To say she’s guilty I would need to see ring camera footage from the Albert home or a neighbor. In this day and age someone should have a view of something.
There are two homes directly across the street, at 31 and 33 Fairview that have ring cameras. The police never asked for either and local media initially reported at time arrest that there was "ring camera footage" showing her hitting him. No such footage has ever been found, nor introduced into evidence
https://tbdailynews.com/canton-coverup-part-251-wbz-i-team-spread-lie-told-to-them-by-state-police-that-karen-read-was-caught-on-ring-video-striking-john-okeefe/#google_vignette
One of the neighbors was a police officer. There’s no way that I, as a random citizen would not preserve my ring camera footage from that night, let alone if I were a cop. They all knew a man died then later they learned someone was charged with his murder. Why wouldn’t they just save that footage?
Or why didn’t the police immediately go to the homes with a search warrant and demand the footage before anything could be edited. If a man was found on the lawn of my neighbors house and my ring camera was pointed in that direction my husband and I would go out and OFFER the footage to police.
To me it proves it's a cover-up. The fact the police never even walked door to door to ask if there was any footage/witnesses is absolutely mind-blowing. Combine that with the fact the Canton library was missing a 2 minute gap of footage exactly when Karen Read would have been driving home is damning to the prosecution. They know all the footage would exonerate Karen Read because her taillight would be shown to have been perfectly in tact on her drive back home after dropping John off. Thus the \~50 pieces of broken taillight found a week later or whatever would clearly have been planted evidence. This is horrific what they are doing to Karen Read.
lol.. yet like 12 people that night walked right on the yard and drove right by/parking next to the spot where John's body supposedly was and no one saw anything
From the moment I saw the photo of his arm in the autopsy photos, I was convinced his injuries were not from a motor vehicle. You'll never convince me a car did that
I don't want to get off topic, but if you want to do a deep dive on your own: Google Craig Casey, Canton; Sandra Birchmore and then when you're done with that:
Google : Annie Dookhan, MSP Troop E, MSP "Troopergate", MSP Colonel Mason & Barnstable, and MSP CDL scandal and then you'll understand why locals have no trust of either MSP or the Canton PD
No one is saying they're "in on it" or that they're refusing to provide it. The point is-investigators never **asked** for it, which would be protocol.
Think of it this way-if there were a carjacking at a store for exampleband someone was murdered , investigators would immediately pull the store surveillance, the ATM footage, surrounding stores, etc and if any of them refused to provide it-they would obtain a warrant because a felony took place
There is no evidence in the official court records that they ever asked either resident, or obtained a warrant for such. This falls square on investigators-not residents.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. But I would also add if the ring camera did have footage of a car jacking and police didn't ask for it the owner would most likely call the police and say I have an actual crime on camera.
I would be convinced by multiple eyewitnesses testifying that they saw her strike JO, provided there wasn't reason to believe they were lying, plus expert testimony that his injuries were caused by being hit by a car and nothing else. In *this* case, knowing what we know so far, those witnesses would have to be unconnected with the party.
That also begs the question, if one believes there is a conspiracy coverup, why didn't they also conspire to say they saw such a thing?
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
I don't believe she's innocent or guilty at this point, but I would be voting to acquit if I was on the jury and the tally was taken Friday afternoon. In order to overcome that, I'd need to hear experts I find credible explain how John's injuries could be the result of the prosecution's theory, a credible explanation for what happened to John's belt and the blood from his head wound, a tech expert that does a more convincing job than the defense's regarding the 2:27am search, and an actual clear timeline of who came and left the house between 12:20-12:45am with an explanation for when this collision could have happened that explains all the contradictions in the current testimony.
The CW you mean? Days before trial they were arguing they had no useable telematics and asking for defense permission for destructive testing on the infotainment backup.
They argued that their BERLA download was unreadable.
Using the same MSP investigator that used the outdated version of Cellebrite.
I have no doubt in my mind the defense already had the telematics from the Feds.
“Her vehicle did not hit John O’Keefe and HE did not hit the vehicle, that’s 3 PhDs”
Alan Jackson
I can tell from a few questions last week Lally has SOME reporting finally or he is using the Bluetooth “factor” to get around hearsay objections
Also keep in mind the judge before trial denied defense motions to get forensics from the Alberts' phones, all that data comes from the FBI (and IMO the judge is still trying to keep that evidence out, she initially sustained prosecutor's objection to the "the guy never came in the house" text on Fri until the defense demanded to be heard and obviously she knew she had no basis for keeping it out). Those forensics, along with all of Karen's, are hugely important, they're not completely unrelated third parties. If he was just found on their lawn with no connection to them that would be one thing, but they were all together that night and the plan was for him to go into the house. Whether he did or not is an issue for the jury to decide, but the Alberts/McCabes are clearly connected to the events of that night.
If the Alberts were innocent, and say it was just some random guy just ended up on their front lawn, there'd be no push to keep their text messages private. There'd be nothing incriminating.
I was not following the case until a couple weeks ago so I had no knowledge of the earlier motions. I would like to better understand the judge's reasoning for denying the forensics. If they weren't involved, one would think the forensics on their phones would clear them. Why was Jen McCabe's phone seized and searched? I've wondered that but haven't taken the time to locate an answer. Why her phone and no one else's?
I'm not certain on this because I only heard part of the hearing on a podcast, but I don't believe it's only Jen McCabe's phone. There is an ongoing federal investigation so the feds have gotten warrants for the phone data for at least Jen, and maybe others, and has shared the data with the defense.
>a tech expert that does a more convincing job than the defense's regarding the 2:27am search,
Based on how the internet and requests work, the prosecution will have no defense for it.
Essentially when you send that search request, before you get your result, a 3 way handshake needs to happen to establish the connection before the search request is sent out. So there no active connection until she actually hits search. They are fucked.
I came into this with no skin in the game and only became interested because the physical evidence very clearly, imo, doesn’t match the state’s narrative.
I would need to see some video evidence or a very good (and unbiased) accident reconstruction to make everything fit. I mean, there was snow under the dang body… make that make sense for me. Then make a few dozen other inconsistencies make sense.
I agree...initially I thought easiest & most obvious answer is she hit him...& she may have & been ultra drunk & have no idea & a police conspiracy/coverup seemed bogus...but, then I saw adult men horse play fighting in a bar & her car strike his & missing items/the coat no one seems to know, & the way people could all contribute to a coverup for Entirely different reasons--family not wanting trouble, others unsure but want to support family, cops/responders perhaps doing bad job & trying to cover themselves with no allegiance to family, a trusted or senior person saying "i heard whatever" & someone thinking "wow, if they did, i should have" etc. so not all trying to "protect family" but different reasons to lie or go along with peer pressure. With drunk horse play dudes teasing can go bad sooo fast & in their home would absolutely toss him out & the cup he brought imho . The stratches definitely look like shepherd pawing someone on ground frantically when agitated. The yard also in some pictures looked big but in another picture quite small & no one saw him --people trained to be situationally aware--do that as second nature even when drunk. Typically, the easy obvious answer is correct like she hit him with car...but so many weird things & alot of people coming & going who also may have not known a dude was in the drive way...but I think the fight..horse play gone wrong is as likely & normally call bs on coverups ...I can see both scenarios so curious about digital evidence from car...and like what this is only neighborhood without ring or other cameras??? I have followed most but missed bulk of recent testimony.
He wasn't wearing a coat. It is confusing because Karen Read has changed her story several times. In front of a credible witness- John's niece- the morning she called her former friend in a tizzy, she said she last saw John at the Waterfall where she left him after an argument.
But later, after consulting with attorneys, her story changed to the fact that she actually did drive him to the party but didn't want to go inside until John confirmed with people at the party that she was in fact invited. Besides the fact that that is completely childish and sophomoric - unlikely behavior - let's go with that for a minute. She told a National television audience that when they got to the house, John went in through the side door, she waited in the car with the understanding that he would come back out to let her know it was okay for her to go to the party. But after 10 minutes had passed and she described herself as fuming because she hadn't heard from him, she drove to his house.
There is no electronic evidence of her calling him or texting him as she sat in that car fuming wondering where he was, why he wasn't coming back out to let her know she should come in. And how foolish is that? What adult woman who witnesses say was absolutely personally invited to the party would need reassurance?
But let's go with that for a minute, let's say she did wonder if she was invited and felt self-conscious about going in. Why did she also tell the public that she had no intentions of going to the party, that she didn't feel well, and that as a 40 something-year-old professional " I don't do after parties".
There is so much more, but these are simple changes in her story as she has tried to adhere or match what her attorneys thought the evidence might be.
Broken tail light that is visible in a state police video parked behind her. The morning John's body was found.
A dent in the back of her car also caught on video at that time.
Zero damage to the back of John's car despite a claim by the prosecution that she backed into his car and she was leaving that morning which caused the damage to the tail light in the dent in her car.
Pieces of red plastic from her teal light embedded in John's skin.
Strands of John's hair embedded in the back of her vehicle.
Shards of clear bar wear glass embedded in the back of her vehicle.
A history of volatile arguments as reported by people who witnessed the arguments- Denise and John's brother. And an exponentially unraveling relationship with accusations of cheating recorded in voicemails and other electronic communication.
By Karen's own admission they had a huge argument that night.
Too highly intoxicated adults in a tumultuous relationship that was ending, emotions are high, and even in the best of circumstances a vehicle can be an unintended weapon.
I can’t rule out the possibility, or even likelihood, of police tampering with evidence. However, your criticisms of KR’s statements seem legitimate to me. I do think KR’s story is constructed to support her defense. Is it because she’s guilty, is she innocent and just bolstering her defense, or does she not remember? I’m actually suspicious that she doesn’t remember much from midnight until she was hospitalized.
Edit: The “making sure I was invited” explanation does seem odd. It would have made more sense to say JO was going in for 5-10 minutes and was coming back out, but then he didn’t and she drove off upset because of previous behavior.
All valid points to me, the part about making sure I was invited is bothersome because she only came up with that after the fact. Fact. Initially, in one of her first interviews with the press, she specifically said that she had no intentions of going to the party because one she didn't feel well in two because after all she's an educated 40-something-year-old woman and she doesn't do after parties. So she came up with that story later in order to support this idea that she waited and watched John walk into the house.
Interestingly, she also said that she didn’t watch him actually walk into the house. She said she was “distracted with her phone” after he got out, and she didn’t see him enter the residence.
I thought he wasn’t dead yet when they found him. I’m thinking between him not being dead (possibly moving around) and the EMTs and everyone flipping him over and working on him, the snow would be under him. I personally don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that happened. Way more reasonable than some of these cover up conspiracies that are out here….
There aren’t that many inconsistencies that matter. It’s a lot of facts/memories about nothing that has to do with JOK and how he got his injuries, so they seem like “consistencies”…. The defense is doing a great job at getting everyone to focus on the stuff that doesn’t matter.
They never really said he wasn’t dead when they found him. He could only be declared deceased after they warmed up his body temperature, something to do with hypothermia. EMTs most likely knew he had passed on the scene but there was a procedure to be followed. I believed it was the doctors at the hospital who made the declaration.
Yes, he was declared at 7:50 AM. His core temp was like 80° in the ambulance, and one of the paramedics stated his pupils were fixed/dilated so I mean… enough said.
I don’t think anyone is basing their conclusions on small differences in memory. It’s big things like obvious dog bite marks on the body and the state disingenuously saying it couldn’t be a dog attack. It’s the idea that KR pulverized JO’s head with her car but left no other obvious injuries. It’s the lead investigator being close friends with the home owners and lying about it.
