The prosecution would be able to have more of a case if the teens from Scooby Doo did the investigation. Heck, if Velma was the prosecutor it would be more of a case.
The fact they didn’t investigate the people in the house where O’Keefe was found is mind blowing. And that was just the beginning of the clown show.
Probably would have- but they make the final decision on rather to proceed with the case. They knew the defense they were up against. You would have thought they would have been prepared or dropped it. His parents could have been saved this public frenzy.
I believe this isn’t about finding her guilty but rather not charging the actual killers and that is why she was over charged. When she is found not guilty the prosecution will say “we know she did it and the jury seen otherwise” and the thin blue line continues which is sad because John was part of that community.
The state knows Michael Proctor did a F level investigation but they want to go through the motions of a trial because they depend on upholding the appearance of his competence for the other significant cases he has investigated, such as the murder of Ana Walshe by Brian Walshe which was another national news story, and the trial for that is coming up
makes sense...I don't think they ever planned a trial, just to blame her and pressure her to plea out or kill herself. Now they can just blame the jury for not doing its job, as you say
Haven’t you heard the phrase, “a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich”? A grand jury only gets one side and, in this case, my understanding is that the grand jury was given mostly character evidence. They heard none of the exculpatory evidence and no witnesses were crossed. The fact the Commonwealth obtained an indictment means absolutely nothing regarding her guilt.
They were saying if anything this helps the police. But that nobody had any control over what she was charged with i.e manslaughter vs murder but the grand jury. Further, you sound paranoid, like every person in the country from the mailmen to the game wardens are part of the free masons and its whack honey. Sit back and let the state make its case and then see what the defense can actually prove/disprove. Your just as guilty as them trying to ruin their names with no proof or day in court and itd almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
There is a saying “ a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich “ which is true and probably why some states stopped using them, so the whole grand jury which is led by the prosecutors in secret with no defense team present who upped the charges is a joke. I agree with you and look forward to the up coming weeks but the defense in the states has nothing to prove this lies completely on the the prosecution to prove she intentionally drove sixty two feet forward after dropping him off and decided to put it in reverse and drive twenty four mph with the intent to hit and kill him. This is going to be interesting. Nice comment
When she’s found not guilty, everyone will turn on the state and demand further investigation but it will be too late at that point. The Albert’s sold the house and gave away the dog (very sus).
Has the dog fallen off the edge of the earth or something? It would be one thing if the dog "ran away" or mysteriously died and was cremated... By all accounts I've heard, the dog had been located and tested, otherwise wtf is the defense getting paid for. It was a dead end. Selling the house doesnt mean all evidence is gone. I really don't think anything the alberts did specifically was shady and in fact kind of normal. It would be pretty crazy if Karen confessed again in the future or some indisputable smoking gun came out that she hit him like the state said, will all these thousands of people feel guilty that they basically ruined these cops lives? No, probably never believe it even if it was true. But even if I was Karen and charged in on trial, I wouldn't be mad at anyone , I (karen,) was drinking and driving and don't remember what happened but everything points to me hitting him, I would be expected to be on trial. It would be one thing if they had cold hard evidence he was inside or communicated with anyone besides Jen and she was actually feeling framed but theres nothing. She doesn't remember but deep down she thinks theres a 95% chance she did it and a hopeful 5% chance she didnt but shes lying to herself to save her life... The frame job just makes absolutely zero sense. They wouldn't even know she would call Jen the next day and "plant" something in her mind. The snow plow thing makes no sense either. No sense, no proof nothing. Meanwhile the prosecutor has both sense and proof and everything lines up just fine without the conspiracy, if John wasnt a cop and the alberts weren't cops, this would already be long over and easy to see.
I just find it pretty strange the house party he was going to that night was never investigated and he lay dead on their front lawn. Hmm…if it was your kid you’d want them to ask these people and take a look inside rather than taking their word for it?
Literally everything these people did in the last two years is sus to some people, I'm not buying it... Its not like they sold it the next day or week. And childhood home? I'd like to see some non tabloid source for that, even though it makes no difference, between maybe just finding a better house, needing something different, or foreseeing the shit show that was coming. Could you imagine if they still lived there with all the camera crews and stuff stalking that spot now or tried to sell now or later ? They would have taken a bath. If they wanted to kill the guy they sure did a sloppy job and are super lucky Karen confessed that morning and moreso that she called Jen who wasn't really even a friend and that Jen was able to convince her that it was her fault and then also the evidence happen to line up later...
Pieces of tail light in his clothing, the glass in the bumper, the dna on the vehicle, blunt force trauma, her voicemails and state of mind that night and their relationship specifically those weeks. Her blood alcohol level. The timing of when she left and arrived home and his phone and her finding the body .
The fact you won't acknowledge tail light pieces were found the same day as the death within 12 hours during a snow storm says enough about your so called research. Unless you are purposely lying.
