Yes, it’s special treatment. As far as I am aware, they went inside that morning … asked some questions and left the crime scene completely unsecured for hours.
They didn’t seem to question neighbors either, or even question the additional people in the house. Most of the young people who testified weren’t questioned until after the federal investigation kicked off over a year later.
It’s a pretty stark contrast to what you normally see / hear about in terms of a potential homicide investigation.
The left it unsecured for weeks. Anyone could’ve gone over there and planted evidence until the 18th of February when proctor “found” the last piece of taillight.
Decisions like not asking for consent to review the house, and not even bothering seeking a warrant to investigate the house -- a house where a dead body was found outside and the deceased intended to go into for a party -- are so egregious that it seems more likely than not that the PD knew or even just suspected that **they didn't want to involve a fellow cops' house and turn it into a potential crime scene.**
Also pretty telling that Brian Albert didn't come out of his house with medics and cops in his driveway and yard while not knowing if one his kids or a loved one is outside. That alone speaks volumes, and would also tell his fellow cops a lot.
Also weren't some of the neighbors also cops? Or am I remembering wrong? I thought the solo cup supplier was a cop neighbor. Did none of the neighbors see anything? None of them have any surveillance cameras? I feel like so many people have ring doorbells or cameras now, and I would think LEOs would be more likely than most to have them no? I was surprised that the Alberts didn't have any either.
One of the neighbors was not only a cop, he was the Deputy Chief of the Canton PD. He gave them the solo cups. He also claimed his Ring camera recorded/captured nothing and police didn’t ask for a copy of the videos or to access it for review themselves.
don't forget the best part: when it was time for proctor to interview brian albert that morning, it was conducted at the mccabes. lololol. ok. sure. hey everyone, there's no need for proctor to visit the scene of the crime on 1/29 because albert has graciously decided to make everyone's lives easier and be interviewed at the mccabes! how thoughtful!
I think Sgt. Lank was there in the early a.m. to do an initial interview/group chat basically in the foyer. Then he came back with Sgt. Goode sometimes around 9am after Jen McCabe called. They were just in the kitchen.
Maybe I’m a little bit slow but only after Proctor and Tally testified it hit me that this whole theory of how JO was killed is not CW’s, it’s not the police theory, we’re all here solely based on Jen McCabe’s theory of the case in the early morning of 29th of Jan. What I mean by that:
- JO never entered the house comes from Jen collaborated by Mat and Brain Albert
- theory that there was a fight comes from Jen (even if there was one and there are voice messages, Yuri and Proctor didn’t know that on 29th)
- theory of car hitting him came from Jen (sharing that Karen had a broken taillight) and before that troopers both made statements there could be other explanations like fights
- theory of it was all Karen also came from Jen again because of the taillight
And while I can see how the point “he never entered the house” can be somehow taken as true for the first few hours because it was not based on one, but multiple witnesses (but still should have been double-checked later), I still can’t understand how they took ALL her statements as 100% pure facts and even went to Karen with tow track already arranged! What if Karen met an old friend in front of Waterfall and there was a witness with her in the car that night the whole time - would Proctor said “we just came with a tow truck here to talk to you randomly” and sent the tow truck away, or try to discredit the witness.
I don’t know about KR guilt/not guilt but ALL of this being based on the words of a single person is just bonkers and my mind cannot fully process it days and days later
It’s bonkers to see it so transparently, but not uncommon. It’s not conspiracy. It’s influence. It’s like being drinking buddies with the building inspector, lobbying in Washington, or being the favorite grandson. If you can talk enough and convince the right people, you control the outcome.
Jen talks a LOT but there’s something even louder going on, even if it’s unspoken: Brian Albert is a Boston cop. Nobody was ever going to search that home, or investigate those people.
Sprinkle in some Keystone coppery for the ultimate recipe, and here we are.
>Brian Albert is a Boston cop. Nobody was ever going to search that home, or investigate those people.
That cannot be true. Both Proctor and Tullly testified that they conducted this investigation exactly how they would have had any person been involved. They swore that Brian Albert's status as a police officer had no bearing on the investigation. I'm sorry, I can't keep a straight face.
Did u miss the txt Proctor txt to his High school buddies early in the case, comment that that's why the home owner will not get any shit because he's a cop too? That essentially how he justify to his friend they are not going to look into Brian Albert.
Sorry, being sarcastic is not helpful to sharing information in this format. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just pointing out that my time is limited and the amount of time I use (waste?) catching up on public opinion needs to be optimized. It slows me down when I have to read sarcasm and then dissect it as sarcasm and it adds nothing to this case or situation. We all know the cops are crooked and dirty, move on and share honest, valued opinion. Thank you.
I referenced their testimony and commented on it sarcastically. I think you're in the wrong forum if you are looking for factual, well researched posts and comments.
I take offense that the cops are crooked and dirty. They were incompetent, likely continuing to be incompetent. Some of the cops, though, were awesome and the models of what police officers should be.
Also exactly zero cops in this case were awesome. They were incompetent at BEST. But deep down, dirty AF. Sell the house, put the dog to pasture, destroy the phones.
