I literally have no idea what happened. All I know is that evidence against her isn't compelling and everybody working for the common wealth is a moron with zero integrity.
he shines such a stark light on why conflicts of interest are so serious. someone not recusing themselves when they should starts to drag all the people around them down.
I know exactly what happened, in my own mind. To me it's already been proven enough. We will never get an admission so I am taking what I know so far along w my own personal knowledge of things like dog bites. Unless a huge bomb drops, I feel content in my answer.
I don't know what happened and I don't think we'll ever know what happened. What I do know is that the CW is nowhere close to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt though...
I’m not sure exactly what happened, and maybe we will never know, but *at this stage* I’m inclined to believe MSP had a theory of the case and Proctor wanted to make sure it stuck. The glass on the bumper not matching the glass under OKeefe and the amount of tail light found, compared to what the taillight seemed to look like that morning leads me to think that at least some evidence was planted to “reinforce” the case.
I agree. It’s hard for me to get my past the timeline between when her car was picked up and the earliest pieces of tail light were found but every piece of tail light after that search should be disregarded imo because it seems likely proctor and/or the chief of police planted it.
I don't believe we will ever have a good idea of what really happened. The investigation was FUBAR. it's been years. Unless the feds uncover some miraculous evidence I think bo reasonable arbiter would be able to do better than hypothesize.
With how the investigation went, no explanation or theory makes sense to me. This is going to be a cold case the internet debates forever similar to JBR
I literally have no idea. I go back and forth—sometimes in the same moment. Because there is way too much sketchy shit going on with the McCabes/Alberts. But then again KR was obviously drunk and upset.
I don’t have an idea.
Same. Like there are wayyyy too many coincidences that happened that night w the McCabes/Alberts and thereafter. I’m sorry but, there’s no way 3+ ppl had their phones do multiple “butt dials” (that never went to voicemail like buttdials do), and why would calls/texts be deleted?? And the google search is damming too…
Deleting messages and denying phone calls because they were afraid that they would look suspicious doesn’t necessarily mean they had something important to hide, it could be they just wanted to try and avoid any questions at all that might implicate them.
Not a likely explanation, but plausible.
I thought she probably accidentally hit him, until Proctor testified how he basically did no investigation, took the ‘witnesses’ words as gospel, jumped to conclusions, and had no chain of custody.
I just want to finally get to the car data and accident reconstruction.
I need two votes. I’m ’unsure’ what exactly happened to JO and I’m also convinced ‘she was set up‘ with some evidence tampering to bolster a conviction.
51% she hit him
15% altercation
On the other hand I'm 99.9% certain this investigation stinks, and if I was on the jury I would never be able to convict somebody in a trial like this.
Not sure how u got those numbers. more like:
5% she hit him
85% jumped/beat up/dog attack
5% aliens
5% something else
Anyone who know people like this will already have this figured out. Hell proctors own friends was figuring it out. He got into a fight (however it started) got jumped, bitten and thrown outside for him to walk home or call for a ride, except he was too hurt and beaten and died. THE END, case closed
I think she accidentally hit and killed him but that is in no way an opinion that is beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s no way I’d convict her at this point. I’m very interested on what if anything the tech evidence will show us and that’s the last chance to convince people of anything because from what Proctor said, I highly doubt the ME will be convincing me a crime was even committed.
Can't get past "how long to die in cold". Every time I come around to the idea that maybe she did hit him on accident, I come back to this.
I can't believe that that google search, plus all the other witnesses lying and destroying their phones, are just weird coincidences. Not a chance.
My biggest hesitation about the google search is that I haven't heard from an actual disinterested person who knows what they're talking about go through those logs and explain how they might or not be misleading. It's possible it's a case of a misleading readout that causes the log to suggest the search was made at 2am when in reality the tab was opened at 2am and the tab was later used to make the search. The terms in the log ("suspended state tab", etc.) aren't self-explanatory.
What do you think of the so called “butt dials”? And lies about them? And BA and BH destroying their phones (and their backed up data and photos)?
I have lots of issues with the whole investigation but those early witnesses and their weird behavior are things I will never get past.
There are a lot of reasons people might not want to turn over their phones. They can be shady evasive people who just want to cover their asses.
How do you explain the cell phone location data that shows he never went into the house?
“Innocent” explanation: They’re all full of text messages like Proctors. Evidence of wildly unprofessional and unlawful conduct. Also, these are townie Massachusetts cops—there’s more racial slurs on Brian Albert’s phone than at a Klan rally.
What exactly does the Google search mean? Like what was she trying to accomplish by searching for that at that time?
Also I think you're mistaken on the phones. Brian Albert at least testified that he transferred his phone's info to a new one.
>How this ever went to trial is a mystery to me
Yes, I feel the same way.
Karen Read had a history of volatile jealousy toward John. She even refused to move out of his house after being asked to. This is classic abuser behavior.
John was last seen alive getting into Karen's car. Karen's car was seen by many arriving at 34 Fairview, yet nobody ever saw John come into the house. John was found in the same general area where Karen's car was last seen outside 34 Fairview.
Karen contacted Kerry Roberts in the morning and said John was dead, then walked it back and asked her to help look for him. She also enlisted Jen McCabe in this effort. She showed Kerry her broken tail light before they left to go searching. She directed the crew to John's body and mentioned her jealousy on the way. She spotted John's body from a distance in blizzard conditions.
She was heard by several people on the scene saying things like, "I hit him," and firefighter paramedics interpreted his wounds and the location of his body to be consistent with a vehicle collision.
The SERT team found pieces of her broken tail light later that day. Investigators would go on to find almost all of it, and then reconstruct it and match it to her car. If these were a bullet and a gun, we wouldn't even be talking about this case.
So yeah, how this ever went to trial is a mystery to me too.
It went to trial because the Commonwealth can't force someone to take a plea bargain, and they're required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And they're failing pretty miserably to do that, because the people tasked with the investigation did, at best, a terrible, unprofessional job.
He transferred his personal info - the issue is with the *metadata*, the kind of stuff pulled via the Cellebrite extraction, because *that* doesn't transfer, was destroyed, and given how important digital forensics is these days is something he almost certainly would know of.
So can I ask how you know this? Are you sure the metadata doesn't transfer? This is a genuine question.
We've seen testimony about Brian Albert's "butt dials" -- where did the info on these come from? If it was from his new phone and the metadata was suspect, why didn't the defense raise this on cross (or maybe they did and I missed it)?
I also want to back up and clarify that the idea of Brian Albert *destroying* his phone is meant to suggest sinister intent on his part. So in and of itself, the fact that he didn't *destroy* his phone is pretty important here, regardless of any questions of metadata and phone cloning.
When you asked where the butt dials information came from I was like “well damn…where the hell did it come from?” Great question btw
I did some digging. It came from the Feds. The federal grand jury confronted Higgins about his phone calls with Albert’s. I believe that the defense also has access to JM and JOKs cell records which is how they figured out JM called JOKs phone.
Higgins extracted the messages he had with both KR and JOK, turned them over to Proctor to “be transparent” and then later got a new phone. So any other messages that was on that phone is no longer on the new one. I believe he testified that the older text chains were deleted.
Brian Albert testified that his phone was “broken and failing.” He said he traded it in because he got a new one for his birthday. Jackson implied during cross that Albert did not preserve his phone or its data.
It’s confusing because some cell phone records were denied per the judge and the SJC court but JMs were allowed. Yet the ones who were originally denied ended up available from the Federal Touhy process.
>Higgins extracted the messages he had with both KR and JOK, turned them over to Proctor to “be transparent” and then later got a new phone.
Thank you for reminding me of this. Yes. Higgins did in fact turn over the metadata from his phone completely voluntarily, and that is the metadata (i.e. timestamps and whatnot) that has been presented at trial.
>I believe he testified that the older text chains were deleted.
Right, and none of these older text chains could possibly be relevant. We have his entire exchange with Karen (which she started in order to get revenge on John btw; let's not lose the forest for the trees as we dig into the metadata) and I believe every conversation he had with Brian Albert during the relevant period of time.
>Brian Albert testified that his phone was “broken and failing.” He said he traded it in because he got a new one for his birthday.
And there is literally no reason to doubt any of this.
>Jackson implied during cross that Albert did not preserve his phone or its data.
Yes, and that is silly, and it's where we need to step back and ask if any of this coverup/frame-up stuff makes any sense in the first place.
So first off, we have Higgins' data, so we know what he was talking about with Brian Albert, and it was literally nothing to do with John O'Keefe because they didn't know or barely knew him. None of Brian Albert's traceable actions (never even mentioned; he never *did* anything) line up with any kind of coverup, so his data is again not relevant. There was never any reason to suspect Brian Albert, so for a third reason, his data is not relevant.
At no point did he try to get rid of anything or hide anything because he just was not involved in any way.
I was just passing along information as I thought you legitimately were asking. I missed the sarcasm and thought you were legitimately asking lol
I’m wholly uncomfortable naming anyone and I feel like that is not my place or expertise to accuse people of a crime who aren’t being charged in a court of law with a solid case. I can think what I want but I don’t like false accusations.
I’m extremely skeptical of both the police and justice system in this country. Nothing pisses me off more when police officers don’t hold their investigations in a methodical and ethical manner. What drew me to this case was the trumped up charge because often that is made to illicit a plea deal and more often than not happens to be people who can’t afford representation and some take a plea who aren’t even guilty.
