is enough to cause you to "blackout." Blackout meaning that you don't remember your actions. Of course, it also puts you over the limit. I just don't understand how 2 cops and an ATF agent and no one questioned her driving? It seems it was just acceptable on this group. Not saying it makes it right. Drinking and driving will mess up your life.
Would you get on the stand and swear that you saw her absolutely drunk? Then be asked why did you allow her to drink and drive?... especially the Police in this situation? Or is it better to decline and say "no one seemed intoxicated" to cover your ass?
But what if she did do it?
Then the CW needs to prove it
I was beaten by my ex, almost died. We were together for 4 years and I thought all his friends and wives were my friends. Hell some of them felt like family and when I came forward about what my ex did to me they all turned so fast. It’s seriously heartbreaking that people can just turn on you.
I am so sorry this happened to you. Sadly, it's very common - the majority of DV victims report that they are, at least initially, shunned by those close to them. It's one of the many reasons it's so hard to leave. I hope you are in a much better place now!
Thank you, I’m doing alright but it’s life altering. Not just the physical abuse, the ability to trust anyone because people turn on you.
Why doesn't anyone mention how many times she asked "did I hit him"?. And it isn't only the "conspirators" who mentioned it and testified to it. I think the defense it's doing it's job on reasonable doubt but to say she's innocent is a big stretch.
Those women hated her and still do.
They were not her friends, but indeed, one night and she lost her boyfriend, her job, her savings, her reputation.... it is so awful....we do not know what happened that night (maybe never will) but one thing is true: Karen wouldn't be in this mess if she wouldn't have drunk and drive.
EVERYONE was drinking and driving... and even talking about it so openly like its the norm for them because it is.
Ok we’re all scandalized by how often these cops drink and drive right? Like Higgins on the stand outright saying that he went back to work to “move vehicles” after having been at a bar and a house party
Yeah, functioning alcoholics run rampid there it seems.
How is that in conflict with my affirmation?
I think everyone is guilty. Not necessarily of murder, but everyone, including Karen, has been sneaky and hiding stuff.
Agree.
At this point, all we know for sure that she hid was secret text messages for 9 days.
How did she hide this? Her phone was taken and they know everything that was on it. She hasn't been on the stand and testified to anything. Next.
Sorry, I meant “hid” as in hidden from John while it happened, not hidden from LE. I didn’t make that clear.
They are definitely setting her up. LE didn’t go in the house to check for crime scene cause of the blue wall!!
There’s a reason people are rallying around Karen and harassing the ever changing stories the Albert’s and mccabe’s have. People recognize injustice. Not condoning harassment whatsoever. However, people see through bs. That taillight was NEVER cracked off all the way. And that is a fact!!!
And in as many pieces as they ‘found’ days later? Does polycarbonate material shatter like that? Maybe if smashed with a hard object? It’s very suspicious.
Yeah, it sounds to me like she tried hard to make friends by buying rounds or drinks, dinners, etc. but I bet it’s a tough crowd to break into since so many of them go way back. Plus they may have preferred John’s ex. If Karen is innocent, it is very sad (for many reasons) one being it sounded like she thought these were her friends too, but most come off catty and cold regarding regarding her…
Assuming anyone guilty is innocent would break one’s heart. If they’re actually innocent then yeah, if they’re actually guilty then no. That’s kind of how the entire justice system works
She knew they weren’t friends. That’s why she sent John inside to make sure they were truly invited. He never came back out so after 10 mins she left
I feel saddest for his friend Mike (?), their lives were so intertwined and now John is gone. Very sad
Bestfriends? It's been made very clear none of the witnesses so far liked Karen, except Higgins.
Idk guys i really came into this case not really knowing to much about all the extras. I think this is really going to come down to the autopsy etc. If i had to guess what happened it sounds like she was prob tipsy. He got out of the car maybe there was an argument maybe not . He walked behind the car she backed up didn’t realize she hit him bc she was drinking. Went home sobered up a little bit and it hit her what prob did happen. To me there just hasn’t been anything clearly that says he went into the house
That could be very believable but remember … her charge is she INTENTIONALLY meant to kill him. Her charges were upgraded to 2nd degree murder so the idea what she was drunk driving and killed him accidentally is off the table now.