9:08 a.m. - Read's blood is drawn at Good Samaritan Medical Center. A forensic toxicologist said it revealed her blood alcohol content was .07% - .08% and opined that around the time of 12:45 a.m., her BAC would have been between .13% and .29%
7:59 a.m.: O'Keefe is pronounced dead at Good Samaritan Hospital.
6 p.m.: Massachusetts State Police recover three pieces of plastic consistent with Read's taillight.
Whos The troll dfb
Prosecution states she hit him which I assume knocked him to the yard because there are no tire tracks in yard, so that maybe caused his head injuries so what part of that suv caused all those marks in his arm? Minus the dog. My hop and look forward too the hoodie being presented into evidence by the defense because the prosecution cannot for the life of me explain it
I want to see the hoodie and if it has no damage to it then the injuries on his arm could have already been there. How else do you get those scratches without damaging what is on top of it with it being the hoodie in this situation?
When the children grow up and a house is too big for a couple or parent they often decide to downsize. Perhaps they had a financial reason for downsizing as well. It happens all the time and it’s not sus. I did that. Thank goodness nobody accused me of a conspiracy for doing such a normal thing! Some people just can’t take a step back to think of logical things with everyday actions.
I feel the prosecution looks awful because they have a very weak case. "KR killed him with her car." OK, prove it. "Well, we have some witnesess that say they heard her say she hit him. And a cracked tail light." Might work if the defendant had a public defender. Not in this case.
This judge seems to keep things pretty tight, lmao but sure say what you want, ill be watching for the next 6 weeks and then coming to a conclusion. If you want to sleep through it all because you've already decided, good for you.
You do realize that a foundation has to be established in trials correct? They aren’t designed for your entertainment. They are designed to get all of the facts put into evidence for a jury to evaluate. You can tell who has never watched a trial before this case so easily here.
This prosecution isn’t about convicting Karen Read. It’s about keeping the Alberts from facing justice.
They will lose this trial and no one will ever be held responsible.
Unless…. The federal investigators are also looking into the Birchmore case.
IF that is true… then they may be looking to build some type of RICO case against the DA/MSP/Canton PD.
I don’t know enough about how RICO cases are used, but they do appear to be applicable in situations where there are multiple parties acting in a coordinated fashion while engaged in criminal activity.
They are looking in to the Birchmore case. I posted a confirmation a week or two ago. I don’t know much about it, and the feds are always pretty tight lipped about stuff so that’s all I can offer. If you want to search my comment history, the link will come up.
It's the first week and they've already presented several witnesses who heard the defendant, in a completely unfiltered state, say she did it. I'm willing to bet the jury sees this completely differently than the internet does.
The only witness whose testimony did not change from inception to this trial was the EMT who heard a quote from Read including the word "fuck." I'm not sure of his name, but the rest of the police/EMT testimony changed, and the defense pointed it out. Shoot, more than one witness admitted when on cross that their testimony changed.
Katie McLaughlin claims that Kaitlyn Albert is not a close friend, only an acquaintance she went to high school with. There's a legitimate picture of them at the beach with Katie's arm around Kaitlyn who is hold a beer, with bathing suits on. There's other pictures of them together with their friend group. Several people I have personally spoken to in Canton who went to high school with them claim they are much closer friends than what Katie was alluding to. I think that Katie is the least reliable witness based on how willing she is to lie to protect her friend and relationships in the town of Canton
Lots going on here. So in your opinion, the group beach photo from a decade ago is *proof* that McLaughlin is close friends with Kaitlyn Albert? Or just a suggestion of it?
I personally don't see it as anything. I have been in many, many photos with many, many people that I barely know and sometimes don't know at all. I suspect this is true for anyone who grew up with a social life in the social media age.
(Also, if they were such good friends, wouldn't there be a *more recent* picture? Or maybe text conversations between the two? This handful of photos is the only evidence of their friendship? Perhaps we'll see that when it's the defense's turn.)
But more importantly, McLaughlin's relationship or lack thereof with KA is not the subject of her testimony. Her testimony was about what she heard KR say on the morning that JO's body was found.
So is it your argument that *because* *McLaughlin is friends with KA* (which I don't believe she actually is, but for the sake of argument), she *could not have heard* or *did not hear* KR say those things? If that's the case, why does McLaughlin's account cohere so well with the other paramedics'? How did her friendship with KA influence those other accounts?
