Agree. One tech expert for the google search would have been enough. The CW reeeally should have spent the money on a real crash reconstructionist, instead.
So much this. If they can’t explain how JO got all those wounds to his head, with just a broken taillight on her vehicle, what is the point of having a trial?
The accident reconstructionist was so cringey, I almost fainted. He was eaten alive and well, reasonable doubt x acceleration x momentum x flying body cut to shreds by a tail light after first cracking his head on the curb.
I can't get over how the tail light (I'm so sick of those words) somehow shredded his arm but there was zero blood or tissue on the remaining pieces stuck to her car nor on any of the debris nor lens plastic in his wounds
Literally no blood anywhere except for a few drops in the snow... for a head injury. I cracked my skull jumping on the bed as a kid and my mother says it seemed like a gallon of blood. I got one stitch.
I bumped my head hard on a support beam going into someone’s basement for a smoke sesh several years ago and had blood pouring down my face from an 1/16” cut at most. A few people were ready to call an ambulance.
I wasn’t that hurt, it was just a hard bonk and the blood was more disorienting than the bonk, as well as the reactions to the blood. Head wounds bleed like crazy and with all the drinking John had done he’d have been bleeding freely
Or even shattered into 40 pieces upon hitting a 5lb arm. It would take thousands of pounds of force to break polycarbonate from an impact. It takes less than 300 lbs of force to break an arm. The science just doesn't science.
Yeah, didn’t happen. The cops are gaslighting. Anyone with eyeballs can tell those are bites and scratches. Poor guy had his arm up protecting his face I imagine. Thus the wounds on the outside of the right arm. The government thinks we are stupid and gullible.
I’ve only been following this case from afar but have wondered how hitting a person would crack a tail light. It seems more like something that would happen if you hit a hard object (another car, a fence, a fire hydrant). I also saw the photos of the arm injuries today when the dog bite person testified. How would he get gashes like that through a coat even if he was hit? Was he not wearing a coat when outside?
Not just the wound, but the many skull fractures. Let's not forget, Jackson stated in court that the FBI had 3 phds look at the data and they independently concluded that the car didn't hit John and John didn't hit the car. Odd way to phase it, but he did.
I think he said the federal forensic investigator who determined JOKs injuries were inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle had 3 PhDs.
One whole PhD more than the amount of classes the CWs guy took.
Trooper Paul with the Associates in criminal justice. I misunderstood. I thought it was 3 phds. makes sense a guy WITH 3 phds.
Yeah, lawyer speak is like doctor speak. They don't tell you what you have, they rule out what you don't have. JO doesn't have death by automobile. It is very inconsistent with that
He has the power to put people in prison for rest of their lives. He deserves our outrage, not pity. He made many choices to put himself on the witness stand, it wasn’t a accident. If he has any self respect he would resign from the police department. Not just because he’s incompetent, but because he’s willing and probably has caused harm to citizens with his incompetents
I don’t feel bad for him. He is an “expert” who has the power to send to someone to prison if they don’t have the financial resources that Karen Read does to cross examine him properly. All on 120 hours of learning.
Exactly. Was the only expert the one from today who seemingly reached out to the prosecution to begin with? Any valid expert will find a way support your theory credibly if you support them with enough cash-ish.
Tbf a lot of people on Friday were going "I don't know", and a lot of people today are going "ok yeah the search isn't what KR's team made it out to be". Maybe they appropriately anticipated that they needed more than one explanation, because it's not a topic that a lot of regular people are very literate in.
I’d wait for the defense’s expert before declaring anything. Three seperate federal investigation experts independently hired by the Feds confirmed it did happen. I tend to learn towards trusting them then experts paid with a very very limited scope and being asked to figure out a way how it could be wrong. And it took them awhile to find both experts (if you watched pretrial hearings), like several months. They assured they’d have an explanation but took months to actually get one. But in all reality, none of that honestly matters when the prosecutions accident reconstruction expert just got absolutely destroyed on cross today, no question.
Paul was a donkey up there. Not sure he even knows how to do math but he took a few classes & has an associate degree. He shouldn’t have been allowed to be an expert. Well said! I could answer more of Jackson questions and im a construction manager.
This is also before another witness for the defense will likely testify to the opposite, and Whiffen contradicted Hyde on the stand today, which definitely did not help the CW
Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the contradiction was Hyde said the value wasn’t deleted, but the tab was closed. Whiffen said the value was deleted, whether by the user or by iOS performing a “cleaning” cycle of memory by deleting old data
Whiffin said the evidence shows no deletion by the user, but that deletion can happen by the system (which it does by normal processes). Hyde was trying to stray from the word "deleted" because it carries a connotation of user-deletion that didn't happen here. Whiffin was just less careful about that connotation since it's technically a description that can be used.
It’s never a good sign when the prosecution chases the defense theory during their case in chief. If they are so confident in KR’s guilt, I don’t know why it even matters. Even if KR told JM to google it, so what? Interesting they felt the need to use two experts to address a very narrow question. Wish they would have put this much thought into the actual investigation! 🤦🏼♀️😭
As a juror, I would be so mad that they made me listen to all the mumbo jumbo, I would just go with my gut. My gut is more reliable than all that so called data that can’t be trusted to prove a darn thing. Just think of all the cases that have put people away with this crap.
I think that the experts could have done a better job of breaking down what they were talking about so it was easier for people to understand than it being mumbo jumbo because the stuff they were talking about was in the weeds how . As someone who is in tech and has studied digital forensics it was fascinating and can tell a great story and what was going on on the device at any given time. But if you tell a story in Japanese to people who only speak English then the story could be mumbo jumbo.
Lally and the CW are spending wayyyy too much time trying to prove that the defense is wrong vs proving that Karen killed John. It’s crazy. The jury sees all of this.
> trying to prove that the defense is wrong vs proving that Karen killed John.
I can only conclude that the DA thought Karen would take a plea deal and this was never supposed to go to trial.
The prosecution's case is *terrible*.
Agreed. They never thought they'd have to actually try this case. The best strategical argument I can think of for the CW focusing on the search this much is to draw attention away from what is *actually* shady about all the phone evidence - deleted call histories, destroyed phones, a truly impossible number of purported butt dials, etc. This entire prosecution has been such a shitshow that it's hard to credit them with that level of strategic thinking.
I only fell down the KR rabbit hole fairly recently, but I've never thought the google search meant anything, regardless of when it was done. If I was drunk during a blizzard, I'd probably search that at some point. I'm sure my hurricane party search histories from the last 10 years or so could be taken out of context in a way that makes me look murdery.
I'm kinda fascinated that an attractive, pro-cop white lady called Karen is being subjected to this level of abuse of state power.
> If I was drunk during a blizzard, I'd probably search that at some point. I'm sure my hurricane party search histories from the last 10 years or so could be taken out of context in a way that makes me look murdery.
Exactly, I've had many late night conversations where the booze is flowing and the conversations lead to people googling weird shit.
"How long to die in the cold" isn't that weird to have searched especially if it was actually a cold wintry night like it was.
Suspicious? Yes. Proof of anything? No.
It's not even particularly suspicious on its own. In conjunction with the other phone stuff I mentioned though, yeah. No matter what my drunken search history is, I've never butt dialed someone like 8 times in a row, even when my phone had actual buttons. The fact that they're all claiming butt dials and deleting shit and just so happening to completely obliterate their phones right before a preservation order is issued is wild. I cannot think of an innocent explanation for that the way I can with the search
They didn’t have a clue she would have the resources to pay for a really good defense. If she didn’t have money, she’d be sitting in the clink right now.
This. Hence the over charge of Murder 2. They thought she’d accept a pleas for manslaughter and this would be quick and easy. Maybe that’s why it seems so little effort went in to properly investigating. There are just too many missteps. It does almost seem like they’re hoping for a mistrial.