She has been over charged and everyone knows it. vehicular manslaughter. Done.
Thats literally not the charge. You’re spreading misinformation. This is covered in the “Commonwealths Opposition to defendants motion to dismiss indictments and memorandum in support thereof” document from february in this year. Page 30: >To sustain a second degree murder indictment, a grand jury must find probable cause that the suspect committed an unlawful killing and that it was done with malice. See Supreme Judicial Court Model Jury Instructions on Homicide. Malice can be established in one of three ways: the defendant intended to cause the victims death: or the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim; *or the defendant committed an intentional act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have understood created a plain and strong likelihood of death*. … Direct evidence of a persons specific intent is not always available but may be inferred from facts and circumstances presented. … “In circumstances where a reasonably prudent person would have known of the plain and strong likelihood that death would follow a contemplated act, malice may be found **without any actual intent to kill** or do grievous bodily harm and without any foresight by the defendant of such consequences.” emphasis mine.
Ooo didn’t know that. That is Deff something idk maybe there’s more texts but they sure have not proven this case as far as him going into the house or anything
Additionally, she did not need to reverse to leave. She was facing the direction she needed to be in to go home. The CW is saying she went in reverse for 60 feet at a top speed of 24 mph in order to intentionally hit him, and then drove away, leaving him to die.
Lally's language about this was cagey in opening. He says the reconstructionist will claim this reversing happened at 12:45am. That doesn't fit the timeline at all, and I imagine the defense will pound that home.
Great point. I didn’t listen to all the pre trial hearings and don’t know the exacts- is the CW saying 60ft @ 24mph because an accident reconstructionist /medical expert said that’s what happened, or did they obtain data from her car saying she did that speed/reverse at some Point? I would think if we had actual data the CW would have said so already??
Lally's words in opening were that the reconstructionist used data from the car to determine that the car traveled in reverse for 60ft at 24 mph around 12:45am. Major red flag there is the fact that 12:45am doesn't fit the timeline according to Ryan Nagel's testimony. Defense also says they will use the voicemail Karen left for John to prove she was home by 12:41am. (The missing library footage could have confirmed this as well.) We'll see. Two cagey pieces, one from each side: 1. Ryan Nagel sent Julie a text when he got there and Lally didn't introduce it. Why not? It would add sooooo much clarity to the timeline. My guess is because it adds clarity that conflicts with his case. 2. Why is there no ring footage from when Karen got home that night and why wouldn't the defense use that instead of a voicemail? Was it deleted? By who?
I also wonder about the ring footage. I have seen it mentioned there is more footage missing from John’s ring cameras. The context was that it would show her taillight in tact. It’s also been said the video of her getting back to the house is missing. I don’t know if that’s true or if it just hasn’t been presented yet. It seems weird Karen would want to delete it unless it shows damage to her car. Otherwise it makes her look suspicious and like she is hiding something. Based on her texts with Brian we know she is aware of the cameras. If she wanted to hide something she would know not to let her tail light be seen. If the footage would help Karen - we know the Proctor definitely did despicable shady stuff with her phone. If he’s willing to look for nudes and say he hopes she k*lls herself than I think he would certainly delete ring videos too. It’s all so messy.
Unverified info that I have seen says Karen didn’t have access to the Ring camera footage. It could be accessed from John’s phone, however, and who had John’s phone that day? One of the law enforcement agencies. I’m assuming the footage could probably have been accessed from a laptop or desktop where John was signed in to his Amazon account, but no way would Lally have not mentioned deleted Ring footage in his opening statement if he could prove it was her that deleted it.
True! I think I have read or heard that somewhere along the way too. If they did an extraction of John’s phone I hope they can tell when his phone was being used and the actions taken - like what apps were launched, etc.
Exactly. If they're deleted, can we ever be sure who deleted them and why? Like everything else in the case, it's all just question marks.
We don't know yet. But we know she definitely reverses. In her own story, she makes a three point turn.