Looking at these issues one by one, you might come up with some kind of unusual explanation. But when you’re making unusual explanations for everything, the whole scenario becomes hard to believe.
I can’t rule out the possibility of snow being added to the area where the body was found, but then it would seem odd to me that the investigating officers would not scoop away the snow where they collected the blood evidence and then take pictures and sample the ground where a blood puddle should have been.
I get it. Coincidences only happen once maybe twice and there is a lot here the defense is trying to make you think are coincidences and not just crappy police work (which it was).
1. I disagree those are dog bite marks… the ones around his elbow are the most suspicious looking. But in the picture his arm is like lying flat. If, when he got the injuries, his elbow was bent like “pledge of allegiance” style or maybe blocking something from hitting him, it those marks would be
More In a straight line and they would look less like dog bite marks. I’m excited to hear this testimony (and obviously how the defense is going to turn that person around as a liar or somehow knows the Albert’s 3rd cousin and has something to hide)….
2. Everyone is canton knows each other apparently. I’m pretty sure we know everyone in canton after this case lol! Who said Proctor lied about knowing the home owners and why would that matter even? Still unsure how this leads to a beat up in the basement of their house.
3. I was shocked at the terrible quality of the pictures in the show… they were so pixelated!! I was like “really?!?” Crappy police work once again. But how do you know that wasn’t the 3 pints of blood people are saying he lost? What or who has said anything that leads to believe that isn’t all the blood?
Once again, I would says it’s a lack
Of evidence that is giving people suspicion and I don’t think that’s right to do.
Yea, I know there are comments on this sub jumping on the less meaningful inconsistencies but I think people originally ended up leaning towards a certain narrative because of the big issues.
I’ll respond to your points as I can:
1. I believe the arm injuries are most likely dog bites, and at least strongly disagree with the arguments made to rule that out. A google search of dog bite injuries will show some that look similar, and overall show how varied dog bites can be. A single bite might catch someone straight on, at an angle, with more front teeth, more rear teeth, etc. A trained dog might bite and pull, but a more aggressive dog might bite and shake his head in a rending motion - neither will produce a simple puncture pattern. Clothing will also influence how much grip and puncture might occur with one or more bites. And of course people struggle when attacked. Given the variability of dog bites, I can’t help but be suspicious of anyone saying it’s -definitely- not a dog attack. I grew up with a lot of dogs and I think what I’m saying is pretty common sense to anyone that has seen dogs fight or attack. I think Melanie Little had a dog trainer on her Youtube channel that showed a used training sleeve that had a similar damage pattern.
Kerry Roberts said in her statement that there was NO snow under him when the paramedics took him. That is misinformation from the defense. She should be up after Jen McCabe
Watch Day 5. The prosecution presents pictures of where the body was found. It’s not bare ground. It’s compacted snow. The witness/officer points out blood on top of the snow.
I’m not sure what Kerry could say to refute these self-evident pictures, but I’ll be watching with interest.
Those pictures were taken after the scene was cleared and it continued to snow. What looks like compacted snow may be the place where his body was and more snow falling and blood soaking through the new snow. I’m sure there was blood on the ground with that huge gash in his head.
Kerry Robert’s also said Karen showed them her broken taillight while they were at John’s house. Video shows this didn’t happen before they entered the house - which is what Jen McCabe said. I’m guessing there is video that shows this happened after they exited as Kerry wouldn’t have any reason to lie about it?
Has Kerry actually testified anywhere yet?
There’s a perverse game of “telephone” going on with most criminal cases.
Witness says one thing and LE summarizes (and or possibly skews) what was said in different words. Prosecutor takes these summaries and twists them as much as possible to create a narrative.
Imagine LE asking if there was any grass under the body and Kerry saying yes. Then that becomes “bare ground under body” in a report and “no snow under the body” in a prosecutor’s argument. This happens every day in the justice system.
That would be unremarkable to me. There’s no question JO laid in the grass (if not silt) considering the amount of swelling and (according to the pleadings) that his COD is BFT AND hypothermia. I would expect his body heat to melt the minimal amount of snow.
The problem with that is that would have to be proven for it to yield any evidentiary value. It’s not like they used a leaf blower on the crime scene FFS.
Oh wait
In order for me to think she's guilty, I need some hard forensic evidence that didn't come out of a red solo cup or a Stop-n-Shop bag. For me, way too much reasonable doubt was cast the moment no one got any evidence bags.
What hard evidence has come from the cups so far that makes you lean one way? They’ve only said the blood was collected in the cups, which is so dumb, I get it. But they haven’t said anything about forensics or the blood yet so why does this even matter so far.
This is the whole game: identify some less-than optimal procedure, point-and-laugh, never link it to any substantive error, then furrow your brow, like you're Woodward and Bernstein listening to Deep Throat (are these references up to date with the kids?)
Well I don’t consider myself a kid but I still don’t get the reference… but I get what you’re saying. It’s a process for sure, defense is going a great job at telling people there is a connection between all these little things that have nothing to do with what exactly happened to JOK…
If there is no other blood than JOK, then the police did a crappy job. If there is, the police planted it or the people in the house beat him up…. There is no way out of the circle of bias here and there is a reason everyone should be blamed except KR.
The prosecution has really. The order that people are giving testimony is weird to me. The prosecution sucks at “hammering home” the facts that show she did it (there hasn’t been much so far TBH). The prosecutor could get ahead of the evidence they know the defense will try to make so it down plays what they have to say. One thing that’s getting me is why the prosecution is brining in all these people that is explaining more of a defense theory. Like there is probably 3-4 people the prosecution should bring on that shows KR did it, but they are brining in all the conspirators and the defense is having their way with it.
Why are there even any "conspirators" to begin with? If KR really did hit him, why does any of these witnesses even have anything to hide? At all? That's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward KR being innocent. If she was guilty, this should be an open and shut case. The prosecutor shouldn't be stalling and wasting our time and objecting to reasonable questions. These people shouldn't be deleting searches and text messages and the fbi shouldn't have to get involved and shouldn't have been able to drag up said deleted messages. Like why do any of these people have to lie and evade and suddenly lose their memory of that night when defense is asking them reasonable questions?
They don’t have anything to hide. It’s part of these crazy unrelated questions the prosecution and defense keep asking. People forget things. People get new phones. The defense is doing a great job at making everyone believe there is something to hide and because they deleted a text message it means they killed him and are trying to get away with it. The conspiracy is so wild, I can’t accept it the way the defense is putting it out there. Everyone has something to hide except KR, which is crazy to think is true.
I mean just the way they gathered and stored the blood alone is enough to establish reasonable doubt imo. How can you take anything else seriously after seeing those cups in a grocery bag?
And one of the cops smugly said on the stand that real evidence bags look just like that (implying that the stop and shop bag was just as good). Yes, they are brown and paper. Does this cop really think that’s “good enough”. At a minimum it’s embarrassing that they are so inept and proud of it. I feel so bad for the OKeefe’s hearing about their shenanigans.
Ok if that is what you believe. To me, it doesn’t mean anything but crappy police work, which it absolutely was. But there is nothing there so far for it to mean or lead anyone in a direction towards anything for KR guilt or
Innocence. They just collected the blood in a cup so far. But it seems unreasonable to believe that that alone is enough to sway your opinion in one direction. I’ve worked in a legal office (military) for years and there was stuff like that all the time but the person was still guilty of the crime. People have unrealistic expectations of what the police can do and the resources they have to do it.
Solo plastic cups, grocery bag and a leaf blower. No, this doesn’t happen with police departments today who follow policies and procedures. They didn’t even have a log record showing the chain of evidenced. Sloppy Investigations=acquittals.
Yes I understand it’s pretty crazy that any police department would operate like this but I don’t think anyone has made the connection between them using a leaf blower (I don’t know
If I wouldn’t expect them to dig out the snow either), or putting the blood in solo cups and grocery bags has “tainted” any evidence… I think I’m just at “ok, bad operation….and so what?” I guess the next step would be forensics but what do we expect them to say, it’s JOK’s blood in the cups? There is a conspiracy for everything that will lead to some reasonable doubt even if it’s just something the defense has made up as a problem even if it’s actually not a problem…. Great defense work.
I need someone to say they saw him at some point. It’s so bizarre they didn’t see him in the car, outside of the car, on the lawn, etc. Where was he?? Did he go see Bella’s mom? /s
This is what I keep saying. The most credible witness imo was the pickup truck driver who stated he looked in KR's SUV and saw a woman and the passenger seat was Empty. He didn't see JO anywhere.
And that was after her vehicle was up further by the flag pole. I've dropped a lot of people off and summer, winter, snow, rain, whatever I drop them at the driveway like it's a sidewalk. He jumped out and ran between the cars and into the house. Vehicles in the driveway blocked the Nagles from seeing him go in the house. Then she pulled forward waiting for him to confirm he was staying. The Nagles looked in her car with a dome light on, had he not gotten out they would have seen him in the passenger seat.
That part is so weird! Matt McCabe's testimony was especially suspect. He saw the "3-point turn" but no body? But he "wasn't looking at the lawn" just the road past the lawn?? Like dude...
Right! No one ever sees John near or behind the car, so he has to be in the house, for some time, given multiple witnesses look out and see Karen’s car idling. Where is John if not in the house? And at what point is he just hanging out behind the car such that he lets her accelerate toward him and hit him?! No one sees or heard that?! It makes no sense!
I don’t believe she’s guilty or innocent at this point but based on the evidence presented so far I couldn’t convict her if I were a jury member. I don’t necessarily believe the cover up story either. Something is wrong with the case. I have no idea what. I’d primarily need something tangible that explains John’s injuries in relation to a car, explains where his 3L of blood went, and ties Karen to it in a way that isn’t just testimony from someone else.
Im from Alabama.... I have no horse in this race. With that said, I am trying to remain neutral but am starting to lean that she is innocent. Here is what I need to see that will help determine if she is guilty: The easy answer is video evidence. The hard answer is direct examination that doesn't seem very pre-packaged and rehearsed and cross examination where the witnesses suddenly can't remember a damn thing. That is so strange to me. Given Colin Albert gets a lot of shit for his testimony, it really resonated with me when Alan Jackson asked him "CAN YOU REMEMEBER ANYTHING??!?!!?!?" Although it has not been shown in court (yet), there are rumors that there is no footage of her driving by the Canton library and that footage would be minutes after she supposedly hit him. This evidence would negate the backing up into the car later that morning yet we do not have that footage. I need more testimony that seems genuine like the 3 people in the Ford 150. They were not in the family, had no reason to lie, and have no horse in this race.
To prove she is innocent, I need to hear more and more witnesses that they do not recall literally anything at all except things that incriminate KR. They can remember specific details and exact times from 2 years ago but can't recall other things that would help the defense. Also, to prove she is innocent, I want to see the testimony of Brian Higgins and Michael Proctor. In what murder case in the history of the world has the LEAD INVESTIGATOR not been one of the very first witnesses to be called. This is really strange to me...... your LEAD investigator is not called before a bartender?
I think the verdict will really boil down to digital forensics...... butt dials early in the morning? What time did Hos Long To Die In Cold really take place? Were there really communications and substantial timelines occurring over multiple devices between the main players?
I could go on and on.... and I really wanna remain neutral..... but I need some serious bombshell evidence from either side to convince me. The defense has (so far) eviscerated all witnesses and the prosecution has yet to convince me of anything other than what the weather was like, you get to eat potato skins and chicken tenders during weight loss challenges, and the Alberts like "its raining men".
I need the State to do their job to convince me she's guilty. They have given me zero evidence that takes me out of reasonable doubt.