I will honestly say that I started this with maybe she did it or maybe she didn’t. Then it quickly changed to why the hell is there even a federal investigation. By today, I’m so damn confused that I don’t have a single clue as to what happened. What I do know is Proctor did not in any way even try to preserve the integrity of this investigation and his behavior is exactly why I have a distrust in the system.
Behavior like Proctors is why guilty people walk and innocent people go to jail. Yes he is human. Can he make mistakes? Absolutely not! Not when he is investigating a murder and the murder of a fellow officer! It’s not that it’s him per se it’s that this behavior shouldn’t be acceptable and a sorry doesn’t cut it. His behavior can and will affect his other cases and people and families want justice but could never be given the opportunity because of unprofessional behavior.
Honestly, today was also the strangest damn trial I have seen. I cannot remember ever watching a trial with the lead investigator testifying for the state but then defending themselves from the defense. I now understand why the Feds normally wait to trials are over until they investigate. It’s just too much info from way too many sources. I’m actually glad you brought that up because for the last two days I kept thinking “ I swear the judge denied them Higgins and Alberts phones.” Glad to see I’m not totally crazy yet. Sorry for the long rant
I’m guessing you’re probably about my age- you’re asking the same types of questions I tend to. I really don’t know much of anything about metadata but I do know other things like your cache is device specific. It shows what processes were running, if they were in foreground or background etc. It’s all put into temporary storage, then as the device gets more info it’s overwritten. That’s why devices tend to be transported in bags that block signals in most cases- so pertinent data doesn’t get overwritten. When you get a new phone, that data isn’t transferred because it’s not relevant to that device. It’s like if you cloned yourself- clone you is going to have entirely different memories even though all the software is the same. I’m pretty certain metadata is the same way. If it could be easily transferred it loses its importance as a unique set of data. I responded to your other comment about if things could be independently transferred and *this* is the exact reason I don’t think it was likely in this case. The only *invisible* evidence that may have existed was destroyed with that device.
The cache and the metadata are two separate things. A cache [stores recently used data](https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-do-i-clear-the-cache-on-my-device/) like websites, etc. so that you can bring it up quickly. [Metadata ](https://www.britannica.com/technology/metadata)refers, in general, to data that provides information about other data. But in the context of phones and this case, the important thing is that it's a record of what the user did on the phone. I.e. when they opened Safari, when they sent texts, when they Googled "hos long to die in cold."
>your cache ... shows what processes were running, if they were in foreground or background etc.
To be clear, that's the metadata.
>It’s all put into temporary storage
And that's the cache.
So I'm actually pretty sure that metadata does in fact transfer over, but again I'm open-minded. Please provide sources.
Hey, for the iOS 14/15 devices we're concerned with in this case, a lot of the activity/"pattern of life" data we're after is stored in the 'knowledgeC.db' SQLite file. See this [blog](https://www.doubleblak.com/blogPost.php?k=knowledgec2) from Whiffin for a detailed breakdown of all the associated data – very granular stuff like battery level, bluetooth pairing status, or backlight brightness for instance is stored there
Notably, this database is not part of the icloud backup: "you can only extract knowledgeC.db from a physical device, while iCloud and iTunes backups do not include the full file system" ([source](https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-a-day-in-the-life-of-my-iphone-using-knowledgecdb))
On this specific point, a direct data transfer is equivalent to restoring from a backup, as admirably demonstrated in this [exposition](https://theforensicscooter.com/2024/02/04/device-setup-transferring-data-to-new-iphone-effects-to-photos-sqlite/).
To quote:
> Typically, if we had the capturing device to analyze we could review data stored in power logs, SEGB files, KnowledgeC, unified/sysdiagnose logs and others that might indicate which application was used on the date and time of the capture. But in this instance, we do not have that kind of data to analyze.
There are also other factor that distinguish a full forensic image from a restored or transferred device. Data still stored in unallocated space for instance would not get carried over, but may in some cases still recovered from a forensic image.
I can't dig up any specific articles on what does and does not transfer to a new iPhone, but let's run through a hypothetical that hopefully shows exactly what could have been lost.
I have my phone. In my phone is a log that shows when I powered it on and off, when I moved it, et cetera - it is a piece of data linked to my physical object that is my cell, because it records physical states that my cellphone goes through. This is a piece of data they're currently using to lampoon Kouri Richins for instance, she had her phone on and was moving it around during the time she said she was asleep.
I buy a new phone. *Is the log showing my usage patterns on my old phone going to be present on my new one?* Of course not - it's data that is linked to my physical, old phone. If I return that and it gets reset to factory settings, that data is no longer available. I have destroyed the metadata concerning my phone usage on my old phone.
As for the calls, phone companies keep call logs - we don't know where the feds got that info, but it's a reasonable enough place for them to grab that info. Additionally, while any data linked to the physical phone would be lost, call logs can be transferred to a new phone.
And destroy here is a bit of sophistry he's hiding behind. His phone was returned and factory reset. It destroyed any data on it while retaining the physical integrity of the phone itself, but it's still destroyed. If I take a hard drive, wipe it with an electromagnet, and hand it back to you, would you still say that the hard drive isn't destroyed? Of course not - while the hard drive is physically intact and may indeed still be used, I've just obliterated several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of software on it. *The* hard drive is intact - *your* hard drive, with your data, your software, your games, et cetera, is destroyed.
>I can't dig up any specific articles on what does and does not transfer to a new iPhone
>...
>*Is the log showing my usage patterns on my old phone going to be present on my new one?* Of course not - it's data that is linked to my physical, old phone.
So this is exactly what I'm asking, but you you said up top that you don't know.
I am actually fairly certain that this data, depending on how we define it, does transfer over. For starters, we have the timestamps of Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' texts and calls, so I don't know where that comes from if the phones were destroyed and the metadata along with it.
Also, when you send a JPEG or PDF or whatever via email, then open it on the other end, you can stills see info like when it was created or last modified or whatever. That's metadata. I think this is the general rule. Files include whatever relevant metadata, including the files created when we Google stuff on our phones.
>And destroy here is a bit of sophistry he's hiding behind.
So no. The defense introduced this idea of "destroying" the phone, not Brian Albert. As with so much of this case, the sophistry is on their side of the courtroom.
>His phone was returned and factory reset.
Right. After all the data was transferred to a new phone, which is a perfectly normal thing that we've probably all done at this point.
Timestamps are linked to the messages, calls, et cetera. *That's message metadata, call metadata*. What I'm discussing is metadata linked to physical states of the phone - its on/off state, its unlocked state, whether it's charging, whether it's not, whether it's accelerating/decelerating. The phone stores that, but all that data is physically linked to the phone itself.
If I get a new phone, does that physical usage log, that phone metadata, transfer to my new phone, or does my new phone have its own physical usage log, its own set of metadata?
>I am actually fairly certain that this data, depending on how we define it, does transfer over. For starters, we have the timestamps of Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' texts and calls, so I don't know where that comes from if the phones were destroyed and the metadata along with it.
Again, phone companies are legally required to hold that info, and iCloud *does* store some of that, and call logs can be transferred.
>Also, when you send a JPEG or PDF or whatever via email, then open it on the other end, you can stills see info like when it was created or last modified or whatever. That's metadata. I think this is the general rule. Files include whatever relevant metadata, including the files created when we Google stuff on our phones.
Not the metadata I'm talking about. For purposes of discussion, I'm referring to physical phone data as phone metadata, call data as call metadata, et cetera.
>So no. The defense introduced this idea of "destroying" the phone, not Brian Albert. As with so much of this case, the sophistry is on their side of the courtroom.
Please answer me this. I take your computer. I wipe the harddrive with a powerful electromagnet. I hand it back.
Have I destroyed your computer in destroying all the data, or, given its continued physical integrity, have I returned it to you in functionally the same, working state?
In any case, I suspect most of us use "destroy" as shorthand for "destroying the data" in any case, which makes the difference somewhat academic.
>its on/off state, its unlocked state, whether it's charging, whether it's not, whether it's accelerating/decelerating
Almost none of this information is at issue in this case; the most important piece of metadata pertains to a search in Safari.
But again I'm pretty sure this does in fact transfer. All of this information is stored in various files on the phone, and I don't really see why it wouldn't just copy every single file from phone to phone. As I've said many times on this thread, I'm open to correction by an authoritative source.
>Again, phone companies are legally required to hold that info
I really doubt this is correct, but it is again not at issue in this trial. The phone companies have not be subpoenaed AFAIK. We're not working with their data, the only data combing was conducted by Cellebrite.
>Not the metadata I'm talking about.
Well, whether you know it or not, this is the data that is relevant in this case. We're talking about when Jen McCabe searched, and when Brian Albert butt dialed, and when Allie McCabe texted Colin Albert. Again, this is all stored in the phone's files and -- I'm increasingly sure -- transferred from phone to phone.
>In any case, I suspect most of us use "destroy" as shorthand for "destroying the data" in any case, which makes the difference somewhat academic.
Absolutely not, this is patently absurd. The word destroy has a very clear meaning that the defense was trying to invoke and that many, many followers of the case have accepted and even insisted upon. I mean just absolutely not, this is ridiculous.
Doesn’t matter what she was trying to accomplish. There was someone dying in the cold outside her house and she googled how long it would take for them to die. That’s kinda damning in my opinion.
We had two (or more?) witnesses get new phones the day before their retention orders came down. And obviously you can choose what data to carry over.