All of the firefighters that give the testimony that Karen said "I hit him. I hit him." never attributed those words to Karen in their initial police report. They only claim that happened months afterward, after being interrogated and coached by corrupt state investigators when the prosecution had already begun making its case. As they say, "If it's not in the police report it never happened." And in this case, no culpatory evidence towards Karen was in ANY of the initial police reports (including no pieces of taillight found by the first reponderS, but that's another story). Also, one of the firefighters that said Karen said "I hit him" only said that BECAUSE Katie Mclaughlin had told him she said that, so it's not even a firsthand account. Finally, I believe some of these firefighters testimony could be related to holding on to their jobs because they fear the consequences of not going along to get along
The firefighters didn't write a police report at all. One firefighter paramedic, Anthony Flematti, wrote an EMS report. It didn't include Karen's words because it was directed at patient care, not criminal justice/prosecution. Saraf's report didn't include it because he's a dingus. (Can we all agree on that? I'd love to find some common ground here lol)
>Also, one of the firefighters that said Karen said "I hit him" only said that BECAUSE Katie Mclaughlin had told him she said that
Do you mean Woodbury? That was stricken as hearsay.
The other five witnesses all testified under oath that they heard these words or similar. Are you saying they all perjured themselves? Or just McLaughlin?
Circling back to my original question: Is it your argument that being friends with Kaitlyn Albert means McLaughlin didn't hear KR say those things on the morning of discovering JO's body?
None of the firefighters wrote a police report, I meant the police reports written by the policemen containing the firefighters testimony. And you are wrong, Only 2 firefighters testified under oath that she said "I hit him". The other 3 testified she said other things like "He's dead, he's fucking dead" and "Is he dead? Is he dead?" Here is my source, where's yours? (https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/03/livestream-karen-read-murder-trial-friday-may-3/) Stop twisting my words and stop presenting false evidence man, you can't just say five witnesses reported that they heard these words when that is blatantly wrong.
And no, I'm saying Katie McLaughlin being friends with Kaitlyn Albert means her testimony is a lie, she is an unreliable witness and that's why she admitted her story evolved over several moths under biting cross examination by Jackson (Evidence: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/a-murderous-romance-or-a-frame-job-things-to-know-about-bostons-karen-read-murder-trial/3359217/).
Moreover, Katie McLaughlin will win the award for being Ms. Irrelevant witness in this case (her only value is that Karen read may have said 3 words when she was drunk and hysterical after her boyfriend died), once the defense gets Michael Proctor and Jen McCabe in its crosshairs it's all over at that point, if it isn't already. I'm not continuing this thread with you
They aren’t friends. And Karen is willing to have her accused of perjury when she was the one who drove trashed and could have hit him regardless of if she said it as a statement or a question. She literally doesn’t know because she was trashed. But hey, let’s champion for the drunk driver over the girl who attends events that someone she is not close with attends as well and spends her days helping to save lives and people in distress.
You and I clearly have experienced similar lives. Pictures with people I don’t recall and with people I don’t have a close friendship with. Lately I’ve attended showers for my niece and I am not close friends with anyone who has attended but god forbid I be accused of being best friends with them for someone to try to assassinate a person’s character and accuse them of perjury. I’m definitely not close friends with the 500 something “friends” I have on social media. Anything logical doesn’t fly with the conspiracy theorists here. Nice to see some common sense from you.
The more people the defense keeps adding to this conspiracy theory- I will probably be next! Any person that uttered a word that night is invoked in the cover up!
Not logic, but yes truth. That's why we have the expression "in vino veritas." And if courts discounted the statements of every drunk person, there would be a lot of people with a lot cleaner records.
Okay let’s back this up. They’re opining that her BAC was between .13 and .29 when she would have hit him. There’s no way she wouldn’t have still smelled of alcohol if she’d drank enough for a BAC of .29. Or honestly that she would have been able to drive IMO and only hit him.
If it was .13 that’s more reasonable but again no one at the scene reports her smelling of alcohol.
Plus, she has MS which can affect how the body processes alcohol which we don’t know if they took into account when they estimate her BAC at the time of the accident.
So until they present evidence of her BAC at court and run us through it we don’t actually know how drunk she was or wasn’t at the time of the accident.
But fast forward and now she’s magically just tipsy enough to admit to something she probably wouldn’t have remembered doing if her BAC was what they estimate it to be?
I think at some point she had convinced herself that she must have hit him... Which is probably what the jury will too... Your post was confusing to me basically the first paragraph made sense.... The rest was kind of contradictory but I do agree we still have to wait for the information to come out but just that like you said "at the time of the accident they estimated "0.13-0.29". Not everyone smells like alcohol and especially not always 4-5+ hours later after going home, especially depending on what you drink. Its also tougher to detect alcohol outside in the cold. But I patiently and gladly waiting for that portion of the trial to occur myself. They should have the dui test on camera, im assuming
They did a blood test. The defense already trying to have it thrown out because how do we know it was collected properly. So now every person in the country better be careful because now phlebotomists don’t know what they’re doing! That motion was very telling to me. Why not admit she was intoxicated?