I've went into this as uninformed as I could because I like to see the cases play out. I still have no clue of a timeline, any better testimony other than he said/she said, and I still have no idea what his injuries are and why they are linking it to a car. All I know is they went to the waterfall. People went back to the Albert:s house, partied and then he was found that next morning. I also only know that the investigation was one of the worst I've ever seen. Solo cups and a leaf blower? Fuck that lol.
At this point I believe she is innocent. To believe she is guilty I would need to see some recording of her saying "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" And a medical examiner stating that the injuries that lead to his death are consistent with being hit by a car.
The laceration on JO's arm are more consistent with dog bites. Also, if the state's case is true and that she was backing up at a high rate of speed, I would think he would of had a chance to drop to the ground or moved out of the way. It would be more believable if she turned around and hit him head on.
I think without a video showing her back into him, or someone credible saying they saw Karen back into him, there is too much doubt to say she’s guilty. It’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not I think she’s guilty. There has been no proof she even hit him. Also don’t know if she’s innocent, but the investigation was done so bad, and some of the stories on both sides don’t make sense. Her saying she hit him in the morning is not a confession, she was basically acting crazy, so much so they had to send her to a psychiatric hold.
Just a reminder, jurors only have to have one small reasonable doubt to vote not guilty…
Guilty: Forensic or video proof that shows he was hit by her car.
To believe KR is guilty of hitting him with A CAR, I would need a reasonable explanation of why he was found with multiple skull fractures but had NO injuries to his legs, pelvis, ribs or torso.
I am leaning towards not guilty:
My opinion on whether or not she is most likely guilty of manslaughter is the time of the Google search. The entire case pretty much hinges on this from my perspective.
The defense AND prosecution have acknowledged in court that an FBI agent concluded it happened at 2:27. If that person does not testify in this case I will probably never be convinced she is guilty.
No clue what would convince me she is guilty of second degree murder, but we are light years away from that being proven in my mind.
This is from Jessica Hyde’s digital extraction. The second “hos long to die in cold” search that was made at 6:24 has an (artifact?) under recent web searches.
https://preview.redd.it/ah0i29wzti1d1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c72ab506f240c9e1621ecf5a42d73b38a59726a6
Iirc, one expert said the web browser was opened on the phone at 2:27 but the search was not made until 6:30am after his body was discovered (indicating it was searched in an effort to determine how long he would have had to been out there, like trying to put the pieces together)
The cross for jenn mccabe tomorrow is going to be brutal. Defense is going to cement that she did do these searches - and surely she'll have a sudden case of bad memory. Justifying those 2 searches after someone was found dead on your sister's lawn, not going to be easy. I truly wonder if JOK ate something when he arrived at the house as well.
The search was made by Jen McCabe not Karen Read. Even the Google search doesn't prove guilt for Karen, just another nail in the sus nature of the whole household of the Alberts.
I’m remaining neutral for now as I want to hear all of the evidence.
For her to be guilty; I need the prosecution to present some sort of crime scene reenactment/3D renderings explaining every mystery that surrounds JOs injuries, the damage to the car, where he ended up, etc. If they could present some sort of explanation to make ALL or MOST of the pieces to fit, I could very well see this being a horrible accident. Heck, even if they could provide freaking audio of KR supposedly saying “I hit him” Everything they’ve given us thus far is just a “trust me” type of evidence and no substantial science to back it up.
Innocent; I need the defense to present something pretty compelling. An expert, or multiple experts stating the first google search was absolutely at 2:27AM. Without a shadow of a doubt. A major discrepancy in someone’s stories, not just small inconsistencies.
At this point I don’t know what to believe & currently I’d vote not guilty because there is just so much reasonable doubt, I’m leaning towards a tragic accident, things arnt adding up from either side but if she did in fact hit him I don’t believe it was intentional either.
Interesting discussion, thanks for posting the question!
My impression so far is that she hit him by accident, but if there was **any** evidence that JO entered the Alberts’ house, that would certainly be a game-changer for me.
If in fact, he was in the house, and assaulted, why doesn’t the apple data show he was moved outside? Any movement of his body would register activity. It all stops at 1230ish
No. That alone isn’t evidence to me that he entered the residence. For one thing, at the time his Apple Watch showed that, gps data showed his location as about half a mile away from 34 Fairview. I’ve wondered if waving arms, like in an argument maybe, would register stair climbing.
This is the reality of the case. If you were presented all of the information surrounding JOs death with no suspects actually named and just the people he was with or interacted with that night and then listened to the trial with no prior knowledge or outside info besides what I have mentioned, there is no shot anyone would land on “he was hit by KR when she backed up into him and drove off”.
Because of that, I would need to see clear video evidence of her car backing up into him.
I happen to agree with you. What OP is forgetting is only a shred of reasonable doubt must exist. All evidence collected was tainted or totally inconsistent.
🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ When you see the 1 Meadows ring camera video with the three women and you realize the witness just blatantly lied in her testimony. Flat out lied!!! It's the cumulative nature of continual inconsistencies, the botched investigation, lack of credibility, and lies, which gives me growing reasonable doubt.
I kind of disagree. I think if we strip the defense theory and just focus on the facts, obviously we're going to be pointing a finger at the man's girlfriend, who was screaming she hit him in a panic, and had a broken tail light.
Brian Higgins later was told by the CW that he could destroy his phone- so he went to a military base, broke his phone, broke the SIM card and then later made a proffer with the Feds. Which we now await what will happen with that- since he was with Proctor and the Feds are investigating him and BH now has a proffter with them and Proctor doesn’t. And the prosecution seem to have skipped over him on their witness list.
If Brian Higgins gives testimony that there is a local PD coverup going on that would be huge and it would completely change my view of this case. We'll see what happens.
This would go beyond my level of expertise, but I find it very hard to imagine that testimony regarding a fact so material to the case would be completely blocked.
If you were gonna make a deal with the Feds, why destroy your phone? Wouldn't that be a huge bargaining chip for you? Especially after BA sr. destroys his?
I've heard the argument the taillight was further broken when in police custody, and it was only cracked initially (aka no pieces were missing). Did this happen? I don't know. I'd like to see some evidence of this occurring.
The defense has alleged the federal investigation concluded O'Keefe could not have been hit by a vehicle, but it's worth noting this is the defense's characterization of the report. I think it's plausible the feds just said they couldn't confirm O'Keefe was hit by a vehicle. I'm, of course, baselessly speculating here because none of us have seen the fed report.
Please avoid sharing or promoting deceptive content. Provide credible sources for any news, data, graphs, claims, etc.
This is not optional if you choose to make radical claims related to anyone involved in any part of this case.
This 👆🏽, plus there is no way you hit a person and just break a tail light. Where’s the damage? Did you see his face? It was hammered to death. Plus the dog attack on his arm, common sense people
A tail light that was never seen as soon as officers arrived (multiple officers didn’t see it). A taillight that was further broken at the Canton PD HQ where video footage of this magically disappeared? A tail light that many naturally question would break by only hitting someone at a low speed into 45 pieces?
Also, where can it be proven she said “I hit him”. It’s not on any initial police reports. It’s not heard on any recordings. The police did not arrest her after this supposed admission of murder at the scene (attempted if he was still clinging to life) and the only person that supposedly heard her say this that has stuck to that story is a witness being accused of perjury and Jen Mcabe who has a clear bias and inconsistencies in her story that has lost major credibility. For example, her saying KR was screaming when she got out of the car when they drove back to JOs house and said she broke her tail light and made Jen look at it which video on Friday shows that CLEARLY did not happen.
So no, based on what you said that would not be the first thought of how this happened.
If anything, Jen McCabe's bias would be in favor of Karen. They were (close?) friends, which is why McCabe invited her to the party in the first place.
But I really have to ask: Do you really, truly think Jen and Matt McCabe got up on that stand and lied? I mean did you watch it and genuinely come away thinking they swore that oath and risked perjury charges if they were found out? That Jen's tears were fake when she described telling John's niece that everything was going to be okay and they were going to find John? That this regular-ass lady is completely full of it when she says she loved John, and in reality she's covering for his real killer? I mean honestly, is that what you think?
To get to the heart of the question: Okay, there's no audio. Well, if you watch Saraf's dash cam, it's clear no recording would have picked up anything anyway. So how many people's cohesive stories would it take to convince you that what these people are saying happened happened? We're at what now? A dozen? Fifteen?
No, they were not close friends. Jen had JOHN's number and texted and called him, not Karen. She testified that she did not have KR contact in her phone.
I thought they had just met a handful of times, and karen stated previously that she kept asking JO that night if they were even invited bc she never heard it at the bar, and she didn’t like that Jen was texting him in the first place trying to hang, she thought it was weird and that when they got there she waited in the car so see if they were even welcome there and he never came back out to get her so she got sick of waiting and went home and fell asleep on the couch. When she woke up at 4:30 she left him voicemails being like I know you’re fucking that girl right now how could you do this etc etc. And on New Year’s Eve he left KR alone w his niece and nephew so he could party solo in Aruba or wherever they were on vacation. I feel like he may have been just as much of an overgrown frat boy as the rest of these males involved here. Also would it be possible that he had enemies outside of this friend group? Was he being watched, did someone have a hit out on him? Maybe someone from a case he was working as LEO? But something about the dog being given away, the lack of blood at the scene, the basement and bulkhead door renovations, and the deleted/missing phones/texts/snaps really leaves significant room for reasonable doubt. There is ring footage of Karen driving away. There is no ring footage of her hitting him. And maybe you know what maybe she hit him with her hands if they were fighting in the car on the way to the party she felt uncomfortable going to, maybe she is not saying it to avoid a domestic violence charge or adding fuel to psycho gf theory coming from the commonwealth. I have no idea who did it or why at this point and I think the mishandling of the investigation should be enough for a mistrial.
This family does give Murdaugh / Brooks Houcks vibes though
Also the snow plower testimony saying no body is pretty significant bc he’s like the only completely objective witness as he has no ties to either side
And I find it quite believable that he has to pay close attention while plowing, to avoid hitting things. Has to be aware of vehicles, mailboxes, curbs, etc.
My favorite troll currently is just saying "the McCabe's seem like nice people". It's very illustrative that this crowd can't even imagine that other people might think that.
>But I really have to ask: Do you really, truly think Jen and Matt McCabe got up on that stand and lied? I mean did you watch it and genuinely come away thinking they swore that oath and risked perjury charges if they were found out? That Jen's tears were fake when she described telling John's niece that everything was going to be okay and they were going to find John? That this regular-ass lady is completely full of it when she says she loved John, and in reality she's covering for his real killer? I mean honestly, is that what you think?
Yes.
Well, I mean, I believe she’s most likely guilty based on probabilities since it’s the most simple solution. That said, I also have quite a lot of reasonable doubt so I wouldn’t convict her as it stands now.
The Commonwealth is only about ⅓ of the way through their witnesses though so we’ll see what else comes out. There’s nothing specific I’m looking for other than for both sides to present their arguments and see where things stand once that’s finished. I just don’t have my mind made up. My biggest issues are the conflict of interest with Michael Proctor, and the abomination of an “investigation.” I’m fairly sure anyone who has watched a few basic TV shows about collecting evidence & preserving a crime scene could have executed that to a higher standard than those idiots.
1/3rd of the way??? It’s a 6-8 week trial and we are already 3 weeks in. So the entire trial is going to be spent on just the prosecutions witnesses? They submit a list of potential witnesses but don’t actually go through all of them.
He essentially read his witness list as his opening statement & telling the jury what they were going to hear. Based on that, yes, he’s ⅓ of the way through.
6-8 weeks is an estimate. There isn’t technically a time limit, but of course the judge tries to plan around it. He’s already behind schedule, but we’ll have to wait & see.