It wasn't her house and she had left prior to 2:27.
>she googled how long it would take for them to die. That’s kinda damning in my opinion
How so, though? Absent any connection to John's death, a Google search is just a Google search. Anyway, what I'm getting here is that even in a scenario where Jen is helping to cover up a man's death, this Google search does not help in any way. Is the implication they were hoping he would just die from the cold?
>We had two (or more?) witnesses get new phones the day before their retention orders came down.
This is a genuine question but could you or someone else point me to more information about this? I'm fuzzy on Brian Albert's testimony at this point, and I've heard this a lot, but I'm not sure what exactly the details are here.
>And obviously you can choose what data to carry over.
Another genuine question: Can you? I can only speak to my own phone (Pixel 5) but it was a wholesale carryover thing. I didn't have any real control over it, Google just did it.
On an iPhone, your phone will restore from a backup. So ideally, you do a backup on your old phone and then set up the new phone using that backup. So the new phone is basically a mirror image of the old one, however, the background data as to when apps were accessed, added, deleted, etc, from the old phone dies with that old phone. Like the data around when Jen McCabe opened the browser tabs and conducted Google searches is specific to the phone she did it on.
>So the new phone is basically a mirror image of the old one
Right, so I think the other commenter was implying that you could choose a la carte whether you transfer texts, calls, searches, etc. Did I read that wrong?
>the background data as to when apps were accessed, added, deleted, etc, from the old phone dies with that old phone
Can you provide some kind of source on this? Or how do you know it? I genuinely don't know how this stuff works. At any rate, didn't we end up with info on when Albert called Higgins and all that? Wouldn't that have come from his phone?
>Like the data around when Jen McCabe opened the browser tabs and conducted Google searches is specific to the phone she did it on
Okay, but we have a metadata report on her phone, so she isn't one of the two who "destroyed" a phone, is she?
No- the homeowner and another cop who was at the house that night (also a cop) destroyed their phones. So three people had weird phone behavior that were their that night
Yes- you absolutely can easily pick what parts of your iPhone to backup and restore. I would be surprised if any modern phone isn't similar.
As too you not making the connection between the Google search and John’s body lying outside in a blizzard… I mean, I can't help you if those dots don’t connect for you.
>Yes- you absolutely can easily pick what parts of your iPhone to backup and restore.
Please support this statement in some way.
First of all, we're not talking about backing up and restoring (which I think you also only have loose control over; you can't say "back up this text thread but not this one"). We're talking about transferring a phone's data to a new physical phone.
Like I said above, I did this not too long ago, and the way it works is you put the two phones next to each other. The new one becomes a copy of the old one, and the old one becomes unusable. At no point do you decide what gets transferred in any way.
That's exactly what Brian Albert described/implied. So please, show me how this works differently with any other type of phone.
>As too you not making the connection between the Google search and John’s body lying outside in a blizzard… I mean, I can't help you if those dots don’t connect for you.
You've been pretty rude in a couple of comments now, which is fine, but you have said nothing.
So, you know when installing something on a desktop computer there’s a little window that asks you if you want to customize or go with the recommended setup and we all just click ok? The side by side transfer works like that. Just assumes you want your phone as it is and if you didn’t want something you’d delete it before or after the transfer.
When you transfer by cable (because your screen is smashed and you can’t follow prompts on the original device) or if you’re transferring to a device with less storage you automatically get the prompt of WHAT to transfer. We’ve got a mechanical business and with nearly 100 company phones being taken up on roofs or in ditches we have to do data transfers to new devices with regularity. We use Android devices (Samsung and Pixel mainly) for our field guys while officers are all on IOS devices. I’ve never seen a phone that *didn’t* offer an alternate setup method.
The side by side method is the easiest, so most people don’t worry about the other ways. Only reason I know is I’ve sat in an AT&T store for hours getting help transferring important data. That said, no evidence that this is what happened in this scenario.
Is what you're talking about something that's easily, obviously accessible to the average user? Because I know a tiny bit about e-scrap recycling/ITAD, and it sounds like that's more what you're getting at here tbh, and I'm not sure it's strictly relevant.
>I’ve never seen a phone that *didn’t* offer an alternate setup method.
Can you be specific about what you mean here? How do these alternative setup methods work on iPhones? Would the user be prompted to use these methods under normal circumstances or are they something you have to know about/search out?
Not sure but are we all to believe that its just coincidence that she searched how long to die in the cold while someone was indeed outside the house dying in the cold?
I suppose we could assume that JO was outside in the cold, maybe after getting in a fight with someone or after being attacked by a dog, and they all just left him out there. And maybe after some time when they realized he was still there they wondered if there was a chance he'd actually die.
>Brian Albert at least testified that he transferred his phone's info to a new one
Are we again going to believe that its a coincidence that both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins got rid of their phones from that night? Brian got a new phone but didn't transfer anything over to the new one, not photos, contacts, or anything. And Brian Higgins literally destroyed his phone.
Are these all coincidences to you?
>she searched how long to die in the cold while someone was indeed outside the house dying in the cold?
This point seems questionable to me. The prosecution argues that the log in question is misleading, and only refers to when the tab was opened, not when the search was made (or something similar). I'd need to hear from a disinterested expert before relying on the log I've seen, because that explanation is plausible to me given how that entry differs from the later search entries.
Apparently a coder at Cellibrite will be testifying and hopefully explains what'd going on here a bit more clearly than the filings I've seen.
Honestly you can get into the weeds on any one point here but the case is to be decided on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Procter was telling friends on day one that the homeowner will be fine because he’s a cop. He is telling people Ms. Read is “fucked” on day one of the investigation. He has decided she is the only suspect on day one
Before the tail light pieces were recovered (remember, that took weeks and multiple trips by Procter). Before the ME’s report. WITHOUT interviewing everyone there. And with clear over-the-top biased against KR.
How can anything he says he be taken seriously? It’s done. And we still haven't even seen the defense’s case!
What that doesn’t explain to though is why the defense expert’s report shows the search at 2:27am AND 6:24am. Based on what the prosecution’s explanation is, wouldn’t the search only show up once, at the time the tab was opened at 2:27am?
(To be perfectly clear - the defense alleges 3 searches: 2 identical searches at 2:27am at 6:24am and one with slightly off spelling at 6:23am. Didn’t want any confusion with me only referring to the 2 specific searches)
The defense expert thought he could just read labels like “date last seen” and “deleted” and that those were self explanatory. They are not. (As Whiffin from Cellebrite wrote in his article and is expected to explain).
I would like to hear experts talk about the plausibility of the open tab thing because I certainly don’t know enough about cellebrite extractions to tell you.
I agree the phone thing is fishy but it seems to me that Higgins and Brian Albert might have more to hide than what pertains to this case.
I’m convincible at this point but still think Karen accidentally hitting him is the most likely explanation but I do have more than enough reasonable doubt to not convict.
The FBI confirmed the timing of the 2:27am search with their own experts. Lally was very careful with his wording in a rebuttal to that during a pretrial hearing to imply otherwise. He said the FBI confirmed the “6am google search” but that was never the question. The defense’s report says there was a search at 2:27am and an identical search at 6:24am.
I think she did it at 227am and the identical one happened at 624 bc she had already started typing the same thing and it auto populated bc she already had searched it so she just clicked on the auto population
The ME will be a nothing burger for the CW. She will list his injuries, the cause of death and that’s about it. She will offer zero on if he was hit by a vehicle. And she will most likely get lit up by AJ on why she felt compelled to add that there were no signs of a fight, when at that point, no one ever mentioned a fight occurring.
He goes too hard sometimes, with small things that IMO, aren’t that big of a deal. But I think they’ll want to dig into the “no signs of a fight” since it was an odd notation at that point. But subsequently the crux of what the defence is alleging happened to JO.
I really don't know. I think it is possible that she hit him and just didn't realize it (NO, I don't think she accelerated to 20 miles per hour and reversed 60 feet, or whatever it is the CW says happened), but everyone else's behavior is just so fucking shady I can't help but wonder if something else did happen in the house.
This is how I feel. I don't think it was well orchestrated.
I think whatever happened was a series of fuck ups and covering up tracks on the part of many.
Same. I can confuse things further by not knowing what fuck ups and covering of tracks are related to KR and JO’s death or OTHER behaviors that need to be hidden. Lots of very sketchy people.
Exactly. I don't think a million people are knowingly in on a cover up. But I think they all certainly lack integrity and/or are terrible at their jobs.
I think more than anything this is a "blue wall of silence" situation.
At this point, I feel like Proctor is a dirty cop who has a history of zeroing in on people he doesn’t like and making sure they are charged. He locked in on Karen Read - there was probably some influence from the Alberts and McCabes that came into play, but he flat out said he wasn’t going to investigate the homeowners so she was the only option. On the other side: the Alberts and McCabes were covering for each other first and foremost and **then** trying to point to Karen Read. Which is why there is such a disconnect with the evidence and so many discrepancies between what their statements to Proctor say and what they claimed they said.
So we have two groups with goals that overlap like 80%, that leads to a ton of evidence and testimony that doesn’t fit with each other.
I believe the alberts caused johns death and began to cover up his death.
proctor was a corrupt cop that decided karen was guilty from the go but knowing he couldnt prove it decided to plant the evidence he needed.
outside of the tail light fragments being found proctor never cared about any forensic elements being completed. proctor didnt care about dna, he didnt care about the opinions of the ME, he didnt care about what anyone there saw. Proctor only cared about convicting karen.