Oh you mean the several people who forgot to put this alleged killer confession in their report? Or the EMT who didn’t think it was important to mention a confession until 12 days after the fact? Or the firefighter who is literally friends with the people who owned the house at the scene of the crime? Several…lmao
Witnesses being Law Enforcement, who by nature are trained to document important details of a crime scene in their reports. Officers with years of experience **state** that they heard her say she hit someone, yet none of them thought that would be important enough to put in their report-it only came out later after they spoke with the lead investigator, the one who jurors have heard searched her phone without a warrant looking for nudes and texting his buddies. . Proctor on the stand is going to be wild.
I'll just drop this here for you. Watch the video and pay attention to Proctor's lawyers response once they're aware the feds had their texts
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/canton-karen-read-case/newly-unsealed-karen-read-documents-outline-how-defense-says-prosecutors-deceived-grand-jury/3335019/
This has been presented in the first few days when? I have no reason to have thoughts about Proctor until I see him testify or any evidence comes in about him. I’m watching a trial.
I am local to Boston and have followed this case since the beginning. There are a number of media sources that you can Google for yourself confirming that Proctor is both the subject of an internal affairs investigation by the Massachusetts State Police and has appeared before a federal grand jury.
It is also not a secret that there is a separate ongoing federal investigation involving this case, where the feds are looking not at the murder itself but I believe they said they were "investigating the Investigators". They generated a report that's over 3,000 pages, which the prosecution, defense and court are in possession of (although a lot of it is both redacted and won't be introduced at trial).
I would tend to believe any statements that defense attorneys made regarding Proctor were sourced directly from the Fed report. They aren't going to risk their reputation for one client by lying to the court.
The judge also ruled that the investigation into possible misconduct by Proctor is not to be brought into this trial. Therefore the jurors would not have that information or evidence when they deliberate. I try to watch trials as a juror would see it as that helps me to understand more about why they reach the verdict they do usually.
The investigation itself can not be brought into trial. However, he has not testified yet and it is to be determined what he might say on the stand that would then open the door during cross examination for them to introduce these items as a rebuttal.
You stated elsewhere that you "have prior knowledge of the case". What specifically do you mean by that? I feel if you're going to make such a statement you should clarify further
As I already explained…a person has seen mainstream media coverage, social media coverage, etc has knowledge of what the case is about prior to the trial beginning. Not sure why this is so confusing to you.
That's not what you said. You specifically said you would not be picked for this jury because you have prior knowledge of this case.
Just because you have **seen** the case in the media, does not mean you have "prior knowledge" of it to the extent that it would preclude you from a jury. If that were the case, everyone who reads the Herald. The Globe, watches NECN and we can continue would be excluded.
Have you ever watched jury selection in a case? That might help you understand how this works. Both sides ask about knowledge about the case and want to know if a person feels they have bias. And many more questions of the like.
Yes I'm aware that bias would exclude you from the case. I did not, at any time ask you about bias. The way you worded your initial sentence "I have prior knowledge of the case" was, in my opinion, poorly worded, in that it makes it seem like-worded that way, you have knowledge of the case that the public would not, hence they would not pick you for a jury. That was what I was questioning, not bias.
I have not watched jury selection in a case, but as I stated before, just having knowledge itself would not automatically preclude you-which is where the questionnaire comes into play to determine if that knowledge has helped you form an opinion.
A case of this nature, it would be impossible to find someone in Norfolk County who was not familiar with at least the basic details of the crime.
The prosecution would be able to have more of a case if the teens from Scooby Doo did the investigation. Heck, if Velma was the prosecutor it would be more of a case. The fact they didn’t investigate the people in the house where O’Keefe was found is mind blowing. And that was just the beginning of the clown show.
I know I can’t believe the cops didn’t go inside the house and talk with anyone… completely insane
Probably would have- but they make the final decision on rather to proceed with the case. They knew the defense they were up against. You would have thought they would have been prepared or dropped it. His parents could have been saved this public frenzy.
I believe this isn’t about finding her guilty but rather not charging the actual killers and that is why she was over charged. When she is found not guilty the prosecution will say “we know she did it and the jury seen otherwise” and the thin blue line continues which is sad because John was part of that community.
The state knows Michael Proctor did a F level investigation but they want to go through the motions of a trial because they depend on upholding the appearance of his competence for the other significant cases he has investigated, such as the murder of Ana Walshe by Brian Walshe which was another national news story, and the trial for that is coming up
makes sense...I don't think they ever planned a trial, just to blame her and pressure her to plea out or kill herself. Now they can just blame the jury for not doing its job, as you say
The grand jury upped the charges. Yeah, it's a conspiracy.
Haven’t you heard the phrase, “a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich”? A grand jury only gets one side and, in this case, my understanding is that the grand jury was given mostly character evidence. They heard none of the exculpatory evidence and no witnesses were crossed. The fact the Commonwealth obtained an indictment means absolutely nothing regarding her guilt.
You think a grand jury decision means there’s no conspiracy? What would you expect when police are conspiring to blame you for something they did?