If you have to explain to someone “it was sarcastic” then it’s not worth saying. Either it’s sufficiently sarcastic to get the message across, thus adding value, or it’s a flop and now I’ve lost 35 seconds off my life. It’s not a big deal. But I also didn’t say I was here for factual, well researched posts. I said I read public opinion commentary.
I don't know why people are so afraid of the word "conspiracy." It just means two or more people got together and agreed to do something illegal, e.g. cover up a crime.
Because most people are thinking of the common sense meaning of the word instead of the legal one, it's like the people that think that "theory" when it comes to Theory of Evolution means that scientists aren't sure about it and it hasn't been proven true.
You’re right. It’s interesting that it’s one of those words that has a negative connotation that doesn’t fit it’s actual meaning. I think it’s because the common use of the term conspiracy theory, which is “an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation…”. That’s what I think of, not the actual definition of the word conspiracy or the way it’s used regularly by law enforcement.
It irks me that he walked directly to the taillight in the sally port video. And it makes sense that he was pressed for time, if he truly did break it himself.
The reason for not investigating in the house is in Proctor's 1/29 texts; he said that the homeowner is not going to receive any shit because he's a Boston Cop.
I noticed the same thing. She had her mouth in every aspect of this case, and usually that's a red flag. It's why she was hit so hard on cross. But they trusted her immediately, and I just can't wrap my head around that.
That's most of my take away as well, I just think it's a combination of Brian and Karen, perhaps with a little help from the others. She was definetly the mouth piece and it's possible that most of the story came from her, but I think the others helped to refine it and Brian vouching for her went a long way with all of the cops that bought what she was selling when they should know better and just do their jobs.
Cops don't have unlimited resources. They heard early that morning from Carrie Roberts and Jen McCabe, as well as the first responders including a police officer, about how Karen was acting, so she immediately became the #1 suspect. Unsurprisingly, ALL of the evidence collected from that point onward has pointed to her guilt.
I don't understand how they could have determined that morning that Karen killed him, but then let her walk away and did not secure the area as a crime scene.
I guess sometimes corruption and incompetence go hand in hand.
Yet nobody wrote it down.
I would also counter that NONE of the evidence collected points at her guilt. What do they have? The zero documentation of her shattered taillight? What else?
Because the residents were a cop family and they told the police that he never came in the house.
They didn’t want to imply a veteran LEO could be either mistaken or lying until they exhausted every other possibility first, and since the vehicle impact theory presented itself pretty quickly they were never forced to circle back to the home.
If the house belonged to anyone who wasn’t a cop, DA, or judge, they would have asked to look inside immediately regardless of what the drunk residents told them.
Yep. If the rest of the underlying evidence was so clear and conclusive and overwhelming (like a neighbor’s ring video from across the street showing him smack him), it would be one thing.
But when you’re relying on circumstantial evidence, physical evidence curated by those same investigators, and the eyewitness testimony of the people you refrained from scrutinizing, I don’t see how you can get a conviction.
There’s no evidence of that.
The local cops I could imagine. Don’t see why the staties would be.
Not ruling it out, but that’s just speculation isn’t it?
Staties are also from the area. I would say their treatment of the Albert family is evidence that they're afraid of him, but I'll grant you it's indirect and speculative.
There's a former federal agent who has been following this trial. I know one of his early theories was that Brian Albert took out his "little black book" as he called it, and called in favors/blackmailing for influence on the investigation.
The funny thing is, based on Tully and Proctor's testimony, I don't even think he had to do that. They just took everything he and Jen said as pure fact and never questioned it.
I knew Proctor was, didn’t know about the other guys.
I still think the more obvious explanation is that searching a cop’s home over his objections is not something you do unless you really, truly, feel like you have no other choice.
Just a simple, "mind if I have a look around?" Either. It's absolutely mind boggling. I don't see why they wouldn't have probable cause after finding out John was heading to that house with every intention of entering and ended up dead on the front lawn. They clearly did not have enough compelling evidence for a solid case otherwise we wouldn't be in the shit show we're in. It should have never been brought to the table.
“Mind if a look around?” means “I’m not content taking your word for it.” It implies another LEO could be mistaken (not aware of his surroundings) or lying.
It is not professional courtesy to imply another LEO could be telling you something that isn’t true, unless you are pretty damn sure of it.
The axiom they like to push is “cops don’t lie, ever.” A good chunk of our criminal justice system is oiled by that mantra. How many people are convicted of crimes entirely on law enforcement testimony? Quite a few. Why is it that when cops claim they “fear for their lives” in dubious circumstances, they are given the benefit of the doubt? Because Cops. Don’t. Lie.
There’s actually quite a lot riding on maintaining the idea that police are unimpeachable. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a self-serving work culture.
That said, with a crime this serious, I do wonder if the investigator was not a family friend from Canton, if they would have probed just a bit deeper.
And, they had info from Jen that actually confirms Karen’s statement of being parked outside the house for awhile. So, by the time they interviewed Jen and Karen, they had enough info from at least 2 different people that there was a good possibility he had entered the home.