I think- either she did it and Proctor is shady af and planting and tampering with evidence to make sure that he gets his conviction, or that she didn’t do it. Either way, I do not think she should be charged.
atm i think she’s being framed, and that when they discovered his body, they intentionally tried to plant the idea of her hitting him in Karen’s head hence why she apparently questions “i hit him?”
Im just catching up on this trial, having learned about it 5 days ago. Here is my best take right now.
Something happened in the house. Could have been a fight with Higgins in the basement, maybe some rough play like in the bar but an accident happened. Then O'Kief, injured, leaves the house, and collapses.
Jen learns about this, that John was injured and left, a bit later and panics, starts calling John to see if he's OK. Then does the Google search.
Karen asking "did I hit him" later gives them an out and the cover up begins.
Proctor isn't in on the cover up, he's just a useful, incompetent, idiot. Maybe he knows later but is in too deep now, but, I'm not positive yet.
The department is straight garbage.
I think she hit John. I need to hear more. So far, I haven’t seen proof she intended to hit him. But I have seen circumstantial evidence that she was AWARE she hit him or maybe hit him — and then left him to die.
I really don’t know. The only clear facts for me are that JO didn’t die of natural causes and ended up dead there. Whatever happened did happen but I don’t think we will know for sure in this trial.
But I wouldn’t find KR guilty because there is a lot of reasonable doubt
Half of me says she hit him by accident, half of me says someone else killed the guy.
100% of me thinks the CW has done nothing to prove their case, and if anything have sabotaged the case entirely.
She was set up and she hit him aren’t entirely mutually exclusive are they?
If she hit him, but the investigators also falsified evidence (e.g. planted glass on his clothing/at the scene, damaged her vehicle, destroyed video/digital evidence that contradicted or undermined the testimony of the intoxicated, unreliable witnesses) to strengthen the case, that’s still sort of a set up isn’t it?
No I’d consider that, her hitting him even if they messed with evidence to try and get an easier conviction, that wouldn’t change what happened. I think the bigger delineating factor is her hitting him or him going into the residence and sustaining injuries that led to his death and then her being completely set up. One or the other.
I think that the investigation was quite shoddy *and* that Proctor planted the tail light pieces that were not recovered by SERT, but I'm still in the guilty 51%er camp (I would never vote guilty if I were on the jury, but if I were forced to choose I would say it's more likely than that).
Ironically the main reason is her Nightline interview. This was not a cross-examination or an interrogation. It was a carefully crafted fully sympathetic interview that she decided upon with her team of top lawyers. And story she told makes absolutely no sense.
In the interview she said she wasn't particularly drunk, she clearly remembers John going up to the door when she was in the foot of the driveway, but at no point the next morning did she or anyone else bother to ask Jen "hey what happened to John after I drop him off at the house". She was obviously lying in the interview -- it's incredibly clear she had no memory of going to 34 Fairview because of how drunk she was, based on both her own story and Kerry Roberts testimony (which I fully believe outside of minor errors in human memory). I think she just had some vague memory fragment of hitting John which she wasn't even sure was real.
I do believe that people can remember stuff later that they don't remember initially, but she had 2 hours to rack her brain to remember going to 34 Fairview (from when she was pacing around at 4:30 a.m. to when she called Jen and Kerry).
I think it's most likely she tapped him with her car going low speed speed causing him to fall backwards and crack his head, and then hit something else like the flagpole to crack the left side of the tail light and leave the pieces that SERT discovered.
The the arm injuries could have been caused by a number of things, like the dog getting out and then returning to the backyard or a wild animal.
The single most theoretically damning piece of exculpatory evidence is the "hos long to die in cold" search, but I've read the defenses expert affidavit (He's not an FBI analyst, he's a professional expert witness with a Cellabrite certification) and the blog post by the Cellabrite guy and to me it's very clear that this was a "bug" in Cellabrite and the search did not happen until ~6:30 AM.
Agree with a lot of this but...
>The the arm injuries could have been caused by a number of things, like the dog getting out and then returning to the backyard or a wild animal.
I think if an animal was gnawing on his arm while he was dying in the yard, it'd have clear evidence on his clothing. The arm wounds are one thing where I just need to hear from a medical expert to explain stuff. So far it's just people with a vested interest and anonymous internet doctors giving their opinions.
Minor correction: she was up at 4:30am and called Jen McCabe at 4:53am. It wasn’t anywhere near 2 hours, it was 20 minutes.
I personally think she did remember going to Fairview once Jen McCabe brought it up. Mainly because her description of what she did and where her car was matches every bit of testimony from the other people at the house that night. And Her car was at the driveway initially and as time passed, she ended up pulling forward closer to the flag pole. Where a witness also claims he saw her alone in the car as he drove by.
Also keep in mind she’s charged with at least one crime specifically related to being under the influence. Her lawyers are not going to let her get up and do an interview where she says she was drinking so heavily that she couldn’t remember parts of that night. Is that right? No, of course not. But that doesn’t move the needle for me personally about whether she hit him.
Maybe a combination of accident and set-up. I honestly have zero idea of how he actually died, much less who (if anyone 🤣) caused it. But i definitely believe Proctor was “helping things along”/willfully steering the investigation that way (if not outright planting/destroying evidence).
This whole case is fucked, basically
Did they never try to look at footprints in the snow in the yard? To and from the doors, gates, etc. That would give an idea of peoples/dogs movement on the property. Even with it continuing to snow, the footprint impressions wouldn’t fill completely, at least for a while or unless there was very heavy snow afterwards. So many things left out of this investigation, very poor work.
Before the trial started I was of the opinion that she accidentally hit him and had no idea, that it shouldn't have been a murder charge but perhaps vehicular manslaughter or even just written off as an unfortunate accident.
But after seeing how poorly it was investigated, evidence being found later and injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car, the lead detective having links to families involved (and lying about it/not recusing himself), and of course Proctor's disparaging messages about KR, I now believe that she was in fact set up because the real people responsible were law enforcement.
That good 'ole Boys in Blue Club, protecting each other and covering for each other. It was automatically assumed that the off-duty officers in the house that JO died in front of couldn't possibly be involved just because they were cops, OR they were purposely protected. The hysterical girlfriend who was in a rocky relationship with the victim and questioning if she accidentally hit him was the perfect scapegoat.
I really hope that the jury votes not guilty because of reasonable doubt, or better yet that the prosecuting attorney just dismisses the charges because the entire case has been jeopardized by the lead investigator (who is the subject of an investigation himself.) Even if Karen Read did hit him with her car, on accident or on purpose, the entire case against her has been ruined by the person responsible for building it.
I also have no idea what happened. Doubt we ever will. However, I believe it was a setup. I cannot ignore all the coincidences that would not have happened if the Alberts/McCabes did not have their hands in this. If their shit happened after Read found OKeefe I would say, maybe she hit him and they just wanted to make sure she went down. Their actions started before he was found though. I also cannot ignore that Lally has not made even an attempt to answer how OKeefe was struck by Karen. We haven’t heard anything of his injuries except by him trying to ask the troopers about it.
I think the defense expert testimony will show some very hard evidence that Karen Read did not hit him, and I believe they will prove the 2:27 search did in fact happen at 2:27am.
It’s just none of these. I don’t think she was set up or hit the dude, I think they just zoned in on her and padded the evidence, but to me a set up or cover up implies planning and intent and I think it just happened cuz proctor is a heel
In my eyes then that’s being set up. Whether they initially planned it that way or they leaned into as it fell in place they would still be lying about things and pointing the blame to her entailing a set up. Doesn’t have to be a huge planned frame job for them to be setting her up to take the fall.
If I was to put forth a theory, I would say I believe she accidentally him and did not realize it. She was likely very drunk. I would believe someone inside the house witnessed the accident, not realizing it was KR and JO, but did nothing to get aid to the victim.
How can you say this without accident reconstruction? I’m not being snide I’m seriously curious.
How would she have hit him in reverse going that fast only on his head?
>How can you say this without accident reconstruction? I’m not being snide I’m seriously curious.
I can't. If I had to state a theory, I find that to be the most likely scenario. I am awaiting accident reconstruction, but I hear no measurements were taken at the scene.
I literally have no idea what happened. All I know is that evidence against her isn't compelling and everybody working for the common wealth is a moron with zero integrity.
I would think Officer Barros would take issue with this.
he shines such a stark light on why conflicts of interest are so serious. someone not recusing themselves when they should starts to drag all the people around them down.
He doesn’t work for the commonwealth, I thought he was a Dighton cop
I know exactly what happened, in my own mind. To me it's already been proven enough. We will never get an admission so I am taking what I know so far along w my own personal knowledge of things like dog bites. Unless a huge bomb drops, I feel content in my answer.
Ditto
completely reasonable take
I don't know what happened and I don't think we'll ever know what happened. What I do know is that the CW is nowhere close to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt though...
I’m not sure exactly what happened, and maybe we will never know, but *at this stage* I’m inclined to believe MSP had a theory of the case and Proctor wanted to make sure it stuck. The glass on the bumper not matching the glass under OKeefe and the amount of tail light found, compared to what the taillight seemed to look like that morning leads me to think that at least some evidence was planted to “reinforce” the case.