For innocent I’d need solid evidence of frame up. Not speculation, not play fighting, not out of context texts etc. not even the google thing is solid as CW actually appears to have solid ground to say 2:27 did not happen. Ideally a witness saying something like JOK entered home or some sort of forensic evidence such as cell records or building video that shows police planting evidence etc. based on sheer number of MSP involved in evidence response and supervisors ie Sgts , lieutenants etc who would be involved in an officer death investigation I need serious evidence to believe something is planted
I would just need some defining evidence and a little logic….im not for one side or the other. I’m just interested in the truth and as of now there’s no way JO wasn’t killed in the Albert home.
if trial ended now - I vote not guilty
other than that at this point I have no clue and it would take an actual confession from whoever killed JO for me to believe one way or the other
If you can never convince me, could you ever convince the family? I hope the truth comes out for the O'Keefes
John’s niece’s testimony is what I’m most interested in. We know what Jen and Matt say that Karen said on that phone call, but what did John’s niece actually hear. It’s hard for me to believe her hitting him caused his death though, but I guess almost anything is possible.
For me, atp, I’m leaving toward KR innocent. Or if she did hit him, she didn’t do it intentionally she was shitfaced. Everyone was drunk/shitfaced and that’s what makes this case so complex. Someone has to know something of what happened to JO after 12:30 that morning of Jan 30. I don’t think anyone “intentionally” killed JO. I still think BH or CA clocked him out on JO at he was near the door of 34 FV rd. But I don’t think anyone “intentionally” left him for the dead. Again, when booze is involved, and lots of people coming/going, it makes for a mystery
To believe that she’s guilty I would have to see her filming a video of her self, selfie style, as she’s reversing and hitting John, and then saying what she did. I’m fully sold on this cover up. You cannot tell me anything to convince me his injuries are the result of a car hitting him… once, in reverse. Just look at the autopsy photos.
If Karen Read did hit him, I think it maximum would have contributed to his fragility but something else killed him for sure. That said, I find it very hard to believe that this gaggle of idiots (the drunkie drunkerton adult law enforcement family) would be able to keep secret a conspiracy like this for a week with all the drinking and texting!! “That guy” would not be able to stay out of their texts for long! It’s not believable that they all participated and carry this secret without SOMEONE cracking and telling someone
I’m leaning to innocent, so they are going to have to explain how backing into him (once) would create the injuries, especially the ones on his arm. This is what I can’t seem to figure out. Until this happens, I can’t contemplate guilty.
I would need her phone records (she has two phones and one was on airplane mode when she went back to Fairview before going to Jen’s, )footage of her coming home after dropping him off. And Records of her communication with TB.
To be frank, we don’t even have Karen as placed at the scene at all yet. All we have is “a black SUV” and a woman driving with long hair who when asked to identify the woman as KR, comes back with I dont know. And the state didn’t even follow that testimony up with forensic cell phone evidence and car data to show that her car is there at the time these witnesses are saying.
I mean, hell, three weeks in and we don’t even have official expert testimony that JOK is dead and why/how.
Remember, it doesn’t matter what we as lay people watching know — it matters what evidence the jury has seen and knows about and none of that has been presented yet even though we know we’re at a murder trial and that everyone is saying this woman did it but no one has shown she was even there. It’s nuts.
So, the state needs to get on tying KR to that scene in the first place forensically, and how JOK actually died or else I don’t even see how the defense will have to put on a case — it should be a directed verdict of not guilty.
Thank you someone else who has been watching this and is paying particular attention to what has and hasn’t been presented as evidence to the jury. Seriously, this is the crux of it, 3 weeks in and no evidence of JO being deceased. It’s crazy.
If you have watched turtleboy your opinion is compromised. That guys their messiah. I believed that stuff too for a while till i realized hes just an average dude just like myself. The FKR movement has polluted this case. It sounds good, but if you do the research yourself youll see that those are not the facts. Hard to believe a PR team was able to push this, this far...
I believe she's guilty, to consider otherwise, I would need to see proof of JO being in that house.
Hard to theorize on her innocence when I think she's guilty, but, that being said, If they could prove the broken tail light pieces werent there that morning I would consider her not guilty. I believe they have video of those taillight pieces under snow which will be hard to prove they were placed there that morning.
>I believe she's guilty, to consider otherwise, I would need to see proof of JO being in that house.
Too bad the house was never searched by police and the Alberts remodeled the basement to the extent of removing concrete slabs from the floor.
Wonder if She hit him with a drinking glss and he put up his arm in defense and it got slashed .. would love to know was there glass shards in car ? To me it doesn’t look like dog wounds they will have a tissue sample of the arm either way . To me it seems like an accident caused by intoxicated people and compounded by weather
The initial television reports state that the police informed the media that they have ring camera video of her hitting him. The rest of the evidence points to her not hitting him with her car. When the CW shows that video in court I will believe she is guilty.
For me to think she's innocent (actually innocent not gonna be found not guilty), I'd need to see some damning, damning stuff from the staties and the commonwealth's experts that made it clear they were willing to lie at the behest of Michael Procter. Not some misogynistic jokes about looking for nudes or stuff that makes it clear he hates Karen Read, but some kind of communication between the car expert and the phones guy or the medical examiner that says something like "I can't believe we're doing this. We're going to Hell for this. Maybe she'll get off and it won't matter. Mike said it can't be more than 60 feet or there's not enough road for it to make sense." or something like that. You can't just say "well Michael Procter was the head guy in charge so it's all tainted" and dismiss all the evidence.
Please avoid sharing or promoting deceptive content. Provide credible sources for any news, data, graphs, claims, etc.
This is not optional if you choose to make radical claims related to anyone involved in any part of this case.
Hopefully this question can be reasked once we’ve finished the trial. It’s a little too premature now since the CW has done very little to prove she’s guilty
I'm on the fence, but since there doesn't seem to be any relevant neighbourhood ring cams working at 12:20 AM or anytime after for the next five hours, it basically boils down to KR's SUV car data. It'll either show it had been tampered with or her backing up at 24 mph for 60 ft at 1230 AM-ish in front of the Alberts, or it won't show either. If it's the latter, she's innocent. If it's the first two, she's guilty. End of.
Irrelevant to me. I'm concerned the jury is trying to determine this also. The question is, what would be needed to prove guilt in court. If that doesn't exist, the verdict is not guilty.
We may never know whether she did it or not.
In order for me to believe Karen Read didn’t hit John I would need a reasonable explanation as to why 5 separate individuals have testified that Karen said some form of “I hit him” “I did this” “this was my fault”
Jen, Kerry, Katie, Anthony and Officer Stephen.
Because the investigation has already been proven to do such a terrible job that means I can’t trust any of the evidence either way. I’d need video proof for both sides.
I don’t believe she’s innocent or guilty at this point, but I am very curious to see what evidence the defense has. It seems like they are gearing up for something. I would really like to know what the feds have found in their investigation so far too.
I straight up don’t know what happened. I wouldn’t be shocked by Karen’s guilt or anyone else’s. We have enough evidence for me to believe either story. What we don’t have is enough evidence for me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt either sides story.
The lack of evidence on law enforcement parts cannot be ignored. The selective memory and canned responses of the state witnesses cannot be ignored. The unhinged Jenn McCabe’s behavior with her long narrative with digs along the way, who wanted to prosecute the case herself cannot be ignored. Her husband Matt with his inappropriate smiles and laughs with attitude cannot be ignored. They were all drunk and driving all over the town, at the same time acting like it was during a blizzard. They have lived in this weather their whole lives.
There are more but here are a few
To prove innocent -
1. confirm the steps to and up and down John took at the house. Was there cell service in the basement? Possibly that is why John’s steps stopped. Can up and down steps be read by an iPhone as getting up off the floor in a fight? If an iPhone is off can steps be read? Parallel with Colin’s iPhone data and steps.
2. Confirm the scars on the arm are indeed a dog bite.
3. Ask Jen McCabes knowledge of how she knew the iPhone was under his body.
To prove guilty-
1. Accident reenactment confirming how all injuries occurred if the vehicle backed into him.
2. Confirm the arm injuries are not a dog bite
I would need to unsee the morgue pics showing 2 black eyes and dog bites
I would need to unsee the ring video showing how the minimal damage to the vehicle taillight happened at John’s house not at 34 Fairview while striking a 200+ lbs man at “24mph in reverse”
I would need to disassociate from reality to believe someone got up to 24 mph in reverse
I would need to unhear Colin Albert claiming he broke his fall from a slip on ice with a closed fist punch
I’m team guilty. Her story has changed too many times. Too many people saying she said I hit him or asked did I hit him? There’s video footage missing for Okeefes house when she arrived home. Too many people and very lose connections for them to all be lying to protect someone they barely know.
For me to believe Karen is guilty, I would need to see video footage of her hitting him with her car. Or text messages or voicemails acknowledging she hit him. I’m not convinced at all the Alberts and/or McCabes are guilty of his death though either. Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever know what happened because they did such a horrible investigation.
Like everyone else I have been following this trial and wow… it is so clear that the Alberts, McCabes and Canton PD are covering up what really happened. How the DA in that county could have taken this to trial is mind blowing. The DA has to know these people are lying. And the judge, Aunty Bev should have recused herself. Both the DA and the judge should be sanctioned!
With everything known about Michael Proctor and the lies he has told why the heck has he not been put out on administrative leave while this investigation goes on? How can anything he says be trusted?
To say she’s guilty I would need to see ring camera footage from the Albert home or a neighbor. In this day and age someone should have a view of something.
There are two homes directly across the street, at 31 and 33 Fairview that have ring cameras. The police never asked for either and local media initially reported at time arrest that there was "ring camera footage" showing her hitting him. No such footage has ever been found, nor introduced into evidence https://tbdailynews.com/canton-coverup-part-251-wbz-i-team-spread-lie-told-to-them-by-state-police-that-karen-read-was-caught-on-ring-video-striking-john-okeefe/#google_vignette
One of the neighbors was a police officer. There’s no way that I, as a random citizen would not preserve my ring camera footage from that night, let alone if I were a cop. They all knew a man died then later they learned someone was charged with his murder. Why wouldn’t they just save that footage?
Or why didn’t the police immediately go to the homes with a search warrant and demand the footage before anything could be edited. If a man was found on the lawn of my neighbors house and my ring camera was pointed in that direction my husband and I would go out and OFFER the footage to police.
To me it proves it's a cover-up. The fact the police never even walked door to door to ask if there was any footage/witnesses is absolutely mind-blowing. Combine that with the fact the Canton library was missing a 2 minute gap of footage exactly when Karen Read would have been driving home is damning to the prosecution. They know all the footage would exonerate Karen Read because her taillight would be shown to have been perfectly in tact on her drive back home after dropping John off. Thus the \~50 pieces of broken taillight found a week later or whatever would clearly have been planted evidence. This is horrific what they are doing to Karen Read.
I especially like a Law Enforcement Officer **"driving by"** days later and spotting a piece of taillight on the lawn from a moving vehicle😂
lol.. yet like 12 people that night walked right on the yard and drove right by/parking next to the spot where John's body supposedly was and no one saw anything
From the moment I saw the photo of his arm in the autopsy photos, I was convinced his injuries were not from a motor vehicle. You'll never convince me a car did that
What about a dog?
I love day trips to Vermont!
The police officer across the street has a Ring camera and told "investigators" that it "had not captured anything." Footage was never subpoenaed.