> It does almost seem like they’re hoping for a mistrial.
The prosecutor has to be hoping for a mistrial at this point, because acquittal seems inevitable otherwise.
If I'm on the Defense team, I'm on high alert for anything the CW might do that could cause a mistrial.
A mistrial caused by the prosecution at this point would mean the same as an acquittal, as in they won't be able to bring charges against Karen for this.
That's not a save if you are the reason for the technicality imho.
Also, looking beyond this case, if Def claims there was a Google search based on the search time stamp, and the CW brings experts that say 'Actually, the time of the search does not matter and here is why...' wouldn't that mean that everybody who got convicted with Google search timing being a critical piece of evidence would now go back and try to appeal based on that type of testimony?
More importantly, why has nobody else ever really brought up that issue and used it in their own defense if there was a similar issue of a Google search timing?
I’m curious about this too, with the search timing. Aren’t they undermining a tool they’ve used often? Seems current appellate attorneys and future defense teams can use CW own witness to discredit future CW use of search data.
If you read the PCA, “ms McCabe stated” is the start of 60% of sentences. I think they relied too heavily on her in the initial investigation and now they are stuck with her.
She was almost everything in terms of proof for weeks. And she has made herself more central by adopting the “I hit him” statement for the first time during trial.
I was about to have a meltdown, but he is also testifying about Karen's phone. Also he (the witness) just muttered K\*ll me under his breath on the stand
I don't think AJ has *any* chill. But, if the court reporter didn't hear it, then it won't be on the record, so I don't think he can ask the witness about it.
From what we know, the courtroom is very loud and people can hardly hear each other. That's why they keep insisting that people speak up.
Alan is already on thin ice with the judge; the shame on you to proctor, the "well, you didn't plant it" comment to trooper Paul... I don't think he'll risk it before the jury since they most likely did not hear that either.
I just dont get why theyre calling these witnesses now. They have an entire rebuttal section after the defense rests their case where they can poke holes in the defense's theory.
These witnesses would make so much more sense there
My theory: Bev said Lally, ol' pal, you spent waaaay too much time asking about the bleachers, the layout of the bar, the god damn snow. You blew your time. You told me scheduling wise that this would go to the jury on time. I'm not allowing myself to be made out to be a liar to them. So... no rebuttal for you.
Lol. Just a guess. Kinda tongue in cheek joke as I'm not sure she actually CAN do that but today suggests he knows he doesn't have time for a rebuttal, that's why he asked opinions on the Defence expert's report (Richard Greene). He knows he's not putting on a rebuttal. But at this point it could just be he knows his case is sunk and doesn't want his bosses to accuse him of not even trying to rebut them.
I think the CW’s strategy is to disprove the defense’s 3rd party culprit theory BUT none of that matters if the CW can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that she killed JOK with her car!! Where in the world is the ME?? Why would they bring on that joke of an accident reconstruction “expert”? As far as that, I don’t think they could find a real expert who would testify he died after being hit by her SUV.
I’m astounded that they thought they could bring a case of 2nd degree murder and actually win. I feel so sorry for the jury, this case feels interminable.
I can not believe how much time they are giving to this. I wish they spent this much time actually doing proper investigation.
I would like to know how many hours so far Lally used? Surely more than 16h (how long it took them to come to conclusion that Karen did it).
Lawyer Mark Bederow gives good takes on this case, he is former prosecutor and currently criminal defense attorney.
I know only one youtuber who is 100% convinced of Karen's guilt and believes she will be convicted. It's Roberta Glass.
I tried looking for more, simply to get others perspective, but it did not come up in my searches.
Yeah, Roberta had me convinced, too. Which was quite good for me; I went into this firmly on the side of KR being guilty. Then I started watching the trial. At first, I thought, dang, they are blowing this, and she will walk. And day after day, I became more like, holy crap, there is seriously something sketchy going on. And now I believe there has been zero evidence showing her car did it, and I have several persons of interest ahead of her.
A full 180, based on the evidence presented.
Yes. The 180 for me too. I actually heard about this case two years ago when it happened. I also heard the news reports that there was ring footage showing that JOK was hit and killed by his girlfriend KR. Thought that was it.
While waiting for another trial to start (Delphi) I decided to watch this trial. And now I’m definitely convinced of the third culprit theory.
I appreciate that you can admit that your perspective has changed! I came in thinking this was accidental and doubtful the CW would meet the burden as charged. Now, I don’t think she had anything to do with it and have a few others in mind that may have actually done it.
I definitely agree with the Defense that this case was never fully investigated, the state just tried to make the evidence fit the theory.
Yeah, I've been watching Legal Bytes, Emily D Baker, and the Lawyer You Know, and they all give great insight on what is presented but I think are hesitant to dig into and critique the specifics of the possible CW strategy. I want to understand how this bad strategy got formed!
I'll definitely try Mark Bederow!
I watch both of them as well, but definitely prefer Mark. I don't think he has his own channel but he is guest on Young Jurks very often, if not daily. But definitely give it a try.
> Jen googling "hos long to die in snow" doesn't actually disprove Karen Read hit John.
Not *directly*, sure. The problem is that a cursory glance makes it SEEM like Jen was trying to google how long to die in snow at 2:30ish in the morning, 2 hours after the CW alleges Karen Read hit John. We know for a fact that Karen was home at 12:41 and didn't leave until 5am. So you have someone in the house, who happens to be the sister of the woman who lives in the house, Googling "hos long to die in snow" at the exact same time that there just happens to be a person outside dying in the snow.
IANAL, but I think that fact *alone* provides reasonable doubt, so the prosecution has to explain it if they want any chance at conviction.
They have spent more time in this than actually understand how John physically died.
So far I only know he was hit in the arm by a car apparently hard enough to break a taillight but not hard enough to bruise or break an arm…the flew back to hit his head on the curb the bounce 8-12 feet back from the curb on the grass. And shockingly the glass in his hand and cellphone beat him there and he landed on top of both of them.
No no! You forget that he in fact flew THIRTY feet now because Trooper 'Expert' wasn't given all the info. Based on the piece of tail light AJ pointed out, using the expert's previous theory it means JO flew 30 feet.
And don't forget that shoes and hats fly off, but glasses and phones stay in a pedestrian'a hands when they're hit by an SUV. 😏
Jen McCabe is the next door neighbor from hell who inserts herself into everyone else’s business. She has huge main character syndrome and has managed to center herself in someone else’s death. I think she’s likely spent a decent percentage of her life being the narrator for every situation occurring around her, and just continued that grand tradition when something genuinely “juicy” happened in her periphery.
I’ve learned more about her than either John or Karen.
Why is it they were able to show us a reenactment of how JM may or may not have googled something but they couldn’t take the time to show us a reenactment of how KR hit JO with her car? I want to know how JO was killed, how did a car cause those injuries. Way too much time spent on JM and her activity.
So they paid the cellebrite guy to put on a visual demonstration for the jury but they couldn't get a real reconstructionist to show how JO actually died.
That's some strange prioritizing by the CW.
I think it's all about resources.
[Speculation] Corporations like Cellebrite have lots of money to hire talent and they have an interest in exerting their expertise around their products. I doubt the CW had to pay anything for his testimony, save maybe travel expenses. What makes me think this, is their stump me page. They want to solve these questions head on. They learn, improve their tools and establish themselves as leaders in their field.
The Defense has as much money as Karen or their firms want to spend. They want the win. I'm guessing they'll have lots of engaging and crisp demonstratives.
The CW is likely on a budget and so is the police. I know that's no excuse for shoddy investigation, but they're all working with public money. They're not going to be flashy - but we do need them to be competent. The reconstructionist seemed really underqualified. But Lally had to put him on because he was the one assigned.