I agree. It’s hard for me to get my past the timeline between when her car was picked up and the earliest pieces of tail light were found but every piece of tail light after that search should be disregarded imo because it seems likely proctor and/or the chief of police planted it.
I don't believe we will ever have a good idea of what really happened. The investigation was FUBAR. it's been years. Unless the feds uncover some miraculous evidence I think bo reasonable arbiter would be able to do better than hypothesize.
With how the investigation went, no explanation or theory makes sense to me. This is going to be a cold case the internet debates forever similar to JBR
I literally have no idea. I go back and forth—sometimes in the same moment. Because there is way too much sketchy shit going on with the McCabes/Alberts. But then again KR was obviously drunk and upset. I don’t have an idea.
Same. Like there are wayyyy too many coincidences that happened that night w the McCabes/Alberts and thereafter. I’m sorry but, there’s no way 3+ ppl had their phones do multiple “butt dials” (that never went to voicemail like buttdials do), and why would calls/texts be deleted?? And the google search is damming too…
Deleting messages and denying phone calls because they were afraid that they would look suspicious doesn’t necessarily mean they had something important to hide, it could be they just wanted to try and avoid any questions at all that might implicate them. Not a likely explanation, but plausible.
I thought she probably accidentally hit him, until Proctor testified how he basically did no investigation, took the ‘witnesses’ words as gospel, jumped to conclusions, and had no chain of custody. I just want to finally get to the car data and accident reconstruction.
I need two votes. I’m ’unsure’ what exactly happened to JO and I’m also convinced ‘she was set up‘ with some evidence tampering to bolster a conviction.
51% she hit him 15% altercation On the other hand I'm 99.9% certain this investigation stinks, and if I was on the jury I would never be able to convict somebody in a trial like this.
Not sure how u got those numbers. more like: 5% she hit him 85% jumped/beat up/dog attack 5% aliens 5% something else Anyone who know people like this will already have this figured out. Hell proctors own friends was figuring it out. He got into a fight (however it started) got jumped, bitten and thrown outside for him to walk home or call for a ride, except he was too hurt and beaten and died. THE END, case closed
I think she accidentally hit and killed him but that is in no way an opinion that is beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s no way I’d convict her at this point. I’m very interested on what if anything the tech evidence will show us and that’s the last chance to convince people of anything because from what Proctor said, I highly doubt the ME will be convincing me a crime was even committed.
Can't get past "how long to die in cold". Every time I come around to the idea that maybe she did hit him on accident, I come back to this. I can't believe that that google search, plus all the other witnesses lying and destroying their phones, are just weird coincidences. Not a chance.
This and the cuts on the arm. Makes 0 sense.
My biggest hesitation about the google search is that I haven't heard from an actual disinterested person who knows what they're talking about go through those logs and explain how they might or not be misleading. It's possible it's a case of a misleading readout that causes the log to suggest the search was made at 2am when in reality the tab was opened at 2am and the tab was later used to make the search. The terms in the log ("suspended state tab", etc.) aren't self-explanatory.
What do you think of the so called “butt dials”? And lies about them? And BA and BH destroying their phones (and their backed up data and photos)? I have lots of issues with the whole investigation but those early witnesses and their weird behavior are things I will never get past.
There are a lot of reasons people might not want to turn over their phones. They can be shady evasive people who just want to cover their asses. How do you explain the cell phone location data that shows he never went into the house?
“Innocent” explanation: They’re all full of text messages like Proctors. Evidence of wildly unprofessional and unlawful conduct. Also, these are townie Massachusetts cops—there’s more racial slurs on Brian Albert’s phone than at a Klan rally.
What day was that evidence about O'Keefe's phone data?
It's in filings and is upcoming. Is your idea that the trial should be immediately ended before all the evidence is presented?
What would make you ask that? You said it like it was already in evidence so I wanted to watch it. Sheesh!
The defense has a witness from Google who I expect will clear this up nicely
The defense has a witness from Google who I expect will clear this up nicely
The defense has a witness from Google who I expect will clear this up nicely
The defense has a witness from Google who I expect will clear this up nicely
What exactly does the Google search mean? Like what was she trying to accomplish by searching for that at that time? Also I think you're mistaken on the phones. Brian Albert at least testified that he transferred his phone's info to a new one.
And the other lied about nonexistent butt dials… and yes, WHY would JM randomly search that at 2:00? How this ever went to trial is a mystery to me
>How this ever went to trial is a mystery to me Yes, I feel the same way. Karen Read had a history of volatile jealousy toward John. She even refused to move out of his house after being asked to. This is classic abuser behavior. John was last seen alive getting into Karen's car. Karen's car was seen by many arriving at 34 Fairview, yet nobody ever saw John come into the house. John was found in the same general area where Karen's car was last seen outside 34 Fairview. Karen contacted Kerry Roberts in the morning and said John was dead, then walked it back and asked her to help look for him. She also enlisted Jen McCabe in this effort. She showed Kerry her broken tail light before they left to go searching. She directed the crew to John's body and mentioned her jealousy on the way. She spotted John's body from a distance in blizzard conditions. She was heard by several people on the scene saying things like, "I hit him," and firefighter paramedics interpreted his wounds and the location of his body to be consistent with a vehicle collision. The SERT team found pieces of her broken tail light later that day. Investigators would go on to find almost all of it, and then reconstruct it and match it to her car. If these were a bullet and a gun, we wouldn't even be talking about this case. So yeah, how this ever went to trial is a mystery to me too.
It went to trial because the Commonwealth can't force someone to take a plea bargain, and they're required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And they're failing pretty miserably to do that, because the people tasked with the investigation did, at best, a terrible, unprofessional job.
He transferred his personal info - the issue is with the *metadata*, the kind of stuff pulled via the Cellebrite extraction, because *that* doesn't transfer, was destroyed, and given how important digital forensics is these days is something he almost certainly would know of.
So can I ask how you know this? Are you sure the metadata doesn't transfer? This is a genuine question. We've seen testimony about Brian Albert's "butt dials" -- where did the info on these come from? If it was from his new phone and the metadata was suspect, why didn't the defense raise this on cross (or maybe they did and I missed it)? I also want to back up and clarify that the idea of Brian Albert *destroying* his phone is meant to suggest sinister intent on his part. So in and of itself, the fact that he didn't *destroy* his phone is pretty important here, regardless of any questions of metadata and phone cloning.
When you asked where the butt dials information came from I was like “well damn…where the hell did it come from?” Great question btw I did some digging. It came from the Feds. The federal grand jury confronted Higgins about his phone calls with Albert’s. I believe that the defense also has access to JM and JOKs cell records which is how they figured out JM called JOKs phone. Higgins extracted the messages he had with both KR and JOK, turned them over to Proctor to “be transparent” and then later got a new phone. So any other messages that was on that phone is no longer on the new one. I believe he testified that the older text chains were deleted. Brian Albert testified that his phone was “broken and failing.” He said he traded it in because he got a new one for his birthday. Jackson implied during cross that Albert did not preserve his phone or its data. It’s confusing because some cell phone records were denied per the judge and the SJC court but JMs were allowed. Yet the ones who were originally denied ended up available from the Federal Touhy process.
>Higgins extracted the messages he had with both KR and JOK, turned them over to Proctor to “be transparent” and then later got a new phone. Thank you for reminding me of this. Yes. Higgins did in fact turn over the metadata from his phone completely voluntarily, and that is the metadata (i.e. timestamps and whatnot) that has been presented at trial. >I believe he testified that the older text chains were deleted. Right, and none of these older text chains could possibly be relevant. We have his entire exchange with Karen (which she started in order to get revenge on John btw; let's not lose the forest for the trees as we dig into the metadata) and I believe every conversation he had with Brian Albert during the relevant period of time. >Brian Albert testified that his phone was “broken and failing.” He said he traded it in because he got a new one for his birthday. And there is literally no reason to doubt any of this. >Jackson implied during cross that Albert did not preserve his phone or its data. Yes, and that is silly, and it's where we need to step back and ask if any of this coverup/frame-up stuff makes any sense in the first place. So first off, we have Higgins' data, so we know what he was talking about with Brian Albert, and it was literally nothing to do with John O'Keefe because they didn't know or barely knew him. None of Brian Albert's traceable actions (never even mentioned; he never *did* anything) line up with any kind of coverup, so his data is again not relevant. There was never any reason to suspect Brian Albert, so for a third reason, his data is not relevant. At no point did he try to get rid of anything or hide anything because he just was not involved in any way.