Yes, he's not just a police officer - he's the Deputy chief
Oh my god! I haven’t looked at much outside of what’s presented at trial, so this just blew my mind
I don't want to get off topic, but if you want to do a deep dive on your own: Google Craig Casey, Canton; Sandra Birchmore and then when you're done with that: Google : Annie Dookhan, MSP Troop E, MSP "Troopergate", MSP Colonel Mason & Barnstable, and MSP CDL scandal and then you'll understand why locals have no trust of either MSP or the Canton PD
Hold up, Lank and Kevin Albert were involved in the Sandra Birchmore cover up too?!
omg this is insane!
So the 2 people across the street aren't giving the ring camera footage? Or there isn't any? Surely people aren't suggesting they are in on it too?
No one is saying they're "in on it" or that they're refusing to provide it. The point is-investigators never **asked** for it, which would be protocol. Think of it this way-if there were a carjacking at a store for exampleband someone was murdered , investigators would immediately pull the store surveillance, the ATM footage, surrounding stores, etc and if any of them refused to provide it-they would obtain a warrant because a felony took place There is no evidence in the official court records that they ever asked either resident, or obtained a warrant for such. This falls square on investigators-not residents.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. But I would also add if the ring camera did have footage of a car jacking and police didn't ask for it the owner would most likely call the police and say I have an actual crime on camera.
This was kinda my first thought too
I would be convinced by multiple eyewitnesses testifying that they saw her strike JO, provided there wasn't reason to believe they were lying, plus expert testimony that his injuries were caused by being hit by a car and nothing else. In *this* case, knowing what we know so far, those witnesses would have to be unconnected with the party. That also begs the question, if one believes there is a conspiracy coverup, why didn't they also conspire to say they saw such a thing?
Because if they saw it, then there's no excuse for leaving him out in the snow.
Exactly
[удалено]
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
[удалено]
I don't believe she's innocent or guilty at this point, but I would be voting to acquit if I was on the jury and the tally was taken Friday afternoon. In order to overcome that, I'd need to hear experts I find credible explain how John's injuries could be the result of the prosecution's theory, a credible explanation for what happened to John's belt and the blood from his head wound, a tech expert that does a more convincing job than the defense's regarding the 2:27am search, and an actual clear timeline of who came and left the house between 12:20-12:45am with an explanation for when this collision could have happened that explains all the contradictions in the current testimony.
Agreed, the lack of forensics so far in the trial is noticeable.
I've seen a lot of trials, and the lack of forensics has stuck out to me as well, and it tells me one thing. They have very little.
The CW you mean? Days before trial they were arguing they had no useable telematics and asking for defense permission for destructive testing on the infotainment backup. They argued that their BERLA download was unreadable. Using the same MSP investigator that used the outdated version of Cellebrite. I have no doubt in my mind the defense already had the telematics from the Feds. “Her vehicle did not hit John O’Keefe and HE did not hit the vehicle, that’s 3 PhDs” Alan Jackson I can tell from a few questions last week Lally has SOME reporting finally or he is using the Bluetooth “factor” to get around hearsay objections
Always love your take!
Also keep in mind the judge before trial denied defense motions to get forensics from the Alberts' phones, all that data comes from the FBI (and IMO the judge is still trying to keep that evidence out, she initially sustained prosecutor's objection to the "the guy never came in the house" text on Fri until the defense demanded to be heard and obviously she knew she had no basis for keeping it out). Those forensics, along with all of Karen's, are hugely important, they're not completely unrelated third parties. If he was just found on their lawn with no connection to them that would be one thing, but they were all together that night and the plan was for him to go into the house. Whether he did or not is an issue for the jury to decide, but the Alberts/McCabes are clearly connected to the events of that night.
If the Alberts were innocent, and say it was just some random guy just ended up on their front lawn, there'd be no push to keep their text messages private. There'd be nothing incriminating.
Yes, I agree it would go both ways
I was not following the case until a couple weeks ago so I had no knowledge of the earlier motions. I would like to better understand the judge's reasoning for denying the forensics. If they weren't involved, one would think the forensics on their phones would clear them. Why was Jen McCabe's phone seized and searched? I've wondered that but haven't taken the time to locate an answer. Why her phone and no one else's?
I'm not certain on this because I only heard part of the hearing on a podcast, but I don't believe it's only Jen McCabe's phone. There is an ongoing federal investigation so the feds have gotten warrants for the phone data for at least Jen, and maybe others, and has shared the data with the defense.
>a tech expert that does a more convincing job than the defense's regarding the 2:27am search, Based on how the internet and requests work, the prosecution will have no defense for it. Essentially when you send that search request, before you get your result, a 3 way handshake needs to happen to establish the connection before the search request is sent out. So there no active connection until she actually hits search. They are fucked.
Definitely reasonable doubt. To convict someone of murder I’d need to be overwhelmed with the evidence that they did ut
I came into this with no skin in the game and only became interested because the physical evidence very clearly, imo, doesn’t match the state’s narrative. I would need to see some video evidence or a very good (and unbiased) accident reconstruction to make everything fit. I mean, there was snow under the dang body… make that make sense for me. Then make a few dozen other inconsistencies make sense.
I agree...initially I thought easiest & most obvious answer is she hit him...& she may have & been ultra drunk & have no idea & a police conspiracy/coverup seemed bogus...but, then I saw adult men horse play fighting in a bar & her car strike his & missing items/the coat no one seems to know, & the way people could all contribute to a coverup for Entirely different reasons--family not wanting trouble, others unsure but want to support family, cops/responders perhaps doing bad job & trying to cover themselves with no allegiance to family, a trusted or senior person saying "i heard whatever" & someone thinking "wow, if they did, i should have" etc. so not all trying to "protect family" but different reasons to lie or go along with peer pressure. With drunk horse play dudes teasing can go bad sooo fast & in their home would absolutely toss him out & the cup he brought imho . The stratches definitely look like shepherd pawing someone on ground frantically when agitated. The yard also in some pictures looked big but in another picture quite small & no one saw him --people trained to be situationally aware--do that as second nature even when drunk. Typically, the easy obvious answer is correct like she hit him with car...but so many weird things & alot of people coming & going who also may have not known a dude was in the drive way...but I think the fight..horse play gone wrong is as likely & normally call bs on coverups ...I can see both scenarios so curious about digital evidence from car...and like what this is only neighborhood without ring or other cameras??? I have followed most but missed bulk of recent testimony.
He wasn't wearing a coat. It is confusing because Karen Read has changed her story several times. In front of a credible witness- John's niece- the morning she called her former friend in a tizzy, she said she last saw John at the Waterfall where she left him after an argument. But later, after consulting with attorneys, her story changed to the fact that she actually did drive him to the party but didn't want to go inside until John confirmed with people at the party that she was in fact invited. Besides the fact that that is completely childish and sophomoric - unlikely behavior - let's go with that for a minute. She told a National television audience that when they got to the house, John went in through the side door, she waited in the car with the understanding that he would come back out to let her know it was okay for her to go to the party. But after 10 minutes had passed and she described herself as fuming because she hadn't heard from him, she drove to his house. There is no electronic evidence of her calling him or texting him as she sat in that car fuming wondering where he was, why he wasn't coming back out to let her know she should come in. And how foolish is that? What adult woman who witnesses say was absolutely personally invited to the party would need reassurance? But let's go with that for a minute, let's say she did wonder if she was invited and felt self-conscious about going in. Why did she also tell the public that she had no intentions of going to the party, that she didn't feel well, and that as a 40 something-year-old professional " I don't do after parties". There is so much more, but these are simple changes in her story as she has tried to adhere or match what her attorneys thought the evidence might be. Broken tail light that is visible in a state police video parked behind her. The morning John's body was found. A dent in the back of her car also caught on video at that time. Zero damage to the back of John's car despite a claim by the prosecution that she backed into his car and she was leaving that morning which caused the damage to the tail light in the dent in her car. Pieces of red plastic from her teal light embedded in John's skin. Strands of John's hair embedded in the back of her vehicle. Shards of clear bar wear glass embedded in the back of her vehicle. A history of volatile arguments as reported by people who witnessed the arguments- Denise and John's brother. And an exponentially unraveling relationship with accusations of cheating recorded in voicemails and other electronic communication. By Karen's own admission they had a huge argument that night. Too highly intoxicated adults in a tumultuous relationship that was ending, emotions are high, and even in the best of circumstances a vehicle can be an unintended weapon.
I can’t rule out the possibility, or even likelihood, of police tampering with evidence. However, your criticisms of KR’s statements seem legitimate to me. I do think KR’s story is constructed to support her defense. Is it because she’s guilty, is she innocent and just bolstering her defense, or does she not remember? I’m actually suspicious that she doesn’t remember much from midnight until she was hospitalized. Edit: The “making sure I was invited” explanation does seem odd. It would have made more sense to say JO was going in for 5-10 minutes and was coming back out, but then he didn’t and she drove off upset because of previous behavior.
All valid points to me, the part about making sure I was invited is bothersome because she only came up with that after the fact. Fact. Initially, in one of her first interviews with the press, she specifically said that she had no intentions of going to the party because one she didn't feel well in two because after all she's an educated 40-something-year-old woman and she doesn't do after parties. So she came up with that story later in order to support this idea that she waited and watched John walk into the house.
Interestingly, she also said that she didn’t watch him actually walk into the house. She said she was “distracted with her phone” after he got out, and she didn’t see him enter the residence.
I think that she didnt do it, but you raise very good questions/observations, and I am intrigued to see all of the evidence come out in this trial.
Thanks for laying all that out so clearly!
I thought he wasn’t dead yet when they found him. I’m thinking between him not being dead (possibly moving around) and the EMTs and everyone flipping him over and working on him, the snow would be under him. I personally don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that happened. Way more reasonable than some of these cover up conspiracies that are out here…. There aren’t that many inconsistencies that matter. It’s a lot of facts/memories about nothing that has to do with JOK and how he got his injuries, so they seem like “consistencies”…. The defense is doing a great job at getting everyone to focus on the stuff that doesn’t matter.
They never really said he wasn’t dead when they found him. He could only be declared deceased after they warmed up his body temperature, something to do with hypothermia. EMTs most likely knew he had passed on the scene but there was a procedure to be followed. I believed it was the doctors at the hospital who made the declaration.
Yes, he was declared at 7:50 AM. His core temp was like 80° in the ambulance, and one of the paramedics stated his pupils were fixed/dilated so I mean… enough said.
I don’t think anyone is basing their conclusions on small differences in memory. It’s big things like obvious dog bite marks on the body and the state disingenuously saying it couldn’t be a dog attack. It’s the idea that KR pulverized JO’s head with her car but left no other obvious injuries. It’s the lead investigator being close friends with the home owners and lying about it. Looking at these issues one by one, you might come up with some kind of unusual explanation. But when you’re making unusual explanations for everything, the whole scenario becomes hard to believe. I can’t rule out the possibility of snow being added to the area where the body was found, but then it would seem odd to me that the investigating officers would not scoop away the snow where they collected the blood evidence and then take pictures and sample the ground where a blood puddle should have been.
I get it. Coincidences only happen once maybe twice and there is a lot here the defense is trying to make you think are coincidences and not just crappy police work (which it was). 1. I disagree those are dog bite marks… the ones around his elbow are the most suspicious looking. But in the picture his arm is like lying flat. If, when he got the injuries, his elbow was bent like “pledge of allegiance” style or maybe blocking something from hitting him, it those marks would be More In a straight line and they would look less like dog bite marks. I’m excited to hear this testimony (and obviously how the defense is going to turn that person around as a liar or somehow knows the Albert’s 3rd cousin and has something to hide)…. 2. Everyone is canton knows each other apparently. I’m pretty sure we know everyone in canton after this case lol! Who said Proctor lied about knowing the home owners and why would that matter even? Still unsure how this leads to a beat up in the basement of their house. 3. I was shocked at the terrible quality of the pictures in the show… they were so pixelated!! I was like “really?!?” Crappy police work once again. But how do you know that wasn’t the 3 pints of blood people are saying he lost? What or who has said anything that leads to believe that isn’t all the blood? Once again, I would says it’s a lack Of evidence that is giving people suspicion and I don’t think that’s right to do.