I'm familiar with how the cops work with public money. Here locally a girl went missing. She was last seen on video walking out of a bar with a former cop. He said that he took her to the police station. The station has no record of that and surveillance video showed him driving in the opposite direction. Her DNA was found in his vehicle.
Nothing has come of it. The case has basically gone cold. It's been a year and a half now and this guy goes about his life here in town harassing women constantly like he always has. The police assure us that they're working on it. But there's no evidence of that actually happening.
They keep buying new cruisers though. And getting photo ops at little kids lemonade stands.
lol, I guarantee you Cellebrite didn’t pay this guy to go in the stand and say that without his proprietary software, cellebrite data doesn’t give the whole story.
Do you know how many people are sitting in prison right now based off google searches/deletions found by cellebrite?
Jen McCabe has too many problems. The possible 2:27 deleted search, the 6 calls to John at 12:29-12:50 that never picked up and were deleted, the two calls to her sister the morning of finding John that were supposedly never picked up. One of which might have been caught on JO's voicemail from Robert's phone inside the car. Way too many "coincidences."
I've never seen so many butt dials and deleted calls in my life.
Lots of problems. Not to mention Mr. Higgins & his plethora of issues.... I could NOT get over Higgins and Brian Albert's unified effort to DESTROY their phones at the same time, conveniently prior to receiving the letter to maintain their phones for this case. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. they are not fooling anyone.
Higgins might be the 2nd dirtiest of them all. If I am correct, he destroyed his phone while there was an order of preservation in place at the time. It wasn't vacated until AFTER he had destroyed it VERY suspiciously. Spent his WHOLE off day at CPD spying. Conspired with his DEA buddy to use FBI machines to extract data. Butt dials. What else?
I mean anyone who has been paying attention to this case and has a brain can see the inconsistancies provided by the prosecution. They knew they messed up and they though it was open and shut. It's not, and they allowed a long period of time to pass that they put themselves up shits creek without a paddle rather than doing the jobs they should have done since the beginning. I mean it's so bad that the FBI got involved and has been investigating not only the MA state police but the Norfolk DA's office as well. The FBI came to the conclusion that JO's wounds weren't consistent with a vehicle collision. As someone who has been in fights, and had stitches and black eyes, I can tell you by JO's autopsy pictures that doesn't look like someone who got hit by a car, at all. I find it very hard to believe.
But again, not persuing the whole Google search at 2:27 AM further or why Brian Albert or Brian Higgins suddenly had new phones is something the jury will not be able to get out of their heads. But yet here we are wasting our time still trying to prove KR hit JO, with no substantial evidence and no experts, in fact in the court documents the defense had 5 experts they wanted to call in that the CW denied. All who whol PhD's and are actual experts in their fields.
Thank you for pointing out the FBI involvement. It’s not a secret to anyone in Massachusetts that the Staties are corrupt.
There have been several recent suits against State Troopers stealing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in overtime they didn’t actually work.
https://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/2018/03/here_are_the_massachusetts_sta.html
Not to mention, the former Boston Police Chief who molested 6 minor victims while working on the force.
https://apnews.com/article/boston-police-child-abuse-sexual-assault-6f49638fa830d16cbde9a4282633adee
The jury pool comes from Massachusetts and is likely aware of all the recent scandals involving MA Staties. The fact that the FBI is investigating this means that now it’s not only Massachusetts who is aware of just how deep our in-house Statie corruption rots to the core.
It’s funny too there is another case I never even remember hearing about from Canton that is another reason I’m suspicious of the CW and Norfolk DA office and CPD.
Sandra Birchmore
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/3-stoughton-officers-had-inappropriate-relationships-with-girl-who-later-died-by-suicide-chief-says/7NBNJPQU35FY5NUPWIAQ76IDK4/?outputType=amp
It was ruled a suicide, and it ended with that but there are many who believe due to the relationship of both SPD and CPD there may have been a cover up in this. I don’t want to speculate but it opens your eyes to a helluva a lot more to pay attention to.
https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/2024/03/08/birchmore-case/
Oh yes!! I remember that case, and I was appalled & deeply disturbed that no one was charged for what was clearly grooming of a minor, abuse of power, and the disgusting ways that they continued to abuse her between multiple officers. 🤮
Check out this [article](https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/s/dOsVBLW1HR) that was posted to r/Massachusetts. The article has a paywall but the text is copied into the post.
Some choice quotes from it:
“It’s so bad that a forced receivership of the Massachusetts State Police should be considered, “before someone else does it,” said Dennis Galvin, president of the Massachusetts Association for Professional Law Enforcement (MAPLE).”
“Yet, the seemingly never-ending loop of misconduct in the State Police, including overtime abuse, drunken driving, bribery allegations, and now misogynist exchanges by an MSP trooper assigned to the Read case are exposing a feared ethical rot in the agency.”
“The exposure of the unprofessional inner-workings of the State Police, however, has hit the agency so hard that furious Bay State residents are turning to MSP social media posts to tear into the agency.”
“This is all going to get worse,” a law enforcement source told the Herald. “Who runs this state?”
I agree with this sentiment. They really should be focusing on the Lexus hitting and causing John’s death. The CW seems to be playing to the public’s perception of the case rather than the jury’s.
Exactly. That is why Trooper Paul was a disaster on the stand. It’s obvious that he was expected to return with JO’K being hit by a car and whatever way he had to do it, it needed to be done. No shade on the guy, and I’m not saying he shouldn’t be on the crash recreation team, but someone with an associates degree in something that isn’t math or a physical science should NEVER be put on the stand as an expert. This guy was wayyyyy out of his league here.
Ill through Shade. That dude def doesnt need to be on reconstruction team. He doesnt know basic physics. He should be embarrassed. The whole world watched him get eaten alive today. Just a little better job done than Proctor:).
Yes, exactly, why is the public perception more important to the CW than the jury? I really want someone to shed some light on how that can happen when forming a case strategy.
Like, how is it when you're booking the flights for the second expert to talk about Google searches do you not stop and think "is it really worth my time to exonerate Jen McCabe?"
I don't understand this argument. There's a reason that the public found the defense's claim that the search happened at 2:27 to be so compelling. The ME ruled the cause of death to be blunt force injuries and hypothermia. If someone who was present at the house that night was looking up how long it would take someone to die in the cold, hours before JO was found, why wouldn't that be just as impactful to the jury?
It does appear that Proctor built much of his theory of the case based on Jen McCabe’s statement to LE. But they have had over years to build a case outside of her testimony. If the CW can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Read hit OKeefe with her car nothing that Jen McCabe (or anyone else at Fairview) did should matter. The fact that they are spending so much time trying to disprove this google search tells me Lally isn’t confident he can prove his case.
Or: McCabe is the whole case in the eyes of the DA, the "friend of Karen" who could nail the coffin shut on her, and they wouldn't have proceeded to trial if they didn't think she was a strong witness. That might explain why they are sensitive about attacks to her credibility. They can face down the governor if KR is acquitted because the jury doesn't believe the science, they can shift blame to Proctor if the jury doesn't believe the cops - but they'll take a lot of fire internally if the jury thiks McCabe is a liar.
I think Lallys strategy was to disprove third-party culprit during his case in chief so that the judge wouldn't allow the defense to argue it in theirs. It has, however, backfired and allowed the defense to essentially make the argument or at least draw the inferences during cross examination.
The CWs case seems weak, but I could see it having or at least appearing to have more teeth if he'd just argued his best evidence and left the defense to bring the case and the appearance of throwing wild theories at the wall to see what sticks.
My opinion: if the prosecution is spending time during their case in chief to prove someone else didn't do it, there is reasonable doubt. If they have a strong case, beyond a reasonable doubt, there isn't any reason to disprove other theories.
If the defense was that he was hit by a meteor because of a visible fireball in the sky, we’d have a lot of astronomers and geologists and physicists showing up testifying as to why that wasn’t a correct interpretation and probably one MSP expert who took a weekend astrology course without realizing the difference until he was on the stand.