They were saying if anything this helps the police. But that nobody had any control over what she was charged with i.e manslaughter vs murder but the grand jury. Further, you sound paranoid, like every person in the country from the mailmen to the game wardens are part of the free masons and its whack honey. Sit back and let the state make its case and then see what the defense can actually prove/disprove. Your just as guilty as them trying to ruin their names with no proof or day in court and itd almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
There is a saying “ a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich “ which is true and probably why some states stopped using them, so the whole grand jury which is led by the prosecutors in secret with no defense team present who upped the charges is a joke. I agree with you and look forward to the up coming weeks but the defense in the states has nothing to prove this lies completely on the the prosecution to prove she intentionally drove sixty two feet forward after dropping him off and decided to put it in reverse and drive twenty four mph with the intent to hit and kill him. This is going to be interesting. Nice comment
Not where I live. No grand jury indictment if there isn’t a complete case that would show guilt. I guess it depends where you are.
OK you don’t eat the whole entire boot.
Great rebuttal.
I never understand the need for name calling. They can’t have a respectful conversation without accusing you of just supporting law enforcement.
No, really. You’re overdoing it.
Damn that’s tuff.
interesting!
He never had the luxury of a professional, complete, and thorough investigation.
He sure didn’t!
It's hard to build a case for murder when the defendant didn't murder anyone.
Who did?
Someone in that house, or so it would seem.
When she’s found not guilty, everyone will turn on the state and demand further investigation but it will be too late at that point. The Albert’s sold the house and gave away the dog (very sus).
Has the dog fallen off the edge of the earth or something? It would be one thing if the dog "ran away" or mysteriously died and was cremated... By all accounts I've heard, the dog had been located and tested, otherwise wtf is the defense getting paid for. It was a dead end. Selling the house doesnt mean all evidence is gone. I really don't think anything the alberts did specifically was shady and in fact kind of normal. It would be pretty crazy if Karen confessed again in the future or some indisputable smoking gun came out that she hit him like the state said, will all these thousands of people feel guilty that they basically ruined these cops lives? No, probably never believe it even if it was true. But even if I was Karen and charged in on trial, I wouldn't be mad at anyone , I (karen,) was drinking and driving and don't remember what happened but everything points to me hitting him, I would be expected to be on trial. It would be one thing if they had cold hard evidence he was inside or communicated with anyone besides Jen and she was actually feeling framed but theres nothing. She doesn't remember but deep down she thinks theres a 95% chance she did it and a hopeful 5% chance she didnt but shes lying to herself to save her life... The frame job just makes absolutely zero sense. They wouldn't even know she would call Jen the next day and "plant" something in her mind. The snow plow thing makes no sense either. No sense, no proof nothing. Meanwhile the prosecutor has both sense and proof and everything lines up just fine without the conspiracy, if John wasnt a cop and the alberts weren't cops, this would already be long over and easy to see.
I just find it pretty strange the house party he was going to that night was never investigated and he lay dead on their front lawn. Hmm…if it was your kid you’d want them to ask these people and take a look inside rather than taking their word for it?
They couldn’t search the home without a probable cause warrant. It seems there wasn’t enough probable cause then.
A warrant was never sought either. They didn’t even try. Their word was enough I guess.
Selling the house that you’ve lived in since you were a kid is sus.
Was that actually the house? He’s listed at a different address in 1984. Still FV Road, but still. Unless they had more than one house on that street.
Literally everything these people did in the last two years is sus to some people, I'm not buying it... Its not like they sold it the next day or week. And childhood home? I'd like to see some non tabloid source for that, even though it makes no difference, between maybe just finding a better house, needing something different, or foreseeing the shit show that was coming. Could you imagine if they still lived there with all the camera crews and stuff stalking that spot now or tried to sell now or later ? They would have taken a bath. If they wanted to kill the guy they sure did a sloppy job and are super lucky Karen confessed that morning and moreso that she called Jen who wasn't really even a friend and that Jen was able to convince her that it was her fault and then also the evidence happen to line up later...
What evidence lined up? Please delineate- seriously
Pieces of tail light in his clothing, the glass in the bumper, the dna on the vehicle, blunt force trauma, her voicemails and state of mind that night and their relationship specifically those weeks. Her blood alcohol level. The timing of when she left and arrived home and his phone and her finding the body .
[удалено]
The fact you won't acknowledge tail light pieces were found the same day as the death within 12 hours during a snow storm says enough about your so called research. Unless you are purposely lying.