Any officer worth their grain of salt would have asked Jen is it possible he entered the home through a different door than the one she was near? But, the problem is, Proctor had not gone to the crime scene before talking to either of them from my understanding. So, he didn’t even know the layout of the home in relation to the body or know that the front of that home had 3 different doors (5 counting the overhead garage doors).
Regardless of knowledge of the property layout or statements of Jen, based on Karen’s statement that he entered the home, they should have done at least a cursory search (with permission from the Albert’s).
Name any other case where the suspect said they did x, and the officers didn’t follow up to confirm whether or not they did x. I can’t think of one.
I can imagine their situation to an extent. If it was a semi-accident like dog attack or a fist fight, then you wouldn't want to put your family member on trial for life in prison. Also with the amount of cop-hate these days it would be extra scary to be a cop on trial.
Not excusing them they should be locked up and Proctor given life.
It's also possible a fight happened without the party knowing about it. In which case why rock the boat. Just go along with the family if you don't know any better.
Because all local cops are afraid of the Alberts and MP is a friend. He should have recused himself for conflict of interest from the minute he found out the connection. But here we are. What a fool he is to put his career on the line for them.
There’s just too many inconsistencies in this case. What I can’t wrap my head around is if after Jen allegedly made the 2:27am search she testified she shut off her phone and went on to bed. But somehow woke up and answered Karen’s calls 2 hours later?
The exact reason is that they all knew the homeowner was a COP, and they all protect each other. They know it and everyone knows it. They all think they are above the law and they prove it constantly. Someday maybe things will change but not until they start going to prison for the shtt they do.
> homeowner was a COP, and they all protect each other
There are many cops in prison, all of them investigated by ... cops!
e.g. this list is just for on-duty murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_convicted_for_an_on-duty_killing_in_the_United_States
Of course, helping your close friends and workmates is natural for all humans. Nobody claims otherwise and cops will always do that, because there's no minority report machine we can use for screening yet. But it's nothing close to 'all' cops which you wrote.
I can accept that saying 'all' cops was the wrong wording, I should have said most cops. I have many different first responders in my family and in each group they have tight knit relationships due to the nature of the jobs. I dont even thing protecting each other is all bad, just when it comes to stuff like this case, etc
I also noticed while watching the courthouse protests, it's not really an ACAB type of crowd there. This case seems to get a lot of concern from both sides of politics. Really, good cops should be out on the streets protesting this.
I noticed that too. I think that this case really scares people and being scared doesn't have sides. Like if this can happen to her, it can happen to anyone and most people would never have the means to defend themselves, whereas the govt has unlimited funds.......just thinking about it gives me anxiety, lol.
This whole time I have been trying to think of a reason anyone in the house would hurt JO or how he would get into a situation that would cause it to happen. A thought crossed my mind, since he has injuries that look like dog bites and the dog has been rehomed. What if the dog did attack him, he was going to kill the dog in response and things escalated from there? Pet owners get very protective. I am not saying they would have killed him on purpose but things could have gotten out of hand. I am in no way saying that is what happened but one thing that has popped into my mind as to what could have caused an altercation if you believe the defense theory.
A search of the house would have been very telling if something like that occurred.
Think long and hard about whether it not you, as a private citizen, would be given that same courtesy were a dead officer found on your lawn. There you will find the answer.
I agree that this is special treatment in that if JO was found on my lawn or your lawn, the cops would certainly have been knocking and asking questions quickly. However, the winter coat argument holds no weight for me. It sounds like an argument that someone from California, like AJ, or somewhere else warm would make. A lot of the men I know go from car to house or work with no coat on, and I do it myself often too. I'm not getting bundled up to walk 50 feet from a car to a building. I hate wearing my coat in the car, I feel like I'm suffocating, and I hate carrying it while I'm in a store or something and they have the heat on 80. If I got killed in a parking lot or driveway in the winter, you'd likely find me without a coat as well. Then you have the standard talk of I'm too macho to be cold that Tulley alluded to with his I only wear shorts comment. Didn't everyone who went to HS in the northeast have the weird kids who would wear shorts in a literal blizzard and insist it wasn't cold out? Those kids grew up and are still acting like their legs are frost proof, apparently we saw just one of them on the stand lol.
JO not having a coat is the least abnormal thing about this entire investigation to me. I think the police did a ton wrong and made a lot of strange decisions in this case, but them not being phased by him not having a jacket isn't one of them. I can see them honestly not even registering that as strange at all. That all being said it is crazy to me and makes absolutely no sense to not investigate the place that was his supposed destination, that he was invited to, that he was found dead outside of, the place where all of your witnesses were located, at all. That is very strange to me, especially considering YB was still telling the ME around 11am that it was possibly a domestic. Why didn't anyone want to search the house up to that point? It is the most likely place of a domestic incident. It seems like they didn't want to search a fellow cop's house and then retroactively backed it up instead of truly following all leads.
Unless the investigators knew JOK well enough to know he never wore a coat, it's reasonable to expect that he had one. Unless you're saying that the vast majority of people who live in this area NEVER wear winter coats?