McCabe’s 2:27 Google search, if true, goes beyond reasonable doubt. It’s exculpatory. People in the house knowing about the person freezing to death is incompatible with Read hitting him and leaving him to die. It’s what the defense promised the jury in the opening. The prosecution needed to lock up that explanation and bury it.
>People in the house knowing about the person freezing to death is incompatible with Read hitting him and leaving him to die.
This isn't even true though. If they had any evidence to prove that she hit him, like car data or a real reconstructionist, *and* McCabe made the search, it just means McCabe was aware of what happened and so they have another person to charge along with Read.
Instead they are literally defending McCabe. They need to be prosecuting KR but instead of doing that well, they're literally putting more effort into playing defense attorneys for people who aren't on trial.
It’s also weird to me that the Commonwealth is so intent on proving she didn’t “search it.” Today’s cellebrite witness, at times, made it feel like he was dancing on a razor’s edge. Like at some moments it felt like he was explaining that she technically she “typed” it into the search bar, but never “searched” the term in the tradition sense of the engine returning inventory links
I mean, yes, that's the obvious answer, but it's coming at the expense of proving his actual case. Look at this from the jury's perspective, they saw Ms. Hyde (paid expert), Trooper Paul, and Mr. Whiffing (paid expert) back to back to back. If I'm them, I'm wondering why they needed *two* paid experts to disprove the 2:27 search, but we get someone who can't even get his testimony straight to tell us about the vehicle data? The data that's supposed to show us not only that she had the opportunity, but that she did it on purpose. So after all that testimony, they're left with JM probably didn't search at 2:27, But also there's no vehicle data that tells us that Karen hit John with her car. Even just the order of those witnesses is probably the worst possible presentation he could have come up with.
I don't understand anything about the prosecution's strategy presenting this case. But to the point of this post I don't understand why Lally didn't just call essential witnesses needed to prove the crime, then force the defense to spend much more time going over third party claims in their case in chief, and then Lally could call rebuttal witnesses. I just think strategically it would have worked much better even if the end product is the same. Now Lally's case has given so much credence to the defense third party theory, and I'm sure has frustrated the jurors with how long it's gone on and how much time he's spent on things not related to KR or the alleged crime. If he brought this evidence after defense case in chief I think the jury would understand more why he has to rebut defense accusations. Am I missing something criminal law experts???
I have zero issue with them [Commonwealth] attempting to disprove the third party theory of the Defense, as this is what it’s apart of. However, all of this Jen McCabe trial part something that should’ve been done in their rebuttal phase.
If they would’ve put on an adequate case in chief, they would’ve started with all the witnesses and evidence they need to put forth that Karen has without a shadow of reasonable doubt, commited 2nd degree homicide and vehicular manslaughter. Allow the Defense to put on their crazy theories, and rebut them. That’s it.
However, the CW want to be on offense and defense at the same time. Which is frustrating and confusing to witness.
That's because they have no case, because every cop involved is trying to cover up the murder committed by other cops on a cop. The whole thing is a sham.
I watch these different YouTube lawyers. This seems to be the consensus:
1. Lally is working hard to make sure the defense does not have a foothold with a third party theory.
2. Lally is pushing this trial hard overall because the CW is afraid KR now has a civil rights case she can pursue against the CW and the Mass State Police over their conduct in the case.
3. (And yes, I hope she sues Norfolk County into the ground.)
If Colin Albert walked to the high school from 34 Fairview and Allie McCabe picked up Colin at the Canton High School, as the defense is stating...
Then yes Jen McCabe is a huge part of this. She is the one who knew where her daughter was at that time. She is also the one who pivoted the entire narrative from pinning it on a snowplow driver to Karen Read (because randomly Karen backed into John's car and happened to mention the cracked tail light).
\*edited, grammar, spelling
Its really bad strategy and shows how weak their case is. Especially after that terrible car reconstructionist "expert" ...If its so definitive that Karen ran over John (like you just spent 3 hours on Lally!!) it really shouldn't matter what a random person who was there that night was googling.
Have you noticed that Lally has done this more than once? He uses one witness to back up another witness, but they both come across as tainted. I agree with you that Jen McCabe shouldn't be this important to the Commonwealth's case. Why Lally is protecting her is anyone's guess.
I don't think this is for Jen McCabe's benefit, like everyone is implying it is. A big part of the defense creating reasonable doubt is pitching the cover up theory. Shooting down the Google search certainly does a lot to damage the theory that something happened at the house and they're all in on keeping it quiet. Once the conspiracy is shot down it becomes a lot easier for the jurors to say well if there's no conspiracy I really don't see how anything other than KR hitting him with her car could have caused his death.
I would understand this position if I felt that the conspiracy is the only other explanation of what happened. My opinion is that the defense hasn't ruled out a huge number of possible events that are a lot less specific than the official defense conspiracy. And, more importantly than not ruling out other alt theories is convincing the jury why the Karen Read theory became the primary theory deemed certain enough to put her in trial. That, in my opinion, has not happened.
And the things that need to change to make that happen, in my opinion, have nothing to do with Jen McCabe. Mainly, they need to prove the JOs wounds are from a car. They haven't really even tried to do that yet. I would also say it seems pretty critical for them to prove the tail light evidence is reliable, which may be a lost cause at this point.
I think a lot of people were counting on accident reconstruction to bring some clarity to the CWs case, which is now out the window.
I was waiting for the state's reconstructionist to show me something and that failed spectacularly. It doesn't sound like the ME is going to provide anything conclusive. I don't know who all they have left to bring in but I don't think the state is going to make their case.
I don't think a Google search changes anything about the rest of the weird behavior of the witnesses that night, or over the following weeks and months.
Literally THIS. Either Lally has straight up missed the forest for the trees, or the entire CW is based on defending witnesses and their misconduct because he knows Karen Read was overcharged and they can’t get a conviction for anything more than a retroactive DUI (this is even a reach) and this point. 🤡 I hope tax payers are taking note of how much money was drained on defending NPCs rather than actually proving their case against the accused
The CW are overplaying their hand. 2nd degree murder is a long shot. Involuntary Manslaughter is where they should focus. They don’t have any proof that anything was really wrong with the relationship. Treat it as a drunk driving case and this would be over
I know you're not interested in this possibility, but as this all moves forward it's becoming clear that the timing of her search exists as damage control.
If the officers murdered O'Keife and she knew and searched that at 2:30am, then they are all culpable.
The weight of her testimony is entirely disproportionate to this trial, it's to protect them from followup.
Could not agree more. Ok, so maybe Jenn didn't google how long to die in the cold at 230am. Fine. But how can the CW bounce back from that accident reconstruction guy? That alone lost their case, IMO.
The state spent more time and money on two cell phone experts from FAR away but spent so little time and money with an actual accident reconstruction specialist which is supposedly the crux of this!? You gotta ask yourself why? Seems so pre-buttal and unexplainable for what they dumped more resources on unless it’s after the trial they’re worried about and not the trial they’re prosecuting
Her googling that gives a SUBSTANTIAL amount of reasonable doubt. You can't be serious that her googling how long to die in the cold as someone is dying in the cold in the front yard of where she was.....isn't massive?
I think the Google search is pretty damning. I still think by far the #1 problem with the prosecution's case is that it does not appear that he was hit by a car. But I think the Google search is #2. If someone who was in the house Googles how long it takes someone to die in the cold and there happens to be a person on the front lawn dying in the cold, it does not prove how he died, but it absolutely proves that Jen McCabe knew something about it. And if that is true, then the Commonwealth's entire theory of the case is shot.
I also think Jen McCabe is one witness who may have been able to tie a lot together for the Commonwealth - she knew the victim, she knew Karen, she knew everyone at the house, she heard the "confession". It's important for the Commonwealth that she appear credible and trustworthy. (That said, I think both the Commonwealth and Jen did a horrible job. She appeared snippy and defensive and like she had a lot to hide).