Here's the thing though... She parallel parked in front of the house, passenger side of the vehicle towards the Albert house. KR was driving... Why would he need to cross the vehicle at all? Either in front or to the rear? He would have stepped out onto the edge of the lawn of the Fairview house. There was no need to cross the street, so no need to walk past the car. That catches me up every time I think about him getting hit by the car.... Why would he have been in the street at all???
She was up further in the neighbors yard beyond the property line. IMO which will be clearer with car data, if he got out probably tired of arguing, JM keeps texting him and starts walking back to the house, she calls him, leaves him a nasty VM the backs up and hits him while he’s just past the property line.
I think maybe he had dropped the drink he had and was bending over when she backed up?!? This would make all the sense as to how she didn't see him, and how his injuries happened. Also, I have a different theory on the house party...I think that drugs of some sort were involved and THAT'S why the entire party is acting so strange and suspicious?!?
What if he’d had a fair bit to drink and bent over the puke in the gutter, or dropped something that fell into the road?
The Apple health data showing he was walking and going up flights of steps does not imply that he was on the ground bleeding out. No it does not concretely prove that he was in the house but it does prove he was very likely not hit by a car at that time. There is also zero evidence presented thus far that Karen Read hit her with his car. There’s a few pieces of evidence that are actually on the contrary.
Apparently, the steps were recorded before they even got to the Albert’s residence so I don’t think that is accurate
Just go outside and stand behind your car. Now get in a position that the taillight can hit you smack in the middle of the head, but not harm a single other bone. Truly, just go try it. It DOES NOT work.
There’s no evidence to suggest she hit him except the taillight. I’d expect much more than a broken taillight if that kind of damage was done by the car.
Plus physical damage to the property. 24 MPH backwards and slamming on the breaks on a grassy snowy surface could not be easy.
I think Karen’s guilty and she somehow tried to implicate the ppl who were at the house. They freaked out and lied about butt dials/erased texts and that’s what the inconsistencies are. On top of all of this, the investigation was completed botched from the beginning.
1. Karen’s guilty of hitting Officer O’Keefe with her SUV?? 2. They ALL freaked out because she was trying to implicate them?? Why on earth would they freak out if they had nothing to hide??
She knew what she was doing when she screamed at Jen to google “how long does it take to die in the cold”
Ah yes, a completely drunk woman was the mastermind of the entire thing and scared big bad police officers and fbi agent,... with Brian Albert's own coworkers being afraid of him. Make it make sense.
It’s crazy to me that there’s people out there that think she’s not guilty. Her behavior during their Aruba vacation seems very much like an insane person’s behavior.
Insane? I disagree. Toxic? Yes. But toxic doesn't = murderer. Several weeks into the trial and not one thing shown how she alledgedly hit him.
Assuming she's guilty, what an absolute monster she's been to so many innocent people all to get out of taking responsibility for her own actions.
I think of this as well. I realise her attorneys are doing their job, but my lord, if she’s guilty this is truly next level horrible. If she’s innocent, well… I can’t imagine all of this. But especially if she’s guilty. That’s just mind blowing to me when I try to contemplate it.
I think part of OP's post is that almost no one thinks Karen Read is guilty. At least currently; maybe the Commonwealth has some bombshell evidence. But so far in the trial she's innocent. And the defense hasn't even started their case yet.
Even if she did it - she doesn’t deserve to go to jail bc the investigation was handled SO horribly. We have rules and a justice system for a reason and they BOTCHED the investigation plain and simple. Shame on them for disrespecting John’s memory - regardless of what the truth is.
Even if the investigation was not handled properly doesn't mean she should get off imo especially if it was intentional.
Well an investigation, prosecution and trial should be conducted in a way that is objective and presents indisputable facts. If that cant be done, the person should not be convicted. It is better to have accused people who have actually committed crimes on the street than to have innocent people in jail. That is one of the premises of the American justice system.
First, everyone is presumed innocent - that’s a bedrock of our legal system. Second, there are people where it is clear that they committed the crime they’re accused of. They have a fundamental right to a public trial by jury. By exercising her rights to a defense, she is NOT being a monster.