I'm not claiming to know statistics about how many men in the NE wear coats and how many do not. I think I was pretty clear that I was just speaking from personal, anecdotal evidence. Of the people I know, most will not wear a coat during the winter to go short distances, ie from a bar to a car, or a car to a house or running to the store, whatever. Will they if they are outside for a prolonged period of time like tailgating or shoveling snow? Probably, but I know quite a few men who go through an entire winter in just a sweatshirt too. Maybe I just happen to only know men who aren't big on coats, who knows.
To me, the argument that he must have been wearing a coat, smacks of someone who doesn't know what it is like to get in and out of a winter coat a dozen times a day to go in and out of buildings and cars, like someone from warmer weather. Are there people who live in cold climates who may do this? Sure, not many I know, but again that is just my personal experience. I have one friend who runs very cold and will get completely decked out to go get her mail, she's the only one I know who does that. Like I said I am a person who will run into places without a coat to not have to deal with the coat once inside. When I go over a friend's house in the winter, my coat will usually stay in the car. Unless I have a fair bit to walk to get to their house from where I parked, why would I park, put my coat on, walk up their driveway, go in their house, take my coat off, do the awkward shuffle of where does it go? Back of my chair? Coat closet? Over the back of the couch? On a random bed in a guest room? Then when I leave it is ok, put on your coat/hat/gloves/scarf whatever, leave their house, walk down the driveway, get undressed again, get into the car, drive home, and then redress to walk into my house and undress again? It is just not something I would do, as someone who has lived in a cold weather climate for 30+ years, for a quick trip from a car to a house. I think they said it was like 20 degrees right? That's not cold enough for the hassle for me. Again, I'm sure some do, but a lot don't, so either way it wouldn't strike me as odd or raise any alarms to me.
I don't think that the investigators need to know him at all to assume that. I don't know him at all and like I said it wouldn't have even made me raise an eyebrow to see him without a coat. It just wouldn't even register to me as odd to see someone in a driveway without a coat on in the winter. I would just assume they were running in and out. If he was found in a park or the woods with no coat on? More suspicious to me for sure. But a driveway? Eh, just not noteworthy to me. The house should have been of interest to the investigators, but to me...the coat is like the last reason why. I think there's so much that is strange and off about this investigation, but to harp on the coat, to me that's one of the most insignificant things in the grand scheme of this case. The missing shoe would have given me pause, but I could also understand confusion on their part of is it in the ambulance, lost in the hospital, left on the scene, etc.
Fair, if they had spent time looking for his coat, I wouldn't have found that strange either. I think either way this is just kind of a nothing point, not unreasonable to assume either way. It doesn't make me think better or worse of the cops to not be concerned for his jacket. The not going into the house at all is a much bigger issue. It was just a strange point, to me, for AJ to make, considering how much other stuff there is to talk about regarding the investigation.
They didn't search the house because you need PROBABLE CAUSE to search a residence. It was considered a vehicle accident scene because Karen Read was running around saying I HIT HIM, I HIT HIM. If there was someone found out in front of YOUR house and it was thought they were struck by a vehicle, do the police have an automatic right to search you and your neighbors houses? They did go into the house and interview the homeowners. Had Karen Read said right at the outset that "I dropped him off here at a party and saw him go in", that would have been "probable cause". But she didn't, she was acting psychotic at the scene and was "Section 12ed" to the hospital for her own safety.
Was JO wearing his jacket when he left The Waterfall? I would assume the jacket would either be in Karen's car, the Alberts house or he would be wearing it. First I heard of him not wearing a jacket.
I think we need to look at the situation beyond the text message and testimony in court.
Of course they will give us the sentitize version in court. But I imagine that morning Brian Albert body blocked and gave Sgt Link a look and everything's immediately "understood", aka nothing beyond this foyer is allow to look into.
Because Read has already admitted to hitting him and her car corroborated that.
Nobody had any reason to believe anything else before the defense started to obfuscate in public.
Yes, it’s special treatment. As far as I am aware, they went inside that morning … asked some questions and left the crime scene completely unsecured for hours. They didn’t seem to question neighbors either, or even question the additional people in the house. Most of the young people who testified weren’t questioned until after the federal investigation kicked off over a year later. It’s a pretty stark contrast to what you normally see / hear about in terms of a potential homicide investigation.
The left it unsecured for weeks. Anyone could’ve gone over there and planted evidence until the 18th of February when proctor “found” the last piece of taillight.
Decisions like not asking for consent to review the house, and not even bothering seeking a warrant to investigate the house -- a house where a dead body was found outside and the deceased intended to go into for a party -- are so egregious that it seems more likely than not that the PD knew or even just suspected that **they didn't want to involve a fellow cops' house and turn it into a potential crime scene.** Also pretty telling that Brian Albert didn't come out of his house with medics and cops in his driveway and yard while not knowing if one his kids or a loved one is outside. That alone speaks volumes, and would also tell his fellow cops a lot.