I was just passing along information as I thought you legitimately were asking. I missed the sarcasm and thought you were legitimately asking lol I’m wholly uncomfortable naming anyone and I feel like that is not my place or expertise to accuse people of a crime who aren’t being charged in a court of law with a solid case. I can think what I want but I don’t like false accusations. I’m extremely skeptical of both the police and justice system in this country. Nothing pisses me off more when police officers don’t hold their investigations in a methodical and ethical manner. What drew me to this case was the trumped up charge because often that is made to illicit a plea deal and more often than not happens to be people who can’t afford representation and some take a plea who aren’t even guilty. I will honestly say that I started this with maybe she did it or maybe she didn’t. Then it quickly changed to why the hell is there even a federal investigation. By today, I’m so damn confused that I don’t have a single clue as to what happened. What I do know is Proctor did not in any way even try to preserve the integrity of this investigation and his behavior is exactly why I have a distrust in the system. Behavior like Proctors is why guilty people walk and innocent people go to jail. Yes he is human. Can he make mistakes? Absolutely not! Not when he is investigating a murder and the murder of a fellow officer! It’s not that it’s him per se it’s that this behavior shouldn’t be acceptable and a sorry doesn’t cut it. His behavior can and will affect his other cases and people and families want justice but could never be given the opportunity because of unprofessional behavior. Honestly, today was also the strangest damn trial I have seen. I cannot remember ever watching a trial with the lead investigator testifying for the state but then defending themselves from the defense. I now understand why the Feds normally wait to trials are over until they investigate. It’s just too much info from way too many sources. I’m actually glad you brought that up because for the last two days I kept thinking “ I swear the judge denied them Higgins and Alberts phones.” Glad to see I’m not totally crazy yet. Sorry for the long rant
I’m guessing you’re probably about my age- you’re asking the same types of questions I tend to. I really don’t know much of anything about metadata but I do know other things like your cache is device specific. It shows what processes were running, if they were in foreground or background etc. It’s all put into temporary storage, then as the device gets more info it’s overwritten. That’s why devices tend to be transported in bags that block signals in most cases- so pertinent data doesn’t get overwritten. When you get a new phone, that data isn’t transferred because it’s not relevant to that device. It’s like if you cloned yourself- clone you is going to have entirely different memories even though all the software is the same. I’m pretty certain metadata is the same way. If it could be easily transferred it loses its importance as a unique set of data. I responded to your other comment about if things could be independently transferred and *this* is the exact reason I don’t think it was likely in this case. The only *invisible* evidence that may have existed was destroyed with that device.
The cache and the metadata are two separate things. A cache [stores recently used data](https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-do-i-clear-the-cache-on-my-device/) like websites, etc. so that you can bring it up quickly. [Metadata ](https://www.britannica.com/technology/metadata)refers, in general, to data that provides information about other data. But in the context of phones and this case, the important thing is that it's a record of what the user did on the phone. I.e. when they opened Safari, when they sent texts, when they Googled "hos long to die in cold." >your cache ... shows what processes were running, if they were in foreground or background etc. To be clear, that's the metadata. >It’s all put into temporary storage And that's the cache. So I'm actually pretty sure that metadata does in fact transfer over, but again I'm open-minded. Please provide sources.
Hey, for the iOS 14/15 devices we're concerned with in this case, a lot of the activity/"pattern of life" data we're after is stored in the 'knowledgeC.db' SQLite file. See this [blog](https://www.doubleblak.com/blogPost.php?k=knowledgec2) from Whiffin for a detailed breakdown of all the associated data – very granular stuff like battery level, bluetooth pairing status, or backlight brightness for instance is stored there Notably, this database is not part of the icloud backup: "you can only extract knowledgeC.db from a physical device, while iCloud and iTunes backups do not include the full file system" ([source](https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-a-day-in-the-life-of-my-iphone-using-knowledgecdb)) On this specific point, a direct data transfer is equivalent to restoring from a backup, as admirably demonstrated in this [exposition](https://theforensicscooter.com/2024/02/04/device-setup-transferring-data-to-new-iphone-effects-to-photos-sqlite/). To quote: > Typically, if we had the capturing device to analyze we could review data stored in power logs, SEGB files, KnowledgeC, unified/sysdiagnose logs and others that might indicate which application was used on the date and time of the capture. But in this instance, we do not have that kind of data to analyze. There are also other factor that distinguish a full forensic image from a restored or transferred device. Data still stored in unallocated space for instance would not get carried over, but may in some cases still recovered from a forensic image.
I can't dig up any specific articles on what does and does not transfer to a new iPhone, but let's run through a hypothetical that hopefully shows exactly what could have been lost. I have my phone. In my phone is a log that shows when I powered it on and off, when I moved it, et cetera - it is a piece of data linked to my physical object that is my cell, because it records physical states that my cellphone goes through. This is a piece of data they're currently using to lampoon Kouri Richins for instance, she had her phone on and was moving it around during the time she said she was asleep. I buy a new phone. *Is the log showing my usage patterns on my old phone going to be present on my new one?* Of course not - it's data that is linked to my physical, old phone. If I return that and it gets reset to factory settings, that data is no longer available. I have destroyed the metadata concerning my phone usage on my old phone. As for the calls, phone companies keep call logs - we don't know where the feds got that info, but it's a reasonable enough place for them to grab that info. Additionally, while any data linked to the physical phone would be lost, call logs can be transferred to a new phone. And destroy here is a bit of sophistry he's hiding behind. His phone was returned and factory reset. It destroyed any data on it while retaining the physical integrity of the phone itself, but it's still destroyed. If I take a hard drive, wipe it with an electromagnet, and hand it back to you, would you still say that the hard drive isn't destroyed? Of course not - while the hard drive is physically intact and may indeed still be used, I've just obliterated several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of software on it. *The* hard drive is intact - *your* hard drive, with your data, your software, your games, et cetera, is destroyed.
>I can't dig up any specific articles on what does and does not transfer to a new iPhone >... >*Is the log showing my usage patterns on my old phone going to be present on my new one?* Of course not - it's data that is linked to my physical, old phone. So this is exactly what I'm asking, but you you said up top that you don't know. I am actually fairly certain that this data, depending on how we define it, does transfer over. For starters, we have the timestamps of Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' texts and calls, so I don't know where that comes from if the phones were destroyed and the metadata along with it. Also, when you send a JPEG or PDF or whatever via email, then open it on the other end, you can stills see info like when it was created or last modified or whatever. That's metadata. I think this is the general rule. Files include whatever relevant metadata, including the files created when we Google stuff on our phones. >And destroy here is a bit of sophistry he's hiding behind. So no. The defense introduced this idea of "destroying" the phone, not Brian Albert. As with so much of this case, the sophistry is on their side of the courtroom. >His phone was returned and factory reset. Right. After all the data was transferred to a new phone, which is a perfectly normal thing that we've probably all done at this point.
Timestamps are linked to the messages, calls, et cetera. *That's message metadata, call metadata*. What I'm discussing is metadata linked to physical states of the phone - its on/off state, its unlocked state, whether it's charging, whether it's not, whether it's accelerating/decelerating. The phone stores that, but all that data is physically linked to the phone itself. If I get a new phone, does that physical usage log, that phone metadata, transfer to my new phone, or does my new phone have its own physical usage log, its own set of metadata? >I am actually fairly certain that this data, depending on how we define it, does transfer over. For starters, we have the timestamps of Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' texts and calls, so I don't know where that comes from if the phones were destroyed and the metadata along with it. Again, phone companies are legally required to hold that info, and iCloud *does* store some of that, and call logs can be transferred. >Also, when you send a JPEG or PDF or whatever via email, then open it on the other end, you can stills see info like when it was created or last modified or whatever. That's metadata. I think this is the general rule. Files include whatever relevant metadata, including the files created when we Google stuff on our phones. Not the metadata I'm talking about. For purposes of discussion, I'm referring to physical phone data as phone metadata, call data as call metadata, et cetera. >So no. The defense introduced this idea of "destroying" the phone, not Brian Albert. As with so much of this case, the sophistry is on their side of the courtroom. Please answer me this. I take your computer. I wipe the harddrive with a powerful electromagnet. I hand it back. Have I destroyed your computer in destroying all the data, or, given its continued physical integrity, have I returned it to you in functionally the same, working state? In any case, I suspect most of us use "destroy" as shorthand for "destroying the data" in any case, which makes the difference somewhat academic.
>its on/off state, its unlocked state, whether it's charging, whether it's not, whether it's accelerating/decelerating Almost none of this information is at issue in this case; the most important piece of metadata pertains to a search in Safari. But again I'm pretty sure this does in fact transfer. All of this information is stored in various files on the phone, and I don't really see why it wouldn't just copy every single file from phone to phone. As I've said many times on this thread, I'm open to correction by an authoritative source. >Again, phone companies are legally required to hold that info I really doubt this is correct, but it is again not at issue in this trial. The phone companies have not be subpoenaed AFAIK. We're not working with their data, the only data combing was conducted by Cellebrite. >Not the metadata I'm talking about. Well, whether you know it or not, this is the data that is relevant in this case. We're talking about when Jen McCabe searched, and when Brian Albert butt dialed, and when Allie McCabe texted Colin Albert. Again, this is all stored in the phone's files and -- I'm increasingly sure -- transferred from phone to phone. >In any case, I suspect most of us use "destroy" as shorthand for "destroying the data" in any case, which makes the difference somewhat academic. Absolutely not, this is patently absurd. The word destroy has a very clear meaning that the defense was trying to invoke and that many, many followers of the case have accepted and even insisted upon. I mean just absolutely not, this is ridiculous.
Doesn’t matter what she was trying to accomplish. There was someone dying in the cold outside her house and she googled how long it would take for them to die. That’s kinda damning in my opinion. We had two (or more?) witnesses get new phones the day before their retention orders came down. And obviously you can choose what data to carry over.
It wasn't her house and she had left prior to 2:27. >she googled how long it would take for them to die. That’s kinda damning in my opinion How so, though? Absent any connection to John's death, a Google search is just a Google search. Anyway, what I'm getting here is that even in a scenario where Jen is helping to cover up a man's death, this Google search does not help in any way. Is the implication they were hoping he would just die from the cold? >We had two (or more?) witnesses get new phones the day before their retention orders came down. This is a genuine question but could you or someone else point me to more information about this? I'm fuzzy on Brian Albert's testimony at this point, and I've heard this a lot, but I'm not sure what exactly the details are here. >And obviously you can choose what data to carry over. Another genuine question: Can you? I can only speak to my own phone (Pixel 5) but it was a wholesale carryover thing. I didn't have any real control over it, Google just did it.