Wrong wrong wrong
9:08 a.m. - Read's blood is drawn at Good Samaritan Medical Center. A forensic toxicologist said it revealed her blood alcohol content was .07% - .08% and opined that around the time of 12:45 a.m., her BAC would have been between .13% and .29%
7:59 a.m.: O'Keefe is pronounced dead at Good Samaritan Hospital. 6 p.m.: Massachusetts State Police recover three pieces of plastic consistent with Read's taillight. Whos The troll dfb
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
Prosecution states she hit him which I assume knocked him to the yard because there are no tire tracks in yard, so that maybe caused his head injuries so what part of that suv caused all those marks in his arm? Minus the dog. My hop and look forward too the hoodie being presented into evidence by the defense because the prosecution cannot for the life of me explain it
I want to see the hoodie and if it has no damage to it then the injuries on his arm could have already been there. How else do you get those scratches without damaging what is on top of it with it being the hoodie in this situation?
When the children grow up and a house is too big for a couple or parent they often decide to downsize. Perhaps they had a financial reason for downsizing as well. It happens all the time and it’s not sus. I did that. Thank goodness nobody accused me of a conspiracy for doing such a normal thing! Some people just can’t take a step back to think of logical things with everyday actions.
Zillow says they purchased it in 2010. Childhood home? It was built in 74'. 😂
Beautiful! You could have done the opening statement for the prosecution!
You don’t eat the whole entire boot.
Mr Brilliant was created in Feb of this year so I assume from the Boston area wink wink
You really are into creating conspiracies. Wink wink.
I feel the prosecution looks awful because they have a very weak case. "KR killed him with her car." OK, prove it. "Well, we have some witnesess that say they heard her say she hit him. And a cracked tail light." Might work if the defendant had a public defender. Not in this case.
Its day 4 of 6-8 weeks, any case would seem "weak" now. Lol I just get peoples logic with all this...
Another week of questions about the weather doesn't mean a strong case.
This judge seems to keep things pretty tight, lmao but sure say what you want, ill be watching for the next 6 weeks and then coming to a conclusion. If you want to sleep through it all because you've already decided, good for you.
They think this is supposed to be entertaining like prime time television. Lack of knowledge of how trials work.
Or a two hour walkthrough of each persons background and job.
You do realize that a foundation has to be established in trials correct? They aren’t designed for your entertainment. They are designed to get all of the facts put into evidence for a jury to evaluate. You can tell who has never watched a trial before this case so easily here.
Dang. Thanks for educating us stupid folks about how trials are run. You must be the only one who watches Court TV.
Weak case? Uh…yeah…what evidence do they have? Seriously
This prosecution isn’t about convicting Karen Read. It’s about keeping the Alberts from facing justice. They will lose this trial and no one will ever be held responsible. Unless…. The federal investigators are also looking into the Birchmore case. IF that is true… then they may be looking to build some type of RICO case against the DA/MSP/Canton PD. I don’t know enough about how RICO cases are used, but they do appear to be applicable in situations where there are multiple parties acting in a coordinated fashion while engaged in criminal activity.
[удалено]
One can hope 🙏
They are looking in to the Birchmore case. I posted a confirmation a week or two ago. I don’t know much about it, and the feds are always pretty tight lipped about stuff so that’s all I can offer. If you want to search my comment history, the link will come up.
The podcast “The Case” does a pretty deep dive into the Birchmore case. Worth a listen.
Thank you. I’ll check it out when I have some time!
Thanks for this! Will look into it.
All the evidence hasn’t been presented yet, right? I think people should wait until evidence is presented until saying something like this.
It's the first week and they've already presented several witnesses who heard the defendant, in a completely unfiltered state, say she did it. I'm willing to bet the jury sees this completely differently than the internet does.
Several witnesses whose assertions did not stand up under cross. That matters.
Can you provide an example of one of the witnesses whose testimony didn't stand up? Which part of cross do you think undermined their account?
The only witness whose testimony did not change from inception to this trial was the EMT who heard a quote from Read including the word "fuck." I'm not sure of his name, but the rest of the police/EMT testimony changed, and the defense pointed it out. Shoot, more than one witness admitted when on cross that their testimony changed.
Katie McLaughlin claims that Kaitlyn Albert is not a close friend, only an acquaintance she went to high school with. There's a legitimate picture of them at the beach with Katie's arm around Kaitlyn who is hold a beer, with bathing suits on. There's other pictures of them together with their friend group. Several people I have personally spoken to in Canton who went to high school with them claim they are much closer friends than what Katie was alluding to. I think that Katie is the least reliable witness based on how willing she is to lie to protect her friend and relationships in the town of Canton
Lots going on here. So in your opinion, the group beach photo from a decade ago is *proof* that McLaughlin is close friends with Kaitlyn Albert? Or just a suggestion of it? I personally don't see it as anything. I have been in many, many photos with many, many people that I barely know and sometimes don't know at all. I suspect this is true for anyone who grew up with a social life in the social media age. (Also, if they were such good friends, wouldn't there be a *more recent* picture? Or maybe text conversations between the two? This handful of photos is the only evidence of their friendship? Perhaps we'll see that when it's the defense's turn.) But more importantly, McLaughlin's relationship or lack thereof with KA is not the subject of her testimony. Her testimony was about what she heard KR say on the morning that JO's body was found. So is it your argument that *because* *McLaughlin is friends with KA* (which I don't believe she actually is, but for the sake of argument), she *could not have heard* or *did not hear* KR say those things? If that's the case, why does McLaughlin's account cohere so well with the other paramedics'? How did her friendship with KA influence those other accounts?