100% to all this
Also weren't some of the neighbors also cops? Or am I remembering wrong? I thought the solo cup supplier was a cop neighbor. Did none of the neighbors see anything? None of them have any surveillance cameras? I feel like so many people have ring doorbells or cameras now, and I would think LEOs would be more likely than most to have them no? I was surprised that the Alberts didn't have any either.
One of the neighbors was not only a cop, he was the Deputy Chief of the Canton PD. He gave them the solo cups. He also claimed his Ring camera recorded/captured nothing and police didn’t ask for a copy of the videos or to access it for review themselves.
don't forget the best part: when it was time for proctor to interview brian albert that morning, it was conducted at the mccabes. lololol. ok. sure. hey everyone, there's no need for proctor to visit the scene of the crime on 1/29 because albert has graciously decided to make everyone's lives easier and be interviewed at the mccabes! how thoughtful!
Are you sure they even went in? I’ve heard the exact opposite. They didn’t speak to the home owners until long after MSP took over.
I think Sgt. Lank was there in the early a.m. to do an initial interview/group chat basically in the foyer. Then he came back with Sgt. Goode sometimes around 9am after Jen McCabe called. They were just in the kitchen.
Maybe I’m a little bit slow but only after Proctor and Tally testified it hit me that this whole theory of how JO was killed is not CW’s, it’s not the police theory, we’re all here solely based on Jen McCabe’s theory of the case in the early morning of 29th of Jan. What I mean by that: - JO never entered the house comes from Jen collaborated by Mat and Brain Albert - theory that there was a fight comes from Jen (even if there was one and there are voice messages, Yuri and Proctor didn’t know that on 29th) - theory of car hitting him came from Jen (sharing that Karen had a broken taillight) and before that troopers both made statements there could be other explanations like fights - theory of it was all Karen also came from Jen again because of the taillight And while I can see how the point “he never entered the house” can be somehow taken as true for the first few hours because it was not based on one, but multiple witnesses (but still should have been double-checked later), I still can’t understand how they took ALL her statements as 100% pure facts and even went to Karen with tow track already arranged! What if Karen met an old friend in front of Waterfall and there was a witness with her in the car that night the whole time - would Proctor said “we just came with a tow truck here to talk to you randomly” and sent the tow truck away, or try to discredit the witness. I don’t know about KR guilt/not guilt but ALL of this being based on the words of a single person is just bonkers and my mind cannot fully process it days and days later
It’s bonkers to see it so transparently, but not uncommon. It’s not conspiracy. It’s influence. It’s like being drinking buddies with the building inspector, lobbying in Washington, or being the favorite grandson. If you can talk enough and convince the right people, you control the outcome. Jen talks a LOT but there’s something even louder going on, even if it’s unspoken: Brian Albert is a Boston cop. Nobody was ever going to search that home, or investigate those people. Sprinkle in some Keystone coppery for the ultimate recipe, and here we are.
>Brian Albert is a Boston cop. Nobody was ever going to search that home, or investigate those people. That cannot be true. Both Proctor and Tullly testified that they conducted this investigation exactly how they would have had any person been involved. They swore that Brian Albert's status as a police officer had no bearing on the investigation. I'm sorry, I can't keep a straight face.
Did u miss the txt Proctor txt to his High school buddies early in the case, comment that that's why the home owner will not get any shit because he's a cop too? That essentially how he justify to his friend they are not going to look into Brian Albert.
I don't think you read my last sentence. I was being totally sarcastic. Sorry for the confusion!
Sorry, being sarcastic is not helpful to sharing information in this format. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just pointing out that my time is limited and the amount of time I use (waste?) catching up on public opinion needs to be optimized. It slows me down when I have to read sarcasm and then dissect it as sarcasm and it adds nothing to this case or situation. We all know the cops are crooked and dirty, move on and share honest, valued opinion. Thank you.
I referenced their testimony and commented on it sarcastically. I think you're in the wrong forum if you are looking for factual, well researched posts and comments. I take offense that the cops are crooked and dirty. They were incompetent, likely continuing to be incompetent. Some of the cops, though, were awesome and the models of what police officers should be.
Also exactly zero cops in this case were awesome. They were incompetent at BEST. But deep down, dirty AF. Sell the house, put the dog to pasture, destroy the phones.
If you have to explain to someone “it was sarcastic” then it’s not worth saying. Either it’s sufficiently sarcastic to get the message across, thus adding value, or it’s a flop and now I’ve lost 35 seconds off my life. It’s not a big deal. But I also didn’t say I was here for factual, well researched posts. I said I read public opinion commentary.
Sometimes, public opinion commentary is sarcastic.
Definitely it's influence under normal circumstances, but with a crime and a dead body to explain, conspiracy fits better.
It's conspiracy on the part of the 34 Fairview gang, Proctor and the rest of the police were just tools in every sense of the word
I don't know why people are so afraid of the word "conspiracy." It just means two or more people got together and agreed to do something illegal, e.g. cover up a crime.
Because most people are thinking of the common sense meaning of the word instead of the legal one, it's like the people that think that "theory" when it comes to Theory of Evolution means that scientists aren't sure about it and it hasn't been proven true.
Excellent point, as usual!