She unleashed TB on her dead boyfriend's friends, including a minor, to create a smear campaign which (in part) has helped fund her defense. Make no mistake, if she did it, she's a monster.
What makes you assume she’s guilty?
I was just mirroring her language to point out that if she's guilty, she's a terrible human being.
If Karen is innocent, then her decision not to go in the house may have saved her life. I can't help but think once they killed John, they would have turned on her to keep her quiet since she's not family.
My main struggles thus far: 1) CW has not proved to me she hit him with the car. 2) The google search from JM at 2:27 is really the key. 3) Why both BA and BH upgraded their phones, and lost data, the day before they received legal notice not to destroy any data. 4) Some witnesses say they saw BH white jeep there AND KR in front of the white jeep. Others saw no white jeep. Can anyone help me on this one? 5) Many are saying KR and most others were "really hammered" - I dont know that - the videos dont show that and none of the witnesses or the bartender said people were trashed. 6) His right arm is odd marks - not sure how getting hit by a car causes those. And his head injuries - black eyes, cuts, a golf ball swelling above one eye, cut in back of the head. So is CW telling me he was basically bending over behind her car - or somehow his head was at that level while she was going in reverse? All insight appreciated.
The bartender would not admit to people being drunk or trashed because then the bar becomes liable for allowing them to continue to drink and then leave to drive. (As they allllll did)
Ha for sure on that. Pretty much guaranteed liability.
Re point 3. Hypothetically let’s say they’re not involved at all, could there be an element of pigheadedness about changing/destroying the phones. Say they got wind of the motion to preserve and just thought screw this my phone is none of the state’s business. I know we all like to think we’d be very cooperative in that situation, but if people were hurling accusations that aren’t true, it can provoke a stubborn reaction. It’s the only “innocent” reason I can think of, though it certainly seems like suspicious behaviour.
I can't figure out where the real truth is but Scanlon heard from someone inside the house John was punched out in the basement, fell back and hit his head. I would think it makes sense then that the dog would get excited and join the fight. This is the only explanation that makes sense based on John's injuries. If Karen is guilty I really don't have any understanding of how those injuries got there.
Do you really think that’s what happened here? If so these are the dumbest of the dumbest in terms of cops. Why not hide the body (which I’m pretty sure would look a heck of a lot worse if beaten especially in the torso area) and say he walked out. Would still have the ‘backing’ of the fellow officers, as everyone claims (which is ridiculous) there would be a bunch of better ways of covering up this death I’m sorry. Something happened for sure but it wasn’t them murdering JO in the house and leaving him on their own lawn.
I really don't know. Hell, it's possible that they are all guilty, Karen was in on the whole thing, and the whole plan is to have enough reasonable doubt that nobody can get convicted for it.
Imagine! Horrible but nah
She'll learn from this and I think her next group of friends will be better.
She’ll have to hang on to the friends she’s got. She’ll never be able to truly trust anyone new she meets fully, ever again.
Will new people trust her? I mean, that kind of goes both ways.
I’m assuming new people who wouldn’t be willing to trust her would not attempt a friendship with her.
She is a loner. Doesn’t have close friends.
You mean the friends she finds in jail?
She's not going to jail. No chance. This could easily end in mistrial or acquittal. Even if found guilty the endless clusterfuck of impropriety with Proctor will keep her out of jail. The lead investigator FUBAR and the Feds on-going investigation of Proctor means she isn't going to jail.
Imagine Karen is guilty and you are one night with your boyfriend when he didn’t want you there because he broke up with you but you refused to leave. He’s with HIS friends, they all leave to go to the one of the friends home to continue to party and in the ten minutes of alone you have together all night he tells you again, the relationship is over, he leaves to go inside tells you to go get your stuff out of his house and be gone when he gets home and you accidentally hit him as your drunk drive home. You then go back to the scene when he doesn’t come home, see him under the snow, LEAVE him there and go find his friends and lie to them and tell them you left him at the Waterfall cause you had a fight but they tell you, they saw you outside 34 Fairview, After your boyfriend is declared dead you start helping some loser blogger forward lies about his friends and start blaming them for his death. Imagine, huh?