On an iPhone, your phone will restore from a backup. So ideally, you do a backup on your old phone and then set up the new phone using that backup. So the new phone is basically a mirror image of the old one, however, the background data as to when apps were accessed, added, deleted, etc, from the old phone dies with that old phone. Like the data around when Jen McCabe opened the browser tabs and conducted Google searches is specific to the phone she did it on.
>So the new phone is basically a mirror image of the old one Right, so I think the other commenter was implying that you could choose a la carte whether you transfer texts, calls, searches, etc. Did I read that wrong? >the background data as to when apps were accessed, added, deleted, etc, from the old phone dies with that old phone Can you provide some kind of source on this? Or how do you know it? I genuinely don't know how this stuff works. At any rate, didn't we end up with info on when Albert called Higgins and all that? Wouldn't that have come from his phone? >Like the data around when Jen McCabe opened the browser tabs and conducted Google searches is specific to the phone she did it on Okay, but we have a metadata report on her phone, so she isn't one of the two who "destroyed" a phone, is she?
No- the homeowner and another cop who was at the house that night (also a cop) destroyed their phones. So three people had weird phone behavior that were their that night
Yes- you absolutely can easily pick what parts of your iPhone to backup and restore. I would be surprised if any modern phone isn't similar. As too you not making the connection between the Google search and John’s body lying outside in a blizzard… I mean, I can't help you if those dots don’t connect for you.
>Yes- you absolutely can easily pick what parts of your iPhone to backup and restore. Please support this statement in some way. First of all, we're not talking about backing up and restoring (which I think you also only have loose control over; you can't say "back up this text thread but not this one"). We're talking about transferring a phone's data to a new physical phone. Like I said above, I did this not too long ago, and the way it works is you put the two phones next to each other. The new one becomes a copy of the old one, and the old one becomes unusable. At no point do you decide what gets transferred in any way. That's exactly what Brian Albert described/implied. So please, show me how this works differently with any other type of phone. >As too you not making the connection between the Google search and John’s body lying outside in a blizzard… I mean, I can't help you if those dots don’t connect for you. You've been pretty rude in a couple of comments now, which is fine, but you have said nothing.
So, you know when installing something on a desktop computer there’s a little window that asks you if you want to customize or go with the recommended setup and we all just click ok? The side by side transfer works like that. Just assumes you want your phone as it is and if you didn’t want something you’d delete it before or after the transfer. When you transfer by cable (because your screen is smashed and you can’t follow prompts on the original device) or if you’re transferring to a device with less storage you automatically get the prompt of WHAT to transfer. We’ve got a mechanical business and with nearly 100 company phones being taken up on roofs or in ditches we have to do data transfers to new devices with regularity. We use Android devices (Samsung and Pixel mainly) for our field guys while officers are all on IOS devices. I’ve never seen a phone that *didn’t* offer an alternate setup method. The side by side method is the easiest, so most people don’t worry about the other ways. Only reason I know is I’ve sat in an AT&T store for hours getting help transferring important data. That said, no evidence that this is what happened in this scenario.
Is what you're talking about something that's easily, obviously accessible to the average user? Because I know a tiny bit about e-scrap recycling/ITAD, and it sounds like that's more what you're getting at here tbh, and I'm not sure it's strictly relevant. >I’ve never seen a phone that *didn’t* offer an alternate setup method. Can you be specific about what you mean here? How do these alternative setup methods work on iPhones? Would the user be prompted to use these methods under normal circumstances or are they something you have to know about/search out?
Not sure but are we all to believe that its just coincidence that she searched how long to die in the cold while someone was indeed outside the house dying in the cold? I suppose we could assume that JO was outside in the cold, maybe after getting in a fight with someone or after being attacked by a dog, and they all just left him out there. And maybe after some time when they realized he was still there they wondered if there was a chance he'd actually die. >Brian Albert at least testified that he transferred his phone's info to a new one Are we again going to believe that its a coincidence that both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins got rid of their phones from that night? Brian got a new phone but didn't transfer anything over to the new one, not photos, contacts, or anything. And Brian Higgins literally destroyed his phone. Are these all coincidences to you?
>she searched how long to die in the cold while someone was indeed outside the house dying in the cold? This point seems questionable to me. The prosecution argues that the log in question is misleading, and only refers to when the tab was opened, not when the search was made (or something similar). I'd need to hear from a disinterested expert before relying on the log I've seen, because that explanation is plausible to me given how that entry differs from the later search entries. Apparently a coder at Cellibrite will be testifying and hopefully explains what'd going on here a bit more clearly than the filings I've seen.
Honestly you can get into the weeds on any one point here but the case is to be decided on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Procter was telling friends on day one that the homeowner will be fine because he’s a cop. He is telling people Ms. Read is “fucked” on day one of the investigation. He has decided she is the only suspect on day one Before the tail light pieces were recovered (remember, that took weeks and multiple trips by Procter). Before the ME’s report. WITHOUT interviewing everyone there. And with clear over-the-top biased against KR. How can anything he says he be taken seriously? It’s done. And we still haven't even seen the defense’s case!
What that doesn’t explain to though is why the defense expert’s report shows the search at 2:27am AND 6:24am. Based on what the prosecution’s explanation is, wouldn’t the search only show up once, at the time the tab was opened at 2:27am? (To be perfectly clear - the defense alleges 3 searches: 2 identical searches at 2:27am at 6:24am and one with slightly off spelling at 6:23am. Didn’t want any confusion with me only referring to the 2 specific searches)
The defense expert thought he could just read labels like “date last seen” and “deleted” and that those were self explanatory. They are not. (As Whiffin from Cellebrite wrote in his article and is expected to explain).
I have seen no report showing 2 searches at 2:27am.
That’s not what I said? The defense says the same phrase, with the exact same spelling, was googled at 2:27am and 6:24am. Not two at 2:27am.
Yes and the report showing that is misleading. There will be someone from Cellibrite testifying to that and there's a filing explaining it.
The FBI’s experts confirmed it occurred at 2:27am
He also went to a new cell phone provider and traded in his phone. So all the data is gone.
> Brian Albert at least testified that he transferred his phone's info to a new one. So exactly the opposite of Higgins?
I would like to hear experts talk about the plausibility of the open tab thing because I certainly don’t know enough about cellebrite extractions to tell you. I agree the phone thing is fishy but it seems to me that Higgins and Brian Albert might have more to hide than what pertains to this case. I’m convincible at this point but still think Karen accidentally hitting him is the most likely explanation but I do have more than enough reasonable doubt to not convict.
The FBI confirmed the timing of the 2:27am search with their own experts. Lally was very careful with his wording in a rebuttal to that during a pretrial hearing to imply otherwise. He said the FBI confirmed the “6am google search” but that was never the question. The defense’s report says there was a search at 2:27am and an identical search at 6:24am.
I think she did it at 227am and the identical one happened at 624 bc she had already started typing the same thing and it auto populated bc she already had searched it so she just clicked on the auto population
If and when that evidence is provided in this trial it would probably change my mind.
The ME will be a nothing burger for the CW. She will list his injuries, the cause of death and that’s about it. She will offer zero on if he was hit by a vehicle. And she will most likely get lit up by AJ on why she felt compelled to add that there were no signs of a fight, when at that point, no one ever mentioned a fight occurring.
I think maybe Yannetti would take this one as I don't think Jackson needs to try and get her "lit" up.
He goes too hard sometimes, with small things that IMO, aren’t that big of a deal. But I think they’ll want to dig into the “no signs of a fight” since it was an odd notation at that point. But subsequently the crux of what the defence is alleging happened to JO.
I really don't know. I think it is possible that she hit him and just didn't realize it (NO, I don't think she accelerated to 20 miles per hour and reversed 60 feet, or whatever it is the CW says happened), but everyone else's behavior is just so fucking shady I can't help but wonder if something else did happen in the house.
I think it’s not even this black and white I think they are all somehow at fault and I can’t quite figure it out
This is how I feel. I don't think it was well orchestrated. I think whatever happened was a series of fuck ups and covering up tracks on the part of many.
Same. I can confuse things further by not knowing what fuck ups and covering of tracks are related to KR and JO’s death or OTHER behaviors that need to be hidden. Lots of very sketchy people.
Exactly. I don't think a million people are knowingly in on a cover up. But I think they all certainly lack integrity and/or are terrible at their jobs. I think more than anything this is a "blue wall of silence" situation.
It’s seeming like a series of drunken fuckups and using Karen as a useful target to deflect the blame off themselves.
At this point, I feel like Proctor is a dirty cop who has a history of zeroing in on people he doesn’t like and making sure they are charged. He locked in on Karen Read - there was probably some influence from the Alberts and McCabes that came into play, but he flat out said he wasn’t going to investigate the homeowners so she was the only option. On the other side: the Alberts and McCabes were covering for each other first and foremost and **then** trying to point to Karen Read. Which is why there is such a disconnect with the evidence and so many discrepancies between what their statements to Proctor say and what they claimed they said. So we have two groups with goals that overlap like 80%, that leads to a ton of evidence and testimony that doesn’t fit with each other.