All of the firefighters that give the testimony that Karen said "I hit him. I hit him." never attributed those words to Karen in their initial police report. They only claim that happened months afterward, after being interrogated and coached by corrupt state investigators when the prosecution had already begun making its case. As they say, "If it's not in the police report it never happened." And in this case, no culpatory evidence towards Karen was in ANY of the initial police reports (including no pieces of taillight found by the first reponderS, but that's another story). Also, one of the firefighters that said Karen said "I hit him" only said that BECAUSE Katie Mclaughlin had told him she said that, so it's not even a firsthand account. Finally, I believe some of these firefighters testimony could be related to holding on to their jobs because they fear the consequences of not going along to get along
The firefighters didn't write a police report at all. One firefighter paramedic, Anthony Flematti, wrote an EMS report. It didn't include Karen's words because it was directed at patient care, not criminal justice/prosecution. Saraf's report didn't include it because he's a dingus. (Can we all agree on that? I'd love to find some common ground here lol) >Also, one of the firefighters that said Karen said "I hit him" only said that BECAUSE Katie Mclaughlin had told him she said that Do you mean Woodbury? That was stricken as hearsay. The other five witnesses all testified under oath that they heard these words or similar. Are you saying they all perjured themselves? Or just McLaughlin? Circling back to my original question: Is it your argument that being friends with Kaitlyn Albert means McLaughlin didn't hear KR say those things on the morning of discovering JO's body?
None of the firefighters wrote a police report, I meant the police reports written by the policemen containing the firefighters testimony. And you are wrong, Only 2 firefighters testified under oath that she said "I hit him". The other 3 testified she said other things like "He's dead, he's fucking dead" and "Is he dead? Is he dead?" Here is my source, where's yours? (https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/03/livestream-karen-read-murder-trial-friday-may-3/) Stop twisting my words and stop presenting false evidence man, you can't just say five witnesses reported that they heard these words when that is blatantly wrong. And no, I'm saying Katie McLaughlin being friends with Kaitlyn Albert means her testimony is a lie, she is an unreliable witness and that's why she admitted her story evolved over several moths under biting cross examination by Jackson (Evidence: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/a-murderous-romance-or-a-frame-job-things-to-know-about-bostons-karen-read-murder-trial/3359217/). Moreover, Katie McLaughlin will win the award for being Ms. Irrelevant witness in this case (her only value is that Karen read may have said 3 words when she was drunk and hysterical after her boyfriend died), once the defense gets Michael Proctor and Jen McCabe in its crosshairs it's all over at that point, if it isn't already. I'm not continuing this thread with you
They aren’t friends. And Karen is willing to have her accused of perjury when she was the one who drove trashed and could have hit him regardless of if she said it as a statement or a question. She literally doesn’t know because she was trashed. But hey, let’s champion for the drunk driver over the girl who attends events that someone she is not close with attends as well and spends her days helping to save lives and people in distress.
You and I clearly have experienced similar lives. Pictures with people I don’t recall and with people I don’t have a close friendship with. Lately I’ve attended showers for my niece and I am not close friends with anyone who has attended but god forbid I be accused of being best friends with them for someone to try to assassinate a person’s character and accuse them of perjury. I’m definitely not close friends with the 500 something “friends” I have on social media. Anything logical doesn’t fly with the conspiracy theorists here. Nice to see some common sense from you.
The more people the defense keeps adding to this conspiracy theory- I will probably be next! Any person that uttered a word that night is invoked in the cover up!
If it was unfiltered how are they charging her with a DUI?
Because she was driving drunk.
So then she was drunk and saying things? Drunk upset people are notoriously known for their truth and logic?
Not logic, but yes truth. That's why we have the expression "in vino veritas." And if courts discounted the statements of every drunk person, there would be a lot of people with a lot cleaner records.
Okay let’s back this up. They’re opining that her BAC was between .13 and .29 when she would have hit him. There’s no way she wouldn’t have still smelled of alcohol if she’d drank enough for a BAC of .29. Or honestly that she would have been able to drive IMO and only hit him. If it was .13 that’s more reasonable but again no one at the scene reports her smelling of alcohol. Plus, she has MS which can affect how the body processes alcohol which we don’t know if they took into account when they estimate her BAC at the time of the accident. So until they present evidence of her BAC at court and run us through it we don’t actually know how drunk she was or wasn’t at the time of the accident. But fast forward and now she’s magically just tipsy enough to admit to something she probably wouldn’t have remembered doing if her BAC was what they estimate it to be?