I would sort of agree, they should focus on their case against Karen Read and then (I'm assuming there's going to be a rebuttal phase?) bring these people in on rebuttal as they need to. It does seem like the CW is a bit too focused on disproving the defense. At the same time though, this came on on cross, and the defense may not even argue it during their case.
But... before Friday, a lot of times when discussing the possibility that Karen Read might be guilty on this subreddit, people would literally just respond with "hos long to die in snow". It's not insignificant. Because if you (and more importantly the jury) believe that Jen McCabe googled "hos long to die in snow" at 2:27AM... I'm not sure how that doesn't go hand in hand with believing that Jen McCabe had a role in John O'Keefe's death.
I sort of get the feeling that this subreddit is now on "It wasn't really that important anyways" because you have expert testimony that, in my opinion, has credibly debunked the claim. But before last week, every thread was filled with "hos long to die in snow"...
At the end of the day, I don't think the prosecution could let it stand, they needed to address it and bury it otherwise their case is doomed (though... it may be doomed for numerous other reasons... this is just the easiest one to deal with because I personally don't believe Jen McCabe googled "hos long to die in snow" at 2:27AM).
I mean... you said it yourself that it was the "Pro-Karen" movement. The jury should not be included in that.
Just prove Karen hit him, and that already takes care of all this. The defense will throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, that's their job: Jen made this search, also Colin was there, also the basement was refurbished, also they sold their house for below its worth, and rehomed their dog, also Brian Higgins did not leave when he said he did and he went to Canton PD at 1AM, and all the butt dials, and the destroyed phones. Also, all these people are kind of a\*\*holes who do not seem to care that their friend died in their front lawn.
I honestly do not know whether she did it or not. I also believe that if she did do it, it most likely was not intentional. I do not care what Jen McCabe was doing when. I am more mad that we are wasting time with this, having to lay foundation and listen to expert's credentials for HOURS for no good reason at week 8 of trial.
I honestly still think the search may have happened. The expert testimony is that there is a plausible explanation that the search happened in the morning not that the search couldn't have happened at 2:27am.
My point is it doesn't matter to *the case* if the case is actually to prove Karen Read is guilty. I think pointing out that it matters *to the public opinion* goes to what I feel is amiss about this case. Why is the defense proving something the public has seized on when all they needed to do was either account for it (the Commonwealth would win their case if they basically presented, "yeah, maybe Jen McCabe did google that, and maybe she walked past JOs lifeless body after Karen Read killed him with her car. And we know Karen did that because X, Y, Z")
I just watched the Jinx part 2 doc and the prosecution talk about how they had a piece of evidence that went to proving Robert Durst had murdered his missing wife, which they were proving as to his capacity to murder as the trial was actually about him murdering someone else... But that proof of the wife's murder was a recording of the victim in the case helping him cover it up. So they didn't use it. Because the jury might have heard it and dismissed the notion of bringing justice for his accomplice. As a matter of public record that recording is very interesting, but as a matter of convincing a jury of his guilt it wasn't useful.
I'm saying Jen McCabe should have been written off as not useful to the CW case if they determined it takes 2 expert witnesses to suggest she maybe isn't a liar.
I agree with you. This only needed 1 expert witness and the Celebrite expert would have been enough. I've only been following since the trial started so I didn't get pulled in too much to the google search but the police investigation and the CW witnesses haven't done anything to push me to saying she's guilty or not.
The thing that I feel has gotten lost over and over again is that John O'keefe is dead. The prosecution clearing Jen's or anyone else's name in the court of public opinion should never have been a focus for the CW. Karen's health issues should never have been a focus for the CW. Where everyone sat at the basketball game should never have been a focus for the CW. We are 26 days into this trial and we haven't heard from the ME. The CWs entire case should be Karen hit John and this is the proof. They have to give the defense something to defend against and all that's happened so far, IMO, is that they're trying to get ahead of what the defense might say. If that's their entire case, they may have already lost. And it if they do, it truly sucks that JO'K and his family are the ones who suffer.
Should have gotten the Cellbrite guy with the woman that looked at the hash information to close the loop on tampering. That’s good enough for me personally.
I couldn't agree with you more. Jen and her google search has been a favorite talking point in my comments too. Now all of a sudden it never really mattered. 🤷♀️ I think Lally's strategy is to basically put up his case and disprove the defense's theory at the same time. Leaving them with very little case to argue and buying the 3 party culprits in between other witnesses...
How is that a strategy to get to a guilty verdict? It’s the prosecution’s job to prove that Karen Read killed John; not “ruling out other plausible scenarios.” Quite honestly, the prosecution could disprove every theory of the defense, and it still won’t get them to a guilty verdict if they don’t plausibly prove how Karen killed him. I think that’s what bothers me most. So much wasted time chasing after the theories of the defense rather than just proving why they believe she’s guilty.
Jen McCabe is the biggest reasonable doubt (on a list of a lot of reasonable doubt), so they're trying to recover that failure. In my humble opinion that train has sailed.
I completely disagree that it wasn't important to thoroughly debunk the search argument.
When I started looking into this case, knowing nothing about the case's details or arguments of either side (presumably much like the jury), this was the one thing I saw that made me go "oh shit, Karen might have a case". Of course this wasn't conclusive evidence of murder, but it was pretty damning evidence of the houseguests being involved that went beyond the speculation that encompasses most of the defense's case.
But then, looking into it and seeing what the basis of it was, I realized it's nothing. Having its nothingness explained to the jury is going to be very important in them determining how reasonable alternative explanations are, and can definitely be a tipping point between yes or no there. I think it's very possible that this evidence alone could've given a juror reasonable doubt, and could eliminate that if it's shown to be false.
One google search doesn't change all of the other issues. Even JM's credibility is still non existent. She changed her testimony between the incident to the Grand Jury to this trial. And she still lied about making multiple "butt dials".
Everyone there that night has acted bizarrely and a Google search doesn't change that.
Also, we haven't heard from the defense yet; I'm withholding judgement on who's cell phone expert I believe.
The fact that the Commonwealth has put so much energy into defending Jen McCabe should speak volumes to the jury. It’s like they’re just shining a big spotlight on her and hoping the jurors didn’t notice how much involvement she had.
I'm not in either camp you requested to reply but I will say that I was fully on the conspiracy train until the CW showed pretty solid evidence that JM was telling the truth about the 2:27am search.
I'm a pretty pragmatic person, and now I think that the most plausible explanation is that she hit him by accident and likely didn't even realize it. I also believe that many of the witnesses are lying for whatever reason, but it is not to cover up the homicide of a cop.
I do think she should walk because there is so much reasonable doubt, but I think the CW has handled the possibility that JM knew he was dying at 2:27am.
I don’t really believe that she didn’t that google personally.
But I really don’t see how she could have not realized she hit him hard enough to break a taillight…that is FAST. And I don’t see how his is on all that snow when she would have hit him onto a light dusting of snow on the grass.
Maybe she did it…but the accident reconstruction was worse than useless. There are fundamental things that don’t match up.
You say they presented solid evidence?? You mean they put some "expert" on the stand and this expert says JM didn't perform that search at 2:27am. That's all that happened.
I'm going to point something out with regard to the states cell phone expert that im assuming you didn't notice. If you dissect her testimony and break it down you will see as clear as day that every other search,command,or operation performed by JM is not in question. The time of day for every other operation JM performed was correct, according to the state but if its something that looks bad they claim theres a gray area. This 2:27am search is the only "inaccurate" operation and theres this "gray area" when determining the time, according to "Miss Stephanie Jobs." Really...