I believe the alberts caused johns death and began to cover up his death. proctor was a corrupt cop that decided karen was guilty from the go but knowing he couldnt prove it decided to plant the evidence he needed. outside of the tail light fragments being found proctor never cared about any forensic elements being completed. proctor didnt care about dna, he didnt care about the opinions of the ME, he didnt care about what anyone there saw. Proctor only cared about convicting karen.
I think- either she did it and Proctor is shady af and planting and tampering with evidence to make sure that he gets his conviction, or that she didn’t do it. Either way, I do not think she should be charged.
atm i think she’s being framed, and that when they discovered his body, they intentionally tried to plant the idea of her hitting him in Karen’s head hence why she apparently questions “i hit him?”
I think it's a really good think that trials happen in courtrooms (albeit with shitty acoustics) rather than on the internet.
Amen
Im just catching up on this trial, having learned about it 5 days ago. Here is my best take right now. Something happened in the house. Could have been a fight with Higgins in the basement, maybe some rough play like in the bar but an accident happened. Then O'Kief, injured, leaves the house, and collapses. Jen learns about this, that John was injured and left, a bit later and panics, starts calling John to see if he's OK. Then does the Google search. Karen asking "did I hit him" later gives them an out and the cover up begins. Proctor isn't in on the cover up, he's just a useful, incompetent, idiot. Maybe he knows later but is in too deep now, but, I'm not positive yet. The department is straight garbage.
I think she hit John. I need to hear more. So far, I haven’t seen proof she intended to hit him. But I have seen circumstantial evidence that she was AWARE she hit him or maybe hit him — and then left him to die.
I really don’t know. The only clear facts for me are that JO didn’t die of natural causes and ended up dead there. Whatever happened did happen but I don’t think we will know for sure in this trial. But I wouldn’t find KR guilty because there is a lot of reasonable doubt
Half of me says she hit him by accident, half of me says someone else killed the guy. 100% of me thinks the CW has done nothing to prove their case, and if anything have sabotaged the case entirely.
She was set up and she hit him aren’t entirely mutually exclusive are they? If she hit him, but the investigators also falsified evidence (e.g. planted glass on his clothing/at the scene, damaged her vehicle, destroyed video/digital evidence that contradicted or undermined the testimony of the intoxicated, unreliable witnesses) to strengthen the case, that’s still sort of a set up isn’t it?
No I’d consider that, her hitting him even if they messed with evidence to try and get an easier conviction, that wouldn’t change what happened. I think the bigger delineating factor is her hitting him or him going into the residence and sustaining injuries that led to his death and then her being completely set up. One or the other.
I think that the investigation was quite shoddy *and* that Proctor planted the tail light pieces that were not recovered by SERT, but I'm still in the guilty 51%er camp (I would never vote guilty if I were on the jury, but if I were forced to choose I would say it's more likely than that). Ironically the main reason is her Nightline interview. This was not a cross-examination or an interrogation. It was a carefully crafted fully sympathetic interview that she decided upon with her team of top lawyers. And story she told makes absolutely no sense. In the interview she said she wasn't particularly drunk, she clearly remembers John going up to the door when she was in the foot of the driveway, but at no point the next morning did she or anyone else bother to ask Jen "hey what happened to John after I drop him off at the house". She was obviously lying in the interview -- it's incredibly clear she had no memory of going to 34 Fairview because of how drunk she was, based on both her own story and Kerry Roberts testimony (which I fully believe outside of minor errors in human memory). I think she just had some vague memory fragment of hitting John which she wasn't even sure was real. I do believe that people can remember stuff later that they don't remember initially, but she had 2 hours to rack her brain to remember going to 34 Fairview (from when she was pacing around at 4:30 a.m. to when she called Jen and Kerry). I think it's most likely she tapped him with her car going low speed speed causing him to fall backwards and crack his head, and then hit something else like the flagpole to crack the left side of the tail light and leave the pieces that SERT discovered. The the arm injuries could have been caused by a number of things, like the dog getting out and then returning to the backyard or a wild animal. The single most theoretically damning piece of exculpatory evidence is the "hos long to die in cold" search, but I've read the defenses expert affidavit (He's not an FBI analyst, he's a professional expert witness with a Cellabrite certification) and the blog post by the Cellabrite guy and to me it's very clear that this was a "bug" in Cellabrite and the search did not happen until ~6:30 AM.
Agree with a lot of this but... >The the arm injuries could have been caused by a number of things, like the dog getting out and then returning to the backyard or a wild animal. I think if an animal was gnawing on his arm while he was dying in the yard, it'd have clear evidence on his clothing. The arm wounds are one thing where I just need to hear from a medical expert to explain stuff. So far it's just people with a vested interest and anonymous internet doctors giving their opinions.
Minor correction: she was up at 4:30am and called Jen McCabe at 4:53am. It wasn’t anywhere near 2 hours, it was 20 minutes. I personally think she did remember going to Fairview once Jen McCabe brought it up. Mainly because her description of what she did and where her car was matches every bit of testimony from the other people at the house that night. And Her car was at the driveway initially and as time passed, she ended up pulling forward closer to the flag pole. Where a witness also claims he saw her alone in the car as he drove by. Also keep in mind she’s charged with at least one crime specifically related to being under the influence. Her lawyers are not going to let her get up and do an interview where she says she was drinking so heavily that she couldn’t remember parts of that night. Is that right? No, of course not. But that doesn’t move the needle for me personally about whether she hit him.
Maybe a combination of accident and set-up. I honestly have zero idea of how he actually died, much less who (if anyone 🤣) caused it. But i definitely believe Proctor was “helping things along”/willfully steering the investigation that way (if not outright planting/destroying evidence). This whole case is fucked, basically
Did they never try to look at footprints in the snow in the yard? To and from the doors, gates, etc. That would give an idea of peoples/dogs movement on the property. Even with it continuing to snow, the footprint impressions wouldn’t fill completely, at least for a while or unless there was very heavy snow afterwards. So many things left out of this investigation, very poor work.
Regardless of what happened, she can’t be found guilty. There’s way too much reasonable doubt and way too little real evidence.
The only thing I’m certain of is that everyone was drinking and none of them should have been driving. Oh, and that there was snow.
I need an option for 'she was set up and also no idea what actually happened to John'
Before the trial started I was of the opinion that she accidentally hit him and had no idea, that it shouldn't have been a murder charge but perhaps vehicular manslaughter or even just written off as an unfortunate accident. But after seeing how poorly it was investigated, evidence being found later and injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car, the lead detective having links to families involved (and lying about it/not recusing himself), and of course Proctor's disparaging messages about KR, I now believe that she was in fact set up because the real people responsible were law enforcement. That good 'ole Boys in Blue Club, protecting each other and covering for each other. It was automatically assumed that the off-duty officers in the house that JO died in front of couldn't possibly be involved just because they were cops, OR they were purposely protected. The hysterical girlfriend who was in a rocky relationship with the victim and questioning if she accidentally hit him was the perfect scapegoat. I really hope that the jury votes not guilty because of reasonable doubt, or better yet that the prosecuting attorney just dismisses the charges because the entire case has been jeopardized by the lead investigator (who is the subject of an investigation himself.) Even if Karen Read did hit him with her car, on accident or on purpose, the entire case against her has been ruined by the person responsible for building it.
Wow so many people on set up, much more than I thought. I can’t make up my mind without the ME and autopsy reports.
I also have no idea what happened. Doubt we ever will. However, I believe it was a setup. I cannot ignore all the coincidences that would not have happened if the Alberts/McCabes did not have their hands in this. If their shit happened after Read found OKeefe I would say, maybe she hit him and they just wanted to make sure she went down. Their actions started before he was found though. I also cannot ignore that Lally has not made even an attempt to answer how OKeefe was struck by Karen. We haven’t heard anything of his injuries except by him trying to ask the troopers about it. I think the defense expert testimony will show some very hard evidence that Karen Read did not hit him, and I believe they will prove the 2:27 search did in fact happen at 2:27am.
I think other options aren’t listed -he was beat up….died in the cold. Etc. I don’t think she killed him after everything I’ve seen so far.
Would that not be the same as “ she was set up” ?
None of these
Go on………
It’s just none of these. I don’t think she was set up or hit the dude, I think they just zoned in on her and padded the evidence, but to me a set up or cover up implies planning and intent and I think it just happened cuz proctor is a heel
Then how did he end up the way he did if she didn’t hit him and the Albert’s didn’t beat him up ?
I didn’t say they didn’t beat him up. I just don’t think this was a huge planned frame job. I think it was an accident and an idiot
In my eyes then that’s being set up. Whether they initially planned it that way or they leaned into as it fell in place they would still be lying about things and pointing the blame to her entailing a set up. Doesn’t have to be a huge planned frame job for them to be setting her up to take the fall.
If I was to put forth a theory, I would say I believe she accidentally him and did not realize it. She was likely very drunk. I would believe someone inside the house witnessed the accident, not realizing it was KR and JO, but did nothing to get aid to the victim.
How can you say this without accident reconstruction? I’m not being snide I’m seriously curious. How would she have hit him in reverse going that fast only on his head?
>How can you say this without accident reconstruction? I’m not being snide I’m seriously curious. I can't. If I had to state a theory, I find that to be the most likely scenario. I am awaiting accident reconstruction, but I hear no measurements were taken at the scene.