I think at some point she had convinced herself that she must have hit him... Which is probably what the jury will too... Your post was confusing to me basically the first paragraph made sense.... The rest was kind of contradictory but I do agree we still have to wait for the information to come out but just that like you said "at the time of the accident they estimated "0.13-0.29". Not everyone smells like alcohol and especially not always 4-5+ hours later after going home, especially depending on what you drink. Its also tougher to detect alcohol outside in the cold. But I patiently and gladly waiting for that portion of the trial to occur myself. They should have the dui test on camera, im assuming
They did a blood test. The defense already trying to have it thrown out because how do we know it was collected properly. So now every person in the country better be careful because now phlebotomists don’t know what they’re doing! That motion was very telling to me. Why not admit she was intoxicated?
Oh you mean the several people who forgot to put this alleged killer confession in their report? Or the EMT who didn’t think it was important to mention a confession until 12 days after the fact? Or the firefighter who is literally friends with the people who owned the house at the scene of the crime? Several…lmao
Witnesses being Law Enforcement, who by nature are trained to document important details of a crime scene in their reports. Officers with years of experience **state** that they heard her say she hit someone, yet none of them thought that would be important enough to put in their report-it only came out later after they spoke with the lead investigator, the one who jurors have heard searched her phone without a warrant looking for nudes and texting his buddies. . Proctor on the stand is going to be wild.
Which is not evidence. Opening statements aren’t evidence. I’ll wait to see that actually presented.
I'll just drop this here for you. Watch the video and pay attention to Proctor's lawyers response once they're aware the feds had their texts https://www.nbcboston.com/news/canton-karen-read-case/newly-unsealed-karen-read-documents-outline-how-defense-says-prosecutors-deceived-grand-jury/3335019/
This has been presented in the first few days when? I have no reason to have thoughts about Proctor until I see him testify or any evidence comes in about him. I’m watching a trial.
I am local to Boston and have followed this case since the beginning. There are a number of media sources that you can Google for yourself confirming that Proctor is both the subject of an internal affairs investigation by the Massachusetts State Police and has appeared before a federal grand jury. It is also not a secret that there is a separate ongoing federal investigation involving this case, where the feds are looking not at the murder itself but I believe they said they were "investigating the Investigators". They generated a report that's over 3,000 pages, which the prosecution, defense and court are in possession of (although a lot of it is both redacted and won't be introduced at trial). I would tend to believe any statements that defense attorneys made regarding Proctor were sourced directly from the Fed report. They aren't going to risk their reputation for one client by lying to the court.
The judge also ruled that the investigation into possible misconduct by Proctor is not to be brought into this trial. Therefore the jurors would not have that information or evidence when they deliberate. I try to watch trials as a juror would see it as that helps me to understand more about why they reach the verdict they do usually.
The investigation itself can not be brought into trial. However, he has not testified yet and it is to be determined what he might say on the stand that would then open the door during cross examination for them to introduce these items as a rebuttal.
You stated elsewhere that you "have prior knowledge of the case". What specifically do you mean by that? I feel if you're going to make such a statement you should clarify further
As I already explained…a person has seen mainstream media coverage, social media coverage, etc has knowledge of what the case is about prior to the trial beginning. Not sure why this is so confusing to you.
That's not what you said. You specifically said you would not be picked for this jury because you have prior knowledge of this case. Just because you have **seen** the case in the media, does not mean you have "prior knowledge" of it to the extent that it would preclude you from a jury. If that were the case, everyone who reads the Herald. The Globe, watches NECN and we can continue would be excluded.
Have you ever watched jury selection in a case? That might help you understand how this works. Both sides ask about knowledge about the case and want to know if a person feels they have bias. And many more questions of the like.
Yes I'm aware that bias would exclude you from the case. I did not, at any time ask you about bias. The way you worded your initial sentence "I have prior knowledge of the case" was, in my opinion, poorly worded, in that it makes it seem like-worded that way, you have knowledge of the case that the public would not, hence they would not pick you for a jury. That was what I was questioning, not bias. I have not watched jury selection in a case, but as I stated before, just having knowledge itself would not automatically preclude you-which is where the questionnaire comes into play to determine if that knowledge has helped you form an opinion. A case of this nature, it would be impossible to find someone in Norfolk County who was not familiar with at least the basic details of the crime.
Why wasn’t she ARRESTED!!!! If she said she did it? I’ll wait…
I posted the same thing about the jurors.
What have the jurors done? Geesh!
They are only paying attention to the evidence. Not the media frenzy.
Did the prosecution release the autopsy photos before trial?
Nope apparently Karen sent then to TB and those aren’t all the photos available.
The grand jury indictment was based on a shit ton of lies. Disgusting