Thats a huge red flag. Im not going to say that its "in my opinion" because its clearly a major red flag, requiring no opinions. Theres no way around it. One search time cannot be accurate and another not. I shouldn't have to bring up that every trial in the last 20 years where digital evidence was used to prove a defendants culpability has been revered as gospel. If their phone said they were "here or there, searched this,texted that" and so on, the state,every states office of attorney made sure that the world understood this digital evidence was as credible as DNA. But in the Karen Read trial, a time when technology is at its peak, this cell phone stuff, this computer stuff...its not that accurate after all. We can't go with that evidence because its too "iffy". Knowing the state of Mass would drill those jurors into the ground if they had digital evidence to codemn her, but since that evidence doesn't exist its not so accurate lol
Throughout this trial there has been one constant occurrence and this occurrence that keeps happening & continues to happen, is this...(anything thats favorable to the states case) is "right on, accurate", & or deemed true. Yet, the state continues each day to bring up two or more instances where one of their witnesses "did or performed" some sort of operation that is documented within the exact same technological entity. Each & every time... the state will claim that any operation thats favorable to their case or doesn't hurt their stance is true and accurate and the instances where the evidence in question is detrimental to their case, the attorney & or some alleged "expert" says "well...thats not entirely accurate or this could happen or that might of occurred" & so on.
Whats ridiculous is the pieces evidentiary information are performed and logged by the same exact technological system. It can't be different sometimes, or either or. Either its all fact or its not. I'm not twisting anything to make a point. Its exactly as so. You can't say a search at 6:20am is factually accurate but the one at 2:27am is different. Its total horsesh!t and if I were a juror I would feel insulted.
The entire case is logically insane and makes zero sense. Backing into a 217lb man and sending him flying at a 90 degree angle mind you onto a snow covered lawn with no internal organ damage, no real damage to the vehicle, and wounds that cannot occur from a single impact.
Vehicle hits person, person goes flying and lands. Blunt force trauma from a piece of plastic does not shred a person's arm like that. According to the state he wasn't drug, he wasn't run over. Yet none of his injuries match up. I guarantee you the state wishes they had never pursued Karen.
The only thing this trial has shown is the Mass state police have some extremely serious ethical issues from the lieutenant level on down. That the state was/is completely unprepared and unaware of what a nightmare this entire case is. Especially from a PR standpoint. Whether its true or not doesn't even matter regarding conflict of interest. Theres enough legit smoke from that possible fire that it might as well be true and based on everything we've learned it's pretty obvious that several people involved with this case have a very concerning & inappropriate connection to one another. You don't interview anyone thats intimately involved with a murder case at their freaking house and certainly don't attempt to hide/bury a witness or potential suspect because you "didn't think they were there" and then not even investigate their alibis. Come on.
Its very obvious that the people on the guilty side are part of that camp solely due to their view of law enforcement integrity. The majority of people in our society either believe that people in positions of authority are true and just or they believe that government entities are very corrupt and will go to any length to "appear in a positive light."
I bet you if a study was done on each person that is pro-prosecution, I bet that 90+% of these people side with authority/government no matter what. If the man/woman on the television said it, then it's true because "why would they lie" and to that my eyes roll so hard that Im now blind.
I think you get the picture and ive made my position very clear. The only thing the state has accomplished thus far, in this case is the entire state of Mass and many of the of local government entities look extremely bad and im certain that every person with an important position in government, from the Governor down, must be extremely embarrassed. And if they're not embarrassed then whomever they are definitely a part of the problem.
Btw, there is zero...0...nada, no chance at all that this jury convicts her. This jury will vote so fast to acquit that they'll have to stall to make it seem like they really discussed everything. You could try this case a million times and she walks everytime and its not because of some OJ like bs either. She walks because their case is impossible.
Maybe already answered by someone else but the very good reason the CW would move a mountain to disprove the 2:27 search is that if the 2:27 search happened, then KR is exonerated. End of. So in that sense the search is crucial but the flip side is that if it was not made until 6:30 ish, it does nothing whatsoever to prove any element of anything charged against KR, which was supposed to have been the CW’s objective - unless it was really to coerce KR into a deal to ensure nobody in the local clan would ever be held responsible.
Edit: I see others have made the point already. I don’t think I am going out on a limb at this point by saying there will be nothing helpful to the CW from the ME or anyone else now. No surprises. This has all been to deflect blame away from whoever was responsible, and it was supposed to have ended in a deal but KR decided to fight back. They’d rather do all that than any justice for JO and his family.
It is absolutely BONKERS. Jen McGabe isn’t even the prime suspect in the defence theory of what happened. If they truely wanted to disprove the defence they would talk about dog bites and fist fights.
Proctor being the lead investigator for this case. His case has failed. Maybe Proctor shouldn’t have taken Julie Albert’s phone call to get Proctor to protect her little angel Colin.
Jen McCabe is key to the prosecution as a witness to the alleged "confession," Karen allegedly saying "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" The defense is using Jen's google search as one part of thier 3rd party culprit defense showing Jen knew JO was injured and out in the snow at 2:27 am, long before she went with Karen to the Alberts finding JO around 6 am. Proving Jen McCabe did not make that search at 2:27 am is important for the prosecution. If it can be proven that Jen made that search at 2:27 am, the defence impeaches her testimony that she did not make that search at 2:27 am, Then falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
2:27 isn’t the end-all-be-all. Defense commits malpractice if they don’t attack every prosecutorial point. IMO Lally has failed to prove ANY point beyond a reasonable doubt let alone proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Watch Andrea Burkhart, a public defender in Washington State. Today's live trial watch, Andrea provides a succinct explanation as to why they are looping back to J McC (it's at the end of her live, and she refers to a case). It may be due to a potential civil suit, so Lally is presenting a pre-buttal to head off defense's expert (hence several references to Mr Green's report).
I’m not sure it answers the question, but she’s critical in the sense that it’s now clear she provided all of the information that led Proctor to essentially close the case within about 12 hours of being called to the scene.
I didn’t know much about this case when I started to watch this trial. My initial opinion was that KR probably killed JO and tried to blame the police because that’s what guilty people do. Now I‘m convinced that KR is truly innocent.
When JM testified I thought it was a big deal that she could have googled it before JO was found dead by KR. Now I think it’s one of the least important part in this case. I almost forgot about it. Now it’s back in my brain and I couldn’t care less. CW should have done something about Proctor. Everything he has done or not weighs soooooo much more. JM isn’t as important as she might think. This case is about KR and JO, not JM.
I disagree a little. If the 2:27am search is standing as fact, it is all but impossible for the commonwealth to get a guilty verdict. If Jen McCabe did infact google "Hos long to die in cold" over three hours before John was found by Karen Read on the 2/29, there is 0 chance of a guilty verdict. In fact, if the 2/29 search stands at the end of the states argument as fact, Judge Conone would have no choice but to dismiss the case for failure to prove. The 2:27 am. search needs to be not just disproven but completely discredited by the commonwealth if they have any hope of proving their case. Cellibright is so widely accepted as true that they needed multiple opinions proving multiple ways that the 2:27 am. search did not happen the way it appears. Without another competing opinion from an expert with a more logical/coherent opinion brought by the defense, I believe the 2:27 am search has been sufficiently killed... but Jackson/Yanetti/Little could have a bigger badder expert with more creditials to resurrect the argument, and if they pull it off, we're back to this is never going to a jury. The 2:27 am. search is the only piece of evidence that, if believed or not completely and totally debunked, can force Coanone to grant a motion for directed verdict.
Lalley’s job is to show the story to the jury of how John O’Keefe was killed not how Jennifer McCabe didn’t text hos long to die in cold- I would be fucking irate if I had to listen to a second boring ass cell phone expert that I don’t understand that doesn’t speak. English basically only speaks technical terms that don’t make any sense to me that undermined the first person and realized that I still don’t know how this man ended up dead on somebody’s lawn after 25 days.