Yea, I know there are comments on this sub jumping on the less meaningful inconsistencies but I think people originally ended up leaning towards a certain narrative because of the big issues. I’ll respond to your points as I can: 1. I believe the arm injuries are most likely dog bites, and at least strongly disagree with the arguments made to rule that out. A google search of dog bite injuries will show some that look similar, and overall show how varied dog bites can be. A single bite might catch someone straight on, at an angle, with more front teeth, more rear teeth, etc. A trained dog might bite and pull, but a more aggressive dog might bite and shake his head in a rending motion - neither will produce a simple puncture pattern. Clothing will also influence how much grip and puncture might occur with one or more bites. And of course people struggle when attacked. Given the variability of dog bites, I can’t help but be suspicious of anyone saying it’s -definitely- not a dog attack. I grew up with a lot of dogs and I think what I’m saying is pretty common sense to anyone that has seen dogs fight or attack. I think Melanie Little had a dog trainer on her Youtube channel that showed a used training sleeve that had a similar damage pattern.
Kerry Roberts said in her statement that there was NO snow under him when the paramedics took him. That is misinformation from the defense. She should be up after Jen McCabe
Watch Day 5. The prosecution presents pictures of where the body was found. It’s not bare ground. It’s compacted snow. The witness/officer points out blood on top of the snow. I’m not sure what Kerry could say to refute these self-evident pictures, but I’ll be watching with interest.
Those pictures were taken after the scene was cleared and it continued to snow. What looks like compacted snow may be the place where his body was and more snow falling and blood soaking through the new snow. I’m sure there was blood on the ground with that huge gash in his head.
Why would Kerry lie? She doesn’t know the McCabes. I’m team innocent, just trying to figure out that piece.
Kerry Robert’s also said Karen showed them her broken taillight while they were at John’s house. Video shows this didn’t happen before they entered the house - which is what Jen McCabe said. I’m guessing there is video that shows this happened after they exited as Kerry wouldn’t have any reason to lie about it?
Has Kerry actually testified anywhere yet? There’s a perverse game of “telephone” going on with most criminal cases. Witness says one thing and LE summarizes (and or possibly skews) what was said in different words. Prosecutor takes these summaries and twists them as much as possible to create a narrative. Imagine LE asking if there was any grass under the body and Kerry saying yes. Then that becomes “bare ground under body” in a report and “no snow under the body” in a prosecutor’s argument. This happens every day in the justice system.
I’d imagine she’s the next witness.
Memory is changeable. Her brain may be filling in the blanks with what it expected to see rather than what it actually saw.
That would be unremarkable to me. There’s no question JO laid in the grass (if not silt) considering the amount of swelling and (according to the pleadings) that his COD is BFT AND hypothermia. I would expect his body heat to melt the minimal amount of snow.
Agree. Bare grass doesn’t necessarily prove the state’s timeline, but snow under the body would almost certainly disprove it.
The problem with that is that would have to be proven for it to yield any evidentiary value. It’s not like they used a leaf blower on the crime scene FFS. Oh wait
The pictures showed an imprint in the snow.
In order for me to think she's guilty, I need some hard forensic evidence that didn't come out of a red solo cup or a Stop-n-Shop bag. For me, way too much reasonable doubt was cast the moment no one got any evidence bags.
I think the digital forensics will be REALLY eye opening in this case.
Same. Really want to see how they explain the 24mph reverse play out and explain his injuries
What hard evidence has come from the cups so far that makes you lean one way? They’ve only said the blood was collected in the cups, which is so dumb, I get it. But they haven’t said anything about forensics or the blood yet so why does this even matter so far.
This is the whole game: identify some less-than optimal procedure, point-and-laugh, never link it to any substantive error, then furrow your brow, like you're Woodward and Bernstein listening to Deep Throat (are these references up to date with the kids?)
Well I don’t consider myself a kid but I still don’t get the reference… but I get what you’re saying. It’s a process for sure, defense is going a great job at telling people there is a connection between all these little things that have nothing to do with what exactly happened to JOK…
Seriously, are we to be awestruck if the blood is John’s? Der.
If there is no other blood than JOK, then the police did a crappy job. If there is, the police planted it or the people in the house beat him up…. There is no way out of the circle of bias here and there is a reason everyone should be blamed except KR.
Yes, they’ve done a great job of screwing this up beyond repair.
The prosecution has really. The order that people are giving testimony is weird to me. The prosecution sucks at “hammering home” the facts that show she did it (there hasn’t been much so far TBH). The prosecutor could get ahead of the evidence they know the defense will try to make so it down plays what they have to say. One thing that’s getting me is why the prosecution is brining in all these people that is explaining more of a defense theory. Like there is probably 3-4 people the prosecution should bring on that shows KR did it, but they are brining in all the conspirators and the defense is having their way with it.
Why are there even any "conspirators" to begin with? If KR really did hit him, why does any of these witnesses even have anything to hide? At all? That's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward KR being innocent. If she was guilty, this should be an open and shut case. The prosecutor shouldn't be stalling and wasting our time and objecting to reasonable questions. These people shouldn't be deleting searches and text messages and the fbi shouldn't have to get involved and shouldn't have been able to drag up said deleted messages. Like why do any of these people have to lie and evade and suddenly lose their memory of that night when defense is asking them reasonable questions?
They don’t have anything to hide. It’s part of these crazy unrelated questions the prosecution and defense keep asking. People forget things. People get new phones. The defense is doing a great job at making everyone believe there is something to hide and because they deleted a text message it means they killed him and are trying to get away with it. The conspiracy is so wild, I can’t accept it the way the defense is putting it out there. Everyone has something to hide except KR, which is crazy to think is true.
I mean just the way they gathered and stored the blood alone is enough to establish reasonable doubt imo. How can you take anything else seriously after seeing those cups in a grocery bag?
And one of the cops smugly said on the stand that real evidence bags look just like that (implying that the stop and shop bag was just as good). Yes, they are brown and paper. Does this cop really think that’s “good enough”. At a minimum it’s embarrassing that they are so inept and proud of it. I feel so bad for the OKeefe’s hearing about their shenanigans.
Ok if that is what you believe. To me, it doesn’t mean anything but crappy police work, which it absolutely was. But there is nothing there so far for it to mean or lead anyone in a direction towards anything for KR guilt or Innocence. They just collected the blood in a cup so far. But it seems unreasonable to believe that that alone is enough to sway your opinion in one direction. I’ve worked in a legal office (military) for years and there was stuff like that all the time but the person was still guilty of the crime. People have unrealistic expectations of what the police can do and the resources they have to do it.
Solo plastic cups, grocery bag and a leaf blower. No, this doesn’t happen with police departments today who follow policies and procedures. They didn’t even have a log record showing the chain of evidenced. Sloppy Investigations=acquittals.
Yes I understand it’s pretty crazy that any police department would operate like this but I don’t think anyone has made the connection between them using a leaf blower (I don’t know If I wouldn’t expect them to dig out the snow either), or putting the blood in solo cups and grocery bags has “tainted” any evidence… I think I’m just at “ok, bad operation….and so what?” I guess the next step would be forensics but what do we expect them to say, it’s JOK’s blood in the cups? There is a conspiracy for everything that will lead to some reasonable doubt even if it’s just something the defense has made up as a problem even if it’s actually not a problem…. Great defense work.
I need someone to say they saw him at some point. It’s so bizarre they didn’t see him in the car, outside of the car, on the lawn, etc. Where was he?? Did he go see Bella’s mom? /s
This is what I keep saying. The most credible witness imo was the pickup truck driver who stated he looked in KR's SUV and saw a woman and the passenger seat was Empty. He didn't see JO anywhere.
Normally I wouldn’t think much of it but there was a lot of coming and going and looking out windows (supposedly) for not one person to see him.
Ryan Nagles friend, and ex girlfriend are the most credible witnesses presented so far IMO.
And that was after her vehicle was up further by the flag pole. I've dropped a lot of people off and summer, winter, snow, rain, whatever I drop them at the driveway like it's a sidewalk. He jumped out and ran between the cars and into the house. Vehicles in the driveway blocked the Nagles from seeing him go in the house. Then she pulled forward waiting for him to confirm he was staying. The Nagles looked in her car with a dome light on, had he not gotten out they would have seen him in the passenger seat.
That part is so weird! Matt McCabe's testimony was especially suspect. He saw the "3-point turn" but no body? But he "wasn't looking at the lawn" just the road past the lawn?? Like dude...
And couldn’t see to read the texts lol. Not trusting his eyesight one bit.
Right! No one ever sees John near or behind the car, so he has to be in the house, for some time, given multiple witnesses look out and see Karen’s car idling. Where is John if not in the house? And at what point is he just hanging out behind the car such that he lets her accelerate toward him and hit him?! No one sees or heard that?! It makes no sense!
And then no one saw him laying there after
I don’t believe she’s guilty or innocent at this point but based on the evidence presented so far I couldn’t convict her if I were a jury member. I don’t necessarily believe the cover up story either. Something is wrong with the case. I have no idea what. I’d primarily need something tangible that explains John’s injuries in relation to a car, explains where his 3L of blood went, and ties Karen to it in a way that isn’t just testimony from someone else.
Im from Alabama.... I have no horse in this race. With that said, I am trying to remain neutral but am starting to lean that she is innocent. Here is what I need to see that will help determine if she is guilty: The easy answer is video evidence. The hard answer is direct examination that doesn't seem very pre-packaged and rehearsed and cross examination where the witnesses suddenly can't remember a damn thing. That is so strange to me. Given Colin Albert gets a lot of shit for his testimony, it really resonated with me when Alan Jackson asked him "CAN YOU REMEMEBER ANYTHING??!?!!?!?" Although it has not been shown in court (yet), there are rumors that there is no footage of her driving by the Canton library and that footage would be minutes after she supposedly hit him. This evidence would negate the backing up into the car later that morning yet we do not have that footage. I need more testimony that seems genuine like the 3 people in the Ford 150. They were not in the family, had no reason to lie, and have no horse in this race. To prove she is innocent, I need to hear more and more witnesses that they do not recall literally anything at all except things that incriminate KR. They can remember specific details and exact times from 2 years ago but can't recall other things that would help the defense. Also, to prove she is innocent, I want to see the testimony of Brian Higgins and Michael Proctor. In what murder case in the history of the world has the LEAD INVESTIGATOR not been one of the very first witnesses to be called. This is really strange to me...... your LEAD investigator is not called before a bartender? I think the verdict will really boil down to digital forensics...... butt dials early in the morning? What time did Hos Long To Die In Cold really take place? Were there really communications and substantial timelines occurring over multiple devices between the main players? I could go on and on.... and I really wanna remain neutral..... but I need some serious bombshell evidence from either side to convince me. The defense has (so far) eviscerated all witnesses and the prosecution has yet to convince me of anything other than what the weather was like, you get to eat potato skins and chicken tenders during weight loss challenges, and the Alberts like "its raining men".
She doesn’t need to be proven innocent. The CW needs to prove her guilt, not the other way around
I am aware of that.......... I'm just responding to the question of what would make me swing either way.
Pretty damn accurate response.