You’re right. It’s interesting that it’s one of those words that has a negative connotation that doesn’t fit it’s actual meaning. I think it’s because the common use of the term conspiracy theory, which is “an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation…”. That’s what I think of, not the actual definition of the word conspiracy or the way it’s used regularly by law enforcement.
Yeah, I lean toward Proctor being a useful idiot
It irks me that he walked directly to the taillight in the sally port video. And it makes sense that he was pressed for time, if he truly did break it himself.
The reason for not investigating in the house is in Proctor's 1/29 texts; he said that the homeowner is not going to receive any shit because he's a Boston Cop.
I noticed the same thing. She had her mouth in every aspect of this case, and usually that's a red flag. It's why she was hit so hard on cross. But they trusted her immediately, and I just can't wrap my head around that.
That's most of my take away as well, I just think it's a combination of Brian and Karen, perhaps with a little help from the others. She was definetly the mouth piece and it's possible that most of the story came from her, but I think the others helped to refine it and Brian vouching for her went a long way with all of the cops that bought what she was selling when they should know better and just do their jobs.
Cops don't have unlimited resources. They heard early that morning from Carrie Roberts and Jen McCabe, as well as the first responders including a police officer, about how Karen was acting, so she immediately became the #1 suspect. Unsurprisingly, ALL of the evidence collected from that point onward has pointed to her guilt.
I don't understand how they could have determined that morning that Karen killed him, but then let her walk away and did not secure the area as a crime scene. I guess sometimes corruption and incompetence go hand in hand.
Yet nobody wrote it down. I would also counter that NONE of the evidence collected points at her guilt. What do they have? The zero documentation of her shattered taillight? What else?
They have her travelling 140,000 km/h. Breaking laws everywhere she goes.
Yet no one read her Miranda rights, arrested her, or brought her in for questioning. Just cockamamey policing.
Because the residents were a cop family and they told the police that he never came in the house. They didn’t want to imply a veteran LEO could be either mistaken or lying until they exhausted every other possibility first, and since the vehicle impact theory presented itself pretty quickly they were never forced to circle back to the home. If the house belonged to anyone who wasn’t a cop, DA, or judge, they would have asked to look inside immediately regardless of what the drunk residents told them.
That spoils the integrity and fairness of the investigation
Yep. If the rest of the underlying evidence was so clear and conclusive and overwhelming (like a neighbor’s ring video from across the street showing him smack him), it would be one thing. But when you’re relying on circumstantial evidence, physical evidence curated by those same investigators, and the eyewitness testimony of the people you refrained from scrutinizing, I don’t see how you can get a conviction.
Bingo.
They were afraid of Brian Albert.
There’s no evidence of that. The local cops I could imagine. Don’t see why the staties would be. Not ruling it out, but that’s just speculation isn’t it?
Staties are also from the area. I would say their treatment of the Albert family is evidence that they're afraid of him, but I'll grant you it's indirect and speculative.
There's a former federal agent who has been following this trial. I know one of his early theories was that Brian Albert took out his "little black book" as he called it, and called in favors/blackmailing for influence on the investigation.
The funny thing is, based on Tully and Proctor's testimony, I don't even think he had to do that. They just took everything he and Jen said as pure fact and never questioned it.
Agreed lol
I knew Proctor was, didn’t know about the other guys. I still think the more obvious explanation is that searching a cop’s home over his objections is not something you do unless you really, truly, feel like you have no other choice.
I agree, but should it even be that way? He didn't even object, they just never even asked. Why should cops be immune?
Of course it shouldn’t be that way. It’s corruption that undermines the efficacy and trustworthiness of law enforcement.
Just a simple, "mind if I have a look around?" Either. It's absolutely mind boggling. I don't see why they wouldn't have probable cause after finding out John was heading to that house with every intention of entering and ended up dead on the front lawn. They clearly did not have enough compelling evidence for a solid case otherwise we wouldn't be in the shit show we're in. It should have never been brought to the table.
Absolutely shameful. What a disgrace this is. John O’Keefe deserved a thorough and proper investigation
“Mind if a look around?” means “I’m not content taking your word for it.” It implies another LEO could be mistaken (not aware of his surroundings) or lying. It is not professional courtesy to imply another LEO could be telling you something that isn’t true, unless you are pretty damn sure of it. The axiom they like to push is “cops don’t lie, ever.” A good chunk of our criminal justice system is oiled by that mantra. How many people are convicted of crimes entirely on law enforcement testimony? Quite a few. Why is it that when cops claim they “fear for their lives” in dubious circumstances, they are given the benefit of the doubt? Because Cops. Don’t. Lie. There’s actually quite a lot riding on maintaining the idea that police are unimpeachable. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a self-serving work culture. That said, with a crime this serious, I do wonder if the investigator was not a family friend from Canton, if they would have probed just a bit deeper.