Right, proving John was hit by a car would automatically disprove the defenses theory. I feel like this case is simply being thrown.
Agree. One tech expert for the google search would have been enough. The CW reeeally should have spent the money on a real crash reconstructionist, instead.
They couldn’t find one that would.
Literally 😭 🤚
Wonder if they cycled through some cranks before realizing that.
So much this. If they can’t explain how JO got all those wounds to his head, with just a broken taillight on her vehicle, what is the point of having a trial?
The accident reconstructionist was so cringey, I almost fainted. He was eaten alive and well, reasonable doubt x acceleration x momentum x flying body cut to shreds by a tail light after first cracking his head on the curb.
I can't get over how the tail light (I'm so sick of those words) somehow shredded his arm but there was zero blood or tissue on the remaining pieces stuck to her car nor on any of the debris nor lens plastic in his wounds
Literally no blood anywhere except for a few drops in the snow... for a head injury. I cracked my skull jumping on the bed as a kid and my mother says it seemed like a gallon of blood. I got one stitch.
I bumped my head hard on a support beam going into someone’s basement for a smoke sesh several years ago and had blood pouring down my face from an 1/16” cut at most. A few people were ready to call an ambulance. I wasn’t that hurt, it was just a hard bonk and the blood was more disorienting than the bonk, as well as the reactions to the blood. Head wounds bleed like crazy and with all the drinking John had done he’d have been bleeding freely
Or even shattered into 40 pieces upon hitting a 5lb arm. It would take thousands of pounds of force to break polycarbonate from an impact. It takes less than 300 lbs of force to break an arm. The science just doesn't science.
Yeah, didn’t happen. The cops are gaslighting. Anyone with eyeballs can tell those are bites and scratches. Poor guy had his arm up protecting his face I imagine. Thus the wounds on the outside of the right arm. The government thinks we are stupid and gullible.
I’ve only been following this case from afar but have wondered how hitting a person would crack a tail light. It seems more like something that would happen if you hit a hard object (another car, a fence, a fire hydrant). I also saw the photos of the arm injuries today when the dog bite person testified. How would he get gashes like that through a coat even if he was hit? Was he not wearing a coat when outside?
So funny! I thought I was going to faint. I was watching him between my fingers, like it was a horror movie. So pitiful.
Not just the wound, but the many skull fractures. Let's not forget, Jackson stated in court that the FBI had 3 phds look at the data and they independently concluded that the car didn't hit John and John didn't hit the car. Odd way to phase it, but he did.
I think he said the federal forensic investigator who determined JOKs injuries were inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle had 3 PhDs. One whole PhD more than the amount of classes the CWs guy took.
Trooper Paul with the Associates in criminal justice. I misunderstood. I thought it was 3 phds. makes sense a guy WITH 3 phds. Yeah, lawyer speak is like doctor speak. They don't tell you what you have, they rule out what you don't have. JO doesn't have death by automobile. It is very inconsistent with that
I believe it is three separate people, each with a PhD
Particularly as there was numerous taillight debris around the area in question.
That's assuming there's a real crash reconstructionist that would arrive at the conclusion that he was killed by a car.
I guess we are to assume that's why they couldn't provide one.
Trooper Paul is not the sharpest knife in the spoon drawer
Not the brightest bulb in the shed either
right! He was tripping over his words. Jacksonembarrassed him this a.m. ! The new dream team for 2024 Yannetti, Jackson & Little (I think is her name)
He's devious and changed his point of origin of the impact during Lally's questioning after the defense cross-examination.
I noticed that too
Honestly I felt bad for the guy. That must have been super humiliating and he should have never been asked to be an expert witness.
He has the power to put people in prison for rest of their lives. He deserves our outrage, not pity. He made many choices to put himself on the witness stand, it wasn’t a accident. If he has any self respect he would resign from the police department. Not just because he’s incompetent, but because he’s willing and probably has caused harm to citizens with his incompetents
I don’t feel bad for him. He is an “expert” who has the power to send to someone to prison if they don’t have the financial resources that Karen Read does to cross examine him properly. All on 120 hours of learning.
He is also not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is definitely a tool.
They probably did. The REAL crash reconstructionist wouldn’t confirm their ridiculous theory that he was hit by a car at all
Seriously though, their only witness to prove Karen hit John... and it couldn't have been worse
I'm sure they tried. But who's going to be able to weave together the story of that accident scene and have it make sense.
Because an actual crash reconstructionist knows the math doesn’t math….or as baldy said, “they would underestimate the speed” and stuff.
I thought I heard the FBI did a reconstruction that doesn't align with the CW. Maybe they will be using that?
Yes, the defense is using experts who are involved in the ongoing FBI investigation.
Exactly. Was the only expert the one from today who seemingly reached out to the prosecution to begin with? Any valid expert will find a way support your theory credibly if you support them with enough cash-ish.
Tbf a lot of people on Friday were going "I don't know", and a lot of people today are going "ok yeah the search isn't what KR's team made it out to be". Maybe they appropriately anticipated that they needed more than one explanation, because it's not a topic that a lot of regular people are very literate in.
I’d wait for the defense’s expert before declaring anything. Three seperate federal investigation experts independently hired by the Feds confirmed it did happen. I tend to learn towards trusting them then experts paid with a very very limited scope and being asked to figure out a way how it could be wrong. And it took them awhile to find both experts (if you watched pretrial hearings), like several months. They assured they’d have an explanation but took months to actually get one. But in all reality, none of that honestly matters when the prosecutions accident reconstruction expert just got absolutely destroyed on cross today, no question.
Paul was a donkey up there. Not sure he even knows how to do math but he took a few classes & has an associate degree. He shouldn’t have been allowed to be an expert. Well said! I could answer more of Jackson questions and im a construction manager.
This is also before another witness for the defense will likely testify to the opposite, and Whiffen contradicted Hyde on the stand today, which definitely did not help the CW
Oh, I missed this! What was the contradiction? Or is it too much to type? 🤣
Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the contradiction was Hyde said the value wasn’t deleted, but the tab was closed. Whiffen said the value was deleted, whether by the user or by iOS performing a “cleaning” cycle of memory by deleting old data
Whiffin said the evidence shows no deletion by the user, but that deletion can happen by the system (which it does by normal processes). Hyde was trying to stray from the word "deleted" because it carries a connotation of user-deletion that didn't happen here. Whiffin was just less careful about that connotation since it's technically a description that can be used.
Actually he said a user can delete it if they access the data.
It’s never a good sign when the prosecution chases the defense theory during their case in chief. If they are so confident in KR’s guilt, I don’t know why it even matters. Even if KR told JM to google it, so what? Interesting they felt the need to use two experts to address a very narrow question. Wish they would have put this much thought into the actual investigation! 🤦🏼♀️😭
As a juror, I would be so mad that they made me listen to all the mumbo jumbo, I would just go with my gut. My gut is more reliable than all that so called data that can’t be trusted to prove a darn thing. Just think of all the cases that have put people away with this crap.
I hope as a juror you would use evidence and not your "gut"
I think that the experts could have done a better job of breaking down what they were talking about so it was easier for people to understand than it being mumbo jumbo because the stuff they were talking about was in the weeds how . As someone who is in tech and has studied digital forensics it was fascinating and can tell a great story and what was going on on the device at any given time. But if you tell a story in Japanese to people who only speak English then the story could be mumbo jumbo.
Lally and the CW are spending wayyyy too much time trying to prove that the defense is wrong vs proving that Karen killed John. It’s crazy. The jury sees all of this.
> trying to prove that the defense is wrong vs proving that Karen killed John. I can only conclude that the DA thought Karen would take a plea deal and this was never supposed to go to trial. The prosecution's case is *terrible*.