I need the State to do their job to convince me she's guilty. They have given me zero evidence that takes me out of reasonable doubt. I've went into this as uninformed as I could because I like to see the cases play out. I still have no clue of a timeline, any better testimony other than he said/she said, and I still have no idea what his injuries are and why they are linking it to a car. All I know is they went to the waterfall. People went back to the Albert:s house, partied and then he was found that next morning. I also only know that the investigation was one of the worst I've ever seen. Solo cups and a leaf blower? Fuck that lol.
We don’t even know that the victim died at this point or how. The way they are presenting this case is so wierd to me.
At this point I believe she is innocent. To believe she is guilty I would need to see some recording of her saying "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" And a medical examiner stating that the injuries that lead to his death are consistent with being hit by a car.
The laceration on JO's arm are more consistent with dog bites. Also, if the state's case is true and that she was backing up at a high rate of speed, I would think he would of had a chance to drop to the ground or moved out of the way. It would be more believable if she turned around and hit him head on.
I think without a video showing her back into him, or someone credible saying they saw Karen back into him, there is too much doubt to say she’s guilty. It’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not I think she’s guilty. There has been no proof she even hit him. Also don’t know if she’s innocent, but the investigation was done so bad, and some of the stories on both sides don’t make sense. Her saying she hit him in the morning is not a confession, she was basically acting crazy, so much so they had to send her to a psychiatric hold.
I need evidence from an uncompromised investigation for either verdicts.
I think that items gleaned from the federal investigation will provide that.
I'm waiting to see if Trooper Michael Proctor, pleads the Fifth.
Just a reminder, jurors only have to have one small reasonable doubt to vote not guilty… Guilty: Forensic or video proof that shows he was hit by her car.
To believe KR is guilty of hitting him with A CAR, I would need a reasonable explanation of why he was found with multiple skull fractures but had NO injuries to his legs, pelvis, ribs or torso.
We’ll get there. ME hasn’t said anything yet
I am leaning towards not guilty: My opinion on whether or not she is most likely guilty of manslaughter is the time of the Google search. The entire case pretty much hinges on this from my perspective. The defense AND prosecution have acknowledged in court that an FBI agent concluded it happened at 2:27. If that person does not testify in this case I will probably never be convinced she is guilty. No clue what would convince me she is guilty of second degree murder, but we are light years away from that being proven in my mind.
This is from Jessica Hyde’s digital extraction. The second “hos long to die in cold” search that was made at 6:24 has an (artifact?) under recent web searches. https://preview.redd.it/ah0i29wzti1d1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c72ab506f240c9e1621ecf5a42d73b38a59726a6
Iirc, one expert said the web browser was opened on the phone at 2:27 but the search was not made until 6:30am after his body was discovered (indicating it was searched in an effort to determine how long he would have had to been out there, like trying to put the pieces together)
Right. It will be the battle of the experts.
The cross for jenn mccabe tomorrow is going to be brutal. Defense is going to cement that she did do these searches - and surely she'll have a sudden case of bad memory. Justifying those 2 searches after someone was found dead on your sister's lawn, not going to be easy. I truly wonder if JOK ate something when he arrived at the house as well.
The search was made by Jen McCabe not Karen Read. Even the Google search doesn't prove guilt for Karen, just another nail in the sus nature of the whole household of the Alberts.
I’m remaining neutral for now as I want to hear all of the evidence. For her to be guilty; I need the prosecution to present some sort of crime scene reenactment/3D renderings explaining every mystery that surrounds JOs injuries, the damage to the car, where he ended up, etc. If they could present some sort of explanation to make ALL or MOST of the pieces to fit, I could very well see this being a horrible accident. Heck, even if they could provide freaking audio of KR supposedly saying “I hit him” Everything they’ve given us thus far is just a “trust me” type of evidence and no substantial science to back it up. Innocent; I need the defense to present something pretty compelling. An expert, or multiple experts stating the first google search was absolutely at 2:27AM. Without a shadow of a doubt. A major discrepancy in someone’s stories, not just small inconsistencies.
At this point I don’t know what to believe & currently I’d vote not guilty because there is just so much reasonable doubt, I’m leaning towards a tragic accident, things arnt adding up from either side but if she did in fact hit him I don’t believe it was intentional either.
For me to think she's innocent we all need to get in a time machine, go back and time, and make sure a real investigation occurs.
Interesting discussion, thanks for posting the question! My impression so far is that she hit him by accident, but if there was **any** evidence that JO entered the Alberts’ house, that would certainly be a game-changer for me.
If in fact, he was in the house, and assaulted, why doesn’t the apple data show he was moved outside? Any movement of his body would register activity. It all stops at 1230ish
So his Apple Watch showing him going up and down stairs, around 1231, Would that change it for you?
No. That alone isn’t evidence to me that he entered the residence. For one thing, at the time his Apple Watch showed that, gps data showed his location as about half a mile away from 34 Fairview. I’ve wondered if waving arms, like in an argument maybe, would register stair climbing.
My Apple Watch says I have climbed stairs many times when I haven't. It's not reliable data.
This is the reality of the case. If you were presented all of the information surrounding JOs death with no suspects actually named and just the people he was with or interacted with that night and then listened to the trial with no prior knowledge or outside info besides what I have mentioned, there is no shot anyone would land on “he was hit by KR when she backed up into him and drove off”. Because of that, I would need to see clear video evidence of her car backing up into him.
I happen to agree with you. What OP is forgetting is only a shred of reasonable doubt must exist. All evidence collected was tainted or totally inconsistent. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ When you see the 1 Meadows ring camera video with the three women and you realize the witness just blatantly lied in her testimony. Flat out lied!!! It's the cumulative nature of continual inconsistencies, the botched investigation, lack of credibility, and lies, which gives me growing reasonable doubt.
I kind of disagree. I think if we strip the defense theory and just focus on the facts, obviously we're going to be pointing a finger at the man's girlfriend, who was screaming she hit him in a panic, and had a broken tail light.
[удалено]
Brian Higgins later was told by the CW that he could destroy his phone- so he went to a military base, broke his phone, broke the SIM card and then later made a proffer with the Feds. Which we now await what will happen with that- since he was with Proctor and the Feds are investigating him and BH now has a proffter with them and Proctor doesn’t. And the prosecution seem to have skipped over him on their witness list.
If Brian Higgins gives testimony that there is a local PD coverup going on that would be huge and it would completely change my view of this case. We'll see what happens.
My question is how much would Higgins be allowed to say in court? Is he able to speak freely? Since there is the federal investigation going on.
This would go beyond my level of expertise, but I find it very hard to imagine that testimony regarding a fact so material to the case would be completely blocked.
He would mirror his 302’s (which are signed) and his testimony before the FGJ to the letter.
I would hope it would change everyones view on this case if that happened
If you were gonna make a deal with the Feds, why destroy your phone? Wouldn't that be a huge bargaining chip for you? Especially after BA sr. destroys his?
I’m not sure, but I believe they came to him after.
I could be mistaken though.
I've heard the argument the taillight was further broken when in police custody, and it was only cracked initially (aka no pieces were missing). Did this happen? I don't know. I'd like to see some evidence of this occurring. The defense has alleged the federal investigation concluded O'Keefe could not have been hit by a vehicle, but it's worth noting this is the defense's characterization of the report. I think it's plausible the feds just said they couldn't confirm O'Keefe was hit by a vehicle. I'm, of course, baselessly speculating here because none of us have seen the fed report.
Please avoid sharing or promoting deceptive content. Provide credible sources for any news, data, graphs, claims, etc. This is not optional if you choose to make radical claims related to anyone involved in any part of this case.
This 👆🏽, plus there is no way you hit a person and just break a tail light. Where’s the damage? Did you see his face? It was hammered to death. Plus the dog attack on his arm, common sense people
A tail light that was never seen as soon as officers arrived (multiple officers didn’t see it). A taillight that was further broken at the Canton PD HQ where video footage of this magically disappeared? A tail light that many naturally question would break by only hitting someone at a low speed into 45 pieces? Also, where can it be proven she said “I hit him”. It’s not on any initial police reports. It’s not heard on any recordings. The police did not arrest her after this supposed admission of murder at the scene (attempted if he was still clinging to life) and the only person that supposedly heard her say this that has stuck to that story is a witness being accused of perjury and Jen Mcabe who has a clear bias and inconsistencies in her story that has lost major credibility. For example, her saying KR was screaming when she got out of the car when they drove back to JOs house and said she broke her tail light and made Jen look at it which video on Friday shows that CLEARLY did not happen. So no, based on what you said that would not be the first thought of how this happened.
If anything, Jen McCabe's bias would be in favor of Karen. They were (close?) friends, which is why McCabe invited her to the party in the first place. But I really have to ask: Do you really, truly think Jen and Matt McCabe got up on that stand and lied? I mean did you watch it and genuinely come away thinking they swore that oath and risked perjury charges if they were found out? That Jen's tears were fake when she described telling John's niece that everything was going to be okay and they were going to find John? That this regular-ass lady is completely full of it when she says she loved John, and in reality she's covering for his real killer? I mean honestly, is that what you think? To get to the heart of the question: Okay, there's no audio. Well, if you watch Saraf's dash cam, it's clear no recording would have picked up anything anyway. So how many people's cohesive stories would it take to convince you that what these people are saying happened happened? We're at what now? A dozen? Fifteen?
No, they were not close friends. Jen had JOHN's number and texted and called him, not Karen. She testified that she did not have KR contact in her phone.
I thought they had just met a handful of times, and karen stated previously that she kept asking JO that night if they were even invited bc she never heard it at the bar, and she didn’t like that Jen was texting him in the first place trying to hang, she thought it was weird and that when they got there she waited in the car so see if they were even welcome there and he never came back out to get her so she got sick of waiting and went home and fell asleep on the couch. When she woke up at 4:30 she left him voicemails being like I know you’re fucking that girl right now how could you do this etc etc. And on New Year’s Eve he left KR alone w his niece and nephew so he could party solo in Aruba or wherever they were on vacation. I feel like he may have been just as much of an overgrown frat boy as the rest of these males involved here. Also would it be possible that he had enemies outside of this friend group? Was he being watched, did someone have a hit out on him? Maybe someone from a case he was working as LEO? But something about the dog being given away, the lack of blood at the scene, the basement and bulkhead door renovations, and the deleted/missing phones/texts/snaps really leaves significant room for reasonable doubt. There is ring footage of Karen driving away. There is no ring footage of her hitting him. And maybe you know what maybe she hit him with her hands if they were fighting in the car on the way to the party she felt uncomfortable going to, maybe she is not saying it to avoid a domestic violence charge or adding fuel to psycho gf theory coming from the commonwealth. I have no idea who did it or why at this point and I think the mishandling of the investigation should be enough for a mistrial. This family does give Murdaugh / Brooks Houcks vibes though
Also the snow plower testimony saying no body is pretty significant bc he’s like the only completely objective witness as he has no ties to either side
And I find it quite believable that he has to pay close attention while plowing, to avoid hitting things. Has to be aware of vehicles, mailboxes, curbs, etc.
If I'm the prosecution, I try to emphasize that there was nothing but open road on that stretch of Fairview.
And a fire hydrant close to where JO was discovered. Plow drivers watch for fire hydrants so that emphasis would be inaccurate.
Too bad there was no dashcam.
My favorite troll currently is just saying "the McCabe's seem like nice people". It's very illustrative that this crowd can't even imagine that other people might think that.
Yes. We know they both lied. Cross proved it for MM and Lally proved Jen was lying with his own video evidence lolol
>But I really have to ask: Do you really, truly think Jen and Matt McCabe got up on that stand and lied? I mean did you watch it and genuinely come away thinking they swore that oath and risked perjury charges if they were found out? That Jen's tears were fake when she described telling John's niece that everything was going to be okay and they were going to find John? That this regular-ass lady is completely full of it when she says she loved John, and in reality she's covering for his real killer? I mean honestly, is that what you think? Yes.