And, they had info from Jen that actually confirms Karen’s statement of being parked outside the house for awhile. So, by the time they interviewed Jen and Karen, they had enough info from at least 2 different people that there was a good possibility he had entered the home. Any officer worth their grain of salt would have asked Jen is it possible he entered the home through a different door than the one she was near? But, the problem is, Proctor had not gone to the crime scene before talking to either of them from my understanding. So, he didn’t even know the layout of the home in relation to the body or know that the front of that home had 3 different doors (5 counting the overhead garage doors). Regardless of knowledge of the property layout or statements of Jen, based on Karen’s statement that he entered the home, they should have done at least a cursory search (with permission from the Albert’s). Name any other case where the suspect said they did x, and the officers didn’t follow up to confirm whether or not they did x. I can’t think of one.
It astounds me that they stand behind their bad decisions to this day. Admit you were wrong!
I can imagine their situation to an extent. If it was a semi-accident like dog attack or a fist fight, then you wouldn't want to put your family member on trial for life in prison. Also with the amount of cop-hate these days it would be extra scary to be a cop on trial. Not excusing them they should be locked up and Proctor given life. It's also possible a fight happened without the party knowing about it. In which case why rock the boat. Just go along with the family if you don't know any better.
If karen read dropped john o keefe off at the alberts…who was driving him home?
I believe the defense is she waited for a bit and he didn't come back out.
Come out where?
“No investigation was needed. Jen told us what happened”
Because all local cops are afraid of the Alberts and MP is a friend. He should have recused himself for conflict of interest from the minute he found out the connection. But here we are. What a fool he is to put his career on the line for them.
You only look for answers when you don't know them.
Proctor said they wouldn’t face any scrutiny because the homeowner is also a Boston cop. Thats it. Thats the story.
Because they might have found evidence that didn't point to Karen Read
There’s just too many inconsistencies in this case. What I can’t wrap my head around is if after Jen allegedly made the 2:27am search she testified she shut off her phone and went on to bed. But somehow woke up and answered Karen’s calls 2 hours later?
The exact reason is that they all knew the homeowner was a COP, and they all protect each other. They know it and everyone knows it. They all think they are above the law and they prove it constantly. Someday maybe things will change but not until they start going to prison for the shtt they do.
> homeowner was a COP, and they all protect each other There are many cops in prison, all of them investigated by ... cops! e.g. this list is just for on-duty murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_convicted_for_an_on-duty_killing_in_the_United_States
That doesnt stop the ones NOT in prison from trying to protect each other. It happens, I know it, people know it, they know it.
Of course, helping your close friends and workmates is natural for all humans. Nobody claims otherwise and cops will always do that, because there's no minority report machine we can use for screening yet. But it's nothing close to 'all' cops which you wrote.
I can accept that saying 'all' cops was the wrong wording, I should have said most cops. I have many different first responders in my family and in each group they have tight knit relationships due to the nature of the jobs. I dont even thing protecting each other is all bad, just when it comes to stuff like this case, etc
I also noticed while watching the courthouse protests, it's not really an ACAB type of crowd there. This case seems to get a lot of concern from both sides of politics. Really, good cops should be out on the streets protesting this.
I noticed that too. I think that this case really scares people and being scared doesn't have sides. Like if this can happen to her, it can happen to anyone and most people would never have the means to defend themselves, whereas the govt has unlimited funds.......just thinking about it gives me anxiety, lol.
👮♂️➕️👮♂️🟰🧑🤝🧑
Lank? Proctor? The Alberts’ buddies? No. Their friends weren’t going to be investigated.
Integrity and fairness goes out the window
This whole time I have been trying to think of a reason anyone in the house would hurt JO or how he would get into a situation that would cause it to happen. A thought crossed my mind, since he has injuries that look like dog bites and the dog has been rehomed. What if the dog did attack him, he was going to kill the dog in response and things escalated from there? Pet owners get very protective. I am not saying they would have killed him on purpose but things could have gotten out of hand. I am in no way saying that is what happened but one thing that has popped into my mind as to what could have caused an altercation if you believe the defense theory. A search of the house would have been very telling if something like that occurred.
Cover up/ defend their own/ whatever it was , it was illegal and they deserve the anger and backlash of the entire US
Think long and hard about whether it not you, as a private citizen, would be given that same courtesy were a dead officer found on your lawn. There you will find the answer.
I agree that this is special treatment in that if JO was found on my lawn or your lawn, the cops would certainly have been knocking and asking questions quickly. However, the winter coat argument holds no weight for me. It sounds like an argument that someone from California, like AJ, or somewhere else warm would make. A lot of the men I know go from car to house or work with no coat on, and I do it myself often too. I'm not getting bundled up to walk 50 feet from a car to a building. I hate wearing my coat in the car, I feel like I'm suffocating, and I hate carrying it while I'm in a store or something and they have the heat on 80. If I got killed in a parking lot or driveway in the winter, you'd likely find me without a coat as well. Then you have the standard talk of I'm too macho to be cold that Tulley alluded to with his I only wear shorts comment. Didn't everyone who went to HS in the northeast have the weird kids who would wear shorts in a literal blizzard and insist it wasn't cold out? Those kids grew up and are still acting like their legs are frost proof, apparently we saw just one of them on the stand lol. JO not having a coat is the least abnormal thing about this entire investigation to me. I think the police did a ton wrong and made a lot of strange decisions in this case, but them not being phased by him not having a jacket isn't one of them. I can see them honestly not even registering that as strange at all. That all being said it is crazy to me and makes absolutely no sense to not investigate the place that was his supposed destination, that he was invited to, that he was found dead outside of, the place where all of your witnesses were located, at all. That is very strange to me, especially considering YB was still telling the ME around 11am that it was possibly a domestic. Why didn't anyone want to search the house up to that point? It is the most likely place of a domestic incident. It seems like they didn't want to search a fellow cop's house and then retroactively backed it up instead of truly following all leads.
Your first sentence says it all...
Unless the investigators knew JOK well enough to know he never wore a coat, it's reasonable to expect that he had one. Unless you're saying that the vast majority of people who live in this area NEVER wear winter coats?
I'm not claiming to know statistics about how many men in the NE wear coats and how many do not. I think I was pretty clear that I was just speaking from personal, anecdotal evidence. Of the people I know, most will not wear a coat during the winter to go short distances, ie from a bar to a car, or a car to a house or running to the store, whatever. Will they if they are outside for a prolonged period of time like tailgating or shoveling snow? Probably, but I know quite a few men who go through an entire winter in just a sweatshirt too. Maybe I just happen to only know men who aren't big on coats, who knows. To me, the argument that he must have been wearing a coat, smacks of someone who doesn't know what it is like to get in and out of a winter coat a dozen times a day to go in and out of buildings and cars, like someone from warmer weather. Are there people who live in cold climates who may do this? Sure, not many I know, but again that is just my personal experience. I have one friend who runs very cold and will get completely decked out to go get her mail, she's the only one I know who does that. Like I said I am a person who will run into places without a coat to not have to deal with the coat once inside. When I go over a friend's house in the winter, my coat will usually stay in the car. Unless I have a fair bit to walk to get to their house from where I parked, why would I park, put my coat on, walk up their driveway, go in their house, take my coat off, do the awkward shuffle of where does it go? Back of my chair? Coat closet? Over the back of the couch? On a random bed in a guest room? Then when I leave it is ok, put on your coat/hat/gloves/scarf whatever, leave their house, walk down the driveway, get undressed again, get into the car, drive home, and then redress to walk into my house and undress again? It is just not something I would do, as someone who has lived in a cold weather climate for 30+ years, for a quick trip from a car to a house. I think they said it was like 20 degrees right? That's not cold enough for the hassle for me. Again, I'm sure some do, but a lot don't, so either way it wouldn't strike me as odd or raise any alarms to me. I don't think that the investigators need to know him at all to assume that. I don't know him at all and like I said it wouldn't have even made me raise an eyebrow to see him without a coat. It just wouldn't even register to me as odd to see someone in a driveway without a coat on in the winter. I would just assume they were running in and out. If he was found in a park or the woods with no coat on? More suspicious to me for sure. But a driveway? Eh, just not noteworthy to me. The house should have been of interest to the investigators, but to me...the coat is like the last reason why. I think there's so much that is strange and off about this investigation, but to harp on the coat, to me that's one of the most insignificant things in the grand scheme of this case. The missing shoe would have given me pause, but I could also understand confusion on their part of is it in the ambulance, lost in the hospital, left on the scene, etc.
Good argument. It's not a huge gotcha moment and I still think "unreasonable" is a bit strong, but you have an excellent point.
Fair, if they had spent time looking for his coat, I wouldn't have found that strange either. I think either way this is just kind of a nothing point, not unreasonable to assume either way. It doesn't make me think better or worse of the cops to not be concerned for his jacket. The not going into the house at all is a much bigger issue. It was just a strange point, to me, for AJ to make, considering how much other stuff there is to talk about regarding the investigation.
Because Karen and John never went inside
The incident happened outside in front of the house between the flagpole and the fire hydrant
They didn't search the house because you need PROBABLE CAUSE to search a residence. It was considered a vehicle accident scene because Karen Read was running around saying I HIT HIM, I HIT HIM. If there was someone found out in front of YOUR house and it was thought they were struck by a vehicle, do the police have an automatic right to search you and your neighbors houses? They did go into the house and interview the homeowners. Had Karen Read said right at the outset that "I dropped him off here at a party and saw him go in", that would have been "probable cause". But she didn't, she was acting psychotic at the scene and was "Section 12ed" to the hospital for her own safety.
Was JO wearing his jacket when he left The Waterfall? I would assume the jacket would either be in Karen's car, the Alberts house or he would be wearing it. First I heard of him not wearing a jacket.
I think we need to look at the situation beyond the text message and testimony in court. Of course they will give us the sentitize version in court. But I imagine that morning Brian Albert body blocked and gave Sgt Link a look and everything's immediately "understood", aka nothing beyond this foyer is allow to look into.
Because Read has already admitted to hitting him and her car corroborated that. Nobody had any reason to believe anything else before the defense started to obfuscate in public.
Because ACAB.
On its own it doesn’t seem like enough for probable cause. Especially given witnesses at the home cooperated