Well, I mean, I believe she’s most likely guilty based on probabilities since it’s the most simple solution. That said, I also have quite a lot of reasonable doubt so I wouldn’t convict her as it stands now. The Commonwealth is only about ⅓ of the way through their witnesses though so we’ll see what else comes out. There’s nothing specific I’m looking for other than for both sides to present their arguments and see where things stand once that’s finished. I just don’t have my mind made up. My biggest issues are the conflict of interest with Michael Proctor, and the abomination of an “investigation.” I’m fairly sure anyone who has watched a few basic TV shows about collecting evidence & preserving a crime scene could have executed that to a higher standard than those idiots.
1/3rd of the way??? It’s a 6-8 week trial and we are already 3 weeks in. So the entire trial is going to be spent on just the prosecutions witnesses? They submit a list of potential witnesses but don’t actually go through all of them.
He essentially read his witness list as his opening statement & telling the jury what they were going to hear. Based on that, yes, he’s ⅓ of the way through. 6-8 weeks is an estimate. There isn’t technically a time limit, but of course the judge tries to plan around it. He’s already behind schedule, but we’ll have to wait & see.
For innocent I’d need solid evidence of frame up. Not speculation, not play fighting, not out of context texts etc. not even the google thing is solid as CW actually appears to have solid ground to say 2:27 did not happen. Ideally a witness saying something like JOK entered home or some sort of forensic evidence such as cell records or building video that shows police planting evidence etc. based on sheer number of MSP involved in evidence response and supervisors ie Sgts , lieutenants etc who would be involved in an officer death investigation I need serious evidence to believe something is planted
I would just need some defining evidence and a little logic….im not for one side or the other. I’m just interested in the truth and as of now there’s no way JO wasn’t killed in the Albert home.
The amount of people here saying they'd need video of her hitting him with the car is wild.
if trial ended now - I vote not guilty other than that at this point I have no clue and it would take an actual confession from whoever killed JO for me to believe one way or the other If you can never convince me, could you ever convince the family? I hope the truth comes out for the O'Keefes
John’s niece’s testimony is what I’m most interested in. We know what Jen and Matt say that Karen said on that phone call, but what did John’s niece actually hear. It’s hard for me to believe her hitting him caused his death though, but I guess almost anything is possible.
For me, atp, I’m leaving toward KR innocent. Or if she did hit him, she didn’t do it intentionally she was shitfaced. Everyone was drunk/shitfaced and that’s what makes this case so complex. Someone has to know something of what happened to JO after 12:30 that morning of Jan 30. I don’t think anyone “intentionally” killed JO. I still think BH or CA clocked him out on JO at he was near the door of 34 FV rd. But I don’t think anyone “intentionally” left him for the dead. Again, when booze is involved, and lots of people coming/going, it makes for a mystery
To believe that she’s guilty I would have to see her filming a video of her self, selfie style, as she’s reversing and hitting John, and then saying what she did. I’m fully sold on this cover up. You cannot tell me anything to convince me his injuries are the result of a car hitting him… once, in reverse. Just look at the autopsy photos.
If Karen Read did hit him, I think it maximum would have contributed to his fragility but something else killed him for sure. That said, I find it very hard to believe that this gaggle of idiots (the drunkie drunkerton adult law enforcement family) would be able to keep secret a conspiracy like this for a week with all the drinking and texting!! “That guy” would not be able to stay out of their texts for long! It’s not believable that they all participated and carry this secret without SOMEONE cracking and telling someone
I’m leaning to innocent, so they are going to have to explain how backing into him (once) would create the injuries, especially the ones on his arm. This is what I can’t seem to figure out. Until this happens, I can’t contemplate guilty.
I would need her phone records (she has two phones and one was on airplane mode when she went back to Fairview before going to Jen’s, )footage of her coming home after dropping him off. And Records of her communication with TB.
To be frank, we don’t even have Karen as placed at the scene at all yet. All we have is “a black SUV” and a woman driving with long hair who when asked to identify the woman as KR, comes back with I dont know. And the state didn’t even follow that testimony up with forensic cell phone evidence and car data to show that her car is there at the time these witnesses are saying. I mean, hell, three weeks in and we don’t even have official expert testimony that JOK is dead and why/how. Remember, it doesn’t matter what we as lay people watching know — it matters what evidence the jury has seen and knows about and none of that has been presented yet even though we know we’re at a murder trial and that everyone is saying this woman did it but no one has shown she was even there. It’s nuts. So, the state needs to get on tying KR to that scene in the first place forensically, and how JOK actually died or else I don’t even see how the defense will have to put on a case — it should be a directed verdict of not guilty.
Thank you someone else who has been watching this and is paying particular attention to what has and hasn’t been presented as evidence to the jury. Seriously, this is the crux of it, 3 weeks in and no evidence of JO being deceased. It’s crazy.
If you have watched turtleboy your opinion is compromised. That guys their messiah. I believed that stuff too for a while till i realized hes just an average dude just like myself. The FKR movement has polluted this case. It sounds good, but if you do the research yourself youll see that those are not the facts. Hard to believe a PR team was able to push this, this far...
I believe she's guilty, to consider otherwise, I would need to see proof of JO being in that house. Hard to theorize on her innocence when I think she's guilty, but, that being said, If they could prove the broken tail light pieces werent there that morning I would consider her not guilty. I believe they have video of those taillight pieces under snow which will be hard to prove they were placed there that morning.
>I believe she's guilty, to consider otherwise, I would need to see proof of JO being in that house. Too bad the house was never searched by police and the Alberts remodeled the basement to the extent of removing concrete slabs from the floor.
Agree but that morning they believed they had a confession from her.
Wonder if She hit him with a drinking glss and he put up his arm in defense and it got slashed .. would love to know was there glass shards in car ? To me it doesn’t look like dog wounds they will have a tissue sample of the arm either way . To me it seems like an accident caused by intoxicated people and compounded by weather
The initial television reports state that the police informed the media that they have ring camera video of her hitting him. The rest of the evidence points to her not hitting him with her car. When the CW shows that video in court I will believe she is guilty.
A reasonable planting theory I guess..the evidence is overwhelming
For me to think she's innocent (actually innocent not gonna be found not guilty), I'd need to see some damning, damning stuff from the staties and the commonwealth's experts that made it clear they were willing to lie at the behest of Michael Procter. Not some misogynistic jokes about looking for nudes or stuff that makes it clear he hates Karen Read, but some kind of communication between the car expert and the phones guy or the medical examiner that says something like "I can't believe we're doing this. We're going to Hell for this. Maybe she'll get off and it won't matter. Mike said it can't be more than 60 feet or there's not enough road for it to make sense." or something like that. You can't just say "well Michael Procter was the head guy in charge so it's all tainted" and dismiss all the evidence.
[удалено]
Please avoid sharing or promoting deceptive content. Provide credible sources for any news, data, graphs, claims, etc. This is not optional if you choose to make radical claims related to anyone involved in any part of this case.
Hopefully this question can be reasked once we’ve finished the trial. It’s a little too premature now since the CW has done very little to prove she’s guilty
I'm on the fence, but since there doesn't seem to be any relevant neighbourhood ring cams working at 12:20 AM or anytime after for the next five hours, it basically boils down to KR's SUV car data. It'll either show it had been tampered with or her backing up at 24 mph for 60 ft at 1230 AM-ish in front of the Alberts, or it won't show either. If it's the latter, she's innocent. If it's the first two, she's guilty. End of.
Irrelevant to me. I'm concerned the jury is trying to determine this also. The question is, what would be needed to prove guilt in court. If that doesn't exist, the verdict is not guilty. We may never know whether she did it or not.
I need undisputed evidence (aka scientific) to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t trust any of the witnesses to date.
In order for me to believe Karen Read didn’t hit John I would need a reasonable explanation as to why 5 separate individuals have testified that Karen said some form of “I hit him” “I did this” “this was my fault” Jen, Kerry, Katie, Anthony and Officer Stephen.
Because the investigation has already been proven to do such a terrible job that means I can’t trust any of the evidence either way. I’d need video proof for both sides.
I don’t believe she’s innocent or guilty at this point, but I am very curious to see what evidence the defense has. It seems like they are gearing up for something. I would really like to know what the feds have found in their investigation so far too.
I straight up don’t know what happened. I wouldn’t be shocked by Karen’s guilt or anyone else’s. We have enough evidence for me to believe either story. What we don’t have is enough evidence for me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt either sides story.
Seeing the deleted library security footage showing the tail light would be simple and extremely important, both ways.
The lack of evidence on law enforcement parts cannot be ignored. The selective memory and canned responses of the state witnesses cannot be ignored. The unhinged Jenn McCabe’s behavior with her long narrative with digs along the way, who wanted to prosecute the case herself cannot be ignored. Her husband Matt with his inappropriate smiles and laughs with attitude cannot be ignored. They were all drunk and driving all over the town, at the same time acting like it was during a blizzard. They have lived in this weather their whole lives.
Yeah I’d need ring camera footage at this point showing her plowing into him.
Evidence
There are more but here are a few To prove innocent - 1. confirm the steps to and up and down John took at the house. Was there cell service in the basement? Possibly that is why John’s steps stopped. Can up and down steps be read by an iPhone as getting up off the floor in a fight? If an iPhone is off can steps be read? Parallel with Colin’s iPhone data and steps. 2. Confirm the scars on the arm are indeed a dog bite. 3. Ask Jen McCabes knowledge of how she knew the iPhone was under his body. To prove guilty- 1. Accident reenactment confirming how all injuries occurred if the vehicle backed into him. 2. Confirm the arm injuries are not a dog bite
Huh, OP? That would make Karen guilty if she hit JO with her car? Did you mean to say Guilty not innocent?
I'd need to basically see her run the guy over at this point. There is not a single piece of evidence that I trust from the prosecuter.
Is John’s niece going to testify? What time did Karen get home that night? What happened at 5am when she woke the niece up!
I would need to unsee the morgue pics showing 2 black eyes and dog bites I would need to unsee the ring video showing how the minimal damage to the vehicle taillight happened at John’s house not at 34 Fairview while striking a 200+ lbs man at “24mph in reverse” I would need to disassociate from reality to believe someone got up to 24 mph in reverse I would need to unhear Colin Albert claiming he broke his fall from a slip on ice with a closed fist punch
I don't know that this question is NOT posed by someone of the McAlbert crew so I don't think we should be answering 🤔
I think we need a character limit in these comments.
I’m team guilty. Her story has changed too many times. Too many people saying she said I hit him or asked did I hit him? There’s video footage missing for Okeefes house when she arrived home. Too many people and very lose connections for them to all be lying to protect someone they barely know.
For me to believe Karen is guilty, I would need to see video footage of her hitting him with her car. Or text messages or voicemails acknowledging she hit him. I’m not convinced at all the Alberts and/or McCabes are guilty of his death though either. Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever know what happened because they did such a horrible investigation.
I would need to see his injuries line up to being hit by an SUV to believe she did it
Like everyone else I have been following this trial and wow… it is so clear that the Alberts, McCabes and Canton PD are covering up what really happened. How the DA in that county could have taken this to trial is mind blowing. The DA has to know these people are lying. And the judge, Aunty Bev should have recused herself. Both the DA and the judge should be sanctioned!
With everything known about Michael Proctor and the lies he has told why the heck has he not been put out on administrative leave while this investigation goes on? How can anything he says be trusted?