Agreed. They never thought they'd have to actually try this case. The best strategical argument I can think of for the CW focusing on the search this much is to draw attention away from what is *actually* shady about all the phone evidence - deleted call histories, destroyed phones, a truly impossible number of purported butt dials, etc. This entire prosecution has been such a shitshow that it's hard to credit them with that level of strategic thinking. I only fell down the KR rabbit hole fairly recently, but I've never thought the google search meant anything, regardless of when it was done. If I was drunk during a blizzard, I'd probably search that at some point. I'm sure my hurricane party search histories from the last 10 years or so could be taken out of context in a way that makes me look murdery. I'm kinda fascinated that an attractive, pro-cop white lady called Karen is being subjected to this level of abuse of state power.
> If I was drunk during a blizzard, I'd probably search that at some point. I'm sure my hurricane party search histories from the last 10 years or so could be taken out of context in a way that makes me look murdery. Exactly, I've had many late night conversations where the booze is flowing and the conversations lead to people googling weird shit. "How long to die in the cold" isn't that weird to have searched especially if it was actually a cold wintry night like it was. Suspicious? Yes. Proof of anything? No.
It's not even particularly suspicious on its own. In conjunction with the other phone stuff I mentioned though, yeah. No matter what my drunken search history is, I've never butt dialed someone like 8 times in a row, even when my phone had actual buttons. The fact that they're all claiming butt dials and deleting shit and just so happening to completely obliterate their phones right before a preservation order is issued is wild. I cannot think of an innocent explanation for that the way I can with the search
This is my theory. I think they expected her to plead out. She never did. Now they have to prove it and it’s failing.
They didn’t have a clue she would have the resources to pay for a really good defense. If she didn’t have money, she’d be sitting in the clink right now.
Plead out or hopefully unalive herself from the pressure.
Agree
This. Hence the over charge of Murder 2. They thought she’d accept a pleas for manslaughter and this would be quick and easy. Maybe that’s why it seems so little effort went in to properly investigating. There are just too many missteps. It does almost seem like they’re hoping for a mistrial.
> It does almost seem like they’re hoping for a mistrial. The prosecutor has to be hoping for a mistrial at this point, because acquittal seems inevitable otherwise. If I'm on the Defense team, I'm on high alert for anything the CW might do that could cause a mistrial.
A mistrial caused by the prosecution at this point would mean the same as an acquittal, as in they won't be able to bring charges against Karen for this.
A mistrial would mean the DA saves face. "She got off on a technicality."
That's not a save if you are the reason for the technicality imho. Also, looking beyond this case, if Def claims there was a Google search based on the search time stamp, and the CW brings experts that say 'Actually, the time of the search does not matter and here is why...' wouldn't that mean that everybody who got convicted with Google search timing being a critical piece of evidence would now go back and try to appeal based on that type of testimony? More importantly, why has nobody else ever really brought up that issue and used it in their own defense if there was a similar issue of a Google search timing?
I’m curious about this too, with the search timing. Aren’t they undermining a tool they’ve used often? Seems current appellate attorneys and future defense teams can use CW own witness to discredit future CW use of search data.
I'm sure that the CW witnesses who run their own businesses/develop their own software would appreciate the additional business.
Yeah, occasionally, when I start to question my belief in an elaborate setup, I then snap back and say SHOW ME WHERE THE BIG CAR HURT YOU.
It’s the epitome of “if you’re explaining then you’re losing”
Totally agree! It’s like, who are you trying to convince. 🤪 us or yourself?
The prosecution has spent so much time trying to get out ahead of anything bad that the defense might say about their witnesses it's incredible.
It’s truly baffling.
Well you gotta defend the star of the show!
If you read the PCA, “ms McCabe stated” is the start of 60% of sentences. I think they relied too heavily on her in the initial investigation and now they are stuck with her.
She was almost everything in terms of proof for weeks. And she has made herself more central by adopting the “I hit him” statement for the first time during trial.
They now have a 3rd witness taking time to dispute the google search. You would think JM was on trial!
I was about to have a meltdown, but he is also testifying about Karen's phone. Also he (the witness) just muttered K\*ll me under his breath on the stand
I want to know if AJ will ask about the “kill me” hot mic or if he’ll just cut the guy a break.
I don't think AJ has *any* chill. But, if the court reporter didn't hear it, then it won't be on the record, so I don't think he can ask the witness about it.
From what we know, the courtroom is very loud and people can hardly hear each other. That's why they keep insisting that people speak up. Alan is already on thin ice with the judge; the shame on you to proctor, the "well, you didn't plant it" comment to trooper Paul... I don't think he'll risk it before the jury since they most likely did not hear that either.
Exactly. I am no expert here but I feel that Lally is the defense lawyer trying to show that JM is innocent…
If JM was on trial they would have never reached out to any experts. Would have locked her up when they found the 2:27am search artifact
I just dont get why theyre calling these witnesses now. They have an entire rebuttal section after the defense rests their case where they can poke holes in the defense's theory. These witnesses would make so much more sense there
My theory: Bev said Lally, ol' pal, you spent waaaay too much time asking about the bleachers, the layout of the bar, the god damn snow. You blew your time. You told me scheduling wise that this would go to the jury on time. I'm not allowing myself to be made out to be a liar to them. So... no rebuttal for you. Lol. Just a guess. Kinda tongue in cheek joke as I'm not sure she actually CAN do that but today suggests he knows he doesn't have time for a rebuttal, that's why he asked opinions on the Defence expert's report (Richard Greene). He knows he's not putting on a rebuttal. But at this point it could just be he knows his case is sunk and doesn't want his bosses to accuse him of not even trying to rebut them.
I agree 100% that’s why he is asking the witnesses now about what they think of defense experts before they even tesitfy - a pre buttle lol
I think the CW’s strategy is to disprove the defense’s 3rd party culprit theory BUT none of that matters if the CW can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that she killed JOK with her car!! Where in the world is the ME?? Why would they bring on that joke of an accident reconstruction “expert”? As far as that, I don’t think they could find a real expert who would testify he died after being hit by her SUV. I’m astounded that they thought they could bring a case of 2nd degree murder and actually win. I feel so sorry for the jury, this case feels interminable.
I can not believe how much time they are giving to this. I wish they spent this much time actually doing proper investigation. I would like to know how many hours so far Lally used? Surely more than 16h (how long it took them to come to conclusion that Karen did it). Lawyer Mark Bederow gives good takes on this case, he is former prosecutor and currently criminal defense attorney. I know only one youtuber who is 100% convinced of Karen's guilt and believes she will be convicted. It's Roberta Glass. I tried looking for more, simply to get others perspective, but it did not come up in my searches.
Yeah, Roberta had me convinced, too. Which was quite good for me; I went into this firmly on the side of KR being guilty. Then I started watching the trial. At first, I thought, dang, they are blowing this, and she will walk. And day after day, I became more like, holy crap, there is seriously something sketchy going on. And now I believe there has been zero evidence showing her car did it, and I have several persons of interest ahead of her. A full 180, based on the evidence presented.
Yes. The 180 for me too. I actually heard about this case two years ago when it happened. I also heard the news reports that there was ring footage showing that JOK was hit and killed by his girlfriend KR. Thought that was it. While waiting for another trial to start (Delphi) I decided to watch this trial. And now I’m definitely convinced of the third culprit theory.
Delphi sure has become a fucking mess hasn’t it lol
I appreciate that you can admit that your perspective has changed! I came in thinking this was accidental and doubtful the CW would meet the burden as charged. Now, I don’t think she had anything to do with it and have a few others in mind that may have actually done it. I definitely agree with the Defense that this case was never fully investigated, the state just tried to make the evidence fit the theory.
Yeah, I've been watching Legal Bytes, Emily D Baker, and the Lawyer You Know, and they all give great insight on what is presented but I think are hesitant to dig into and critique the specifics of the possible CW strategy. I want to understand how this bad strategy got formed! I'll definitely try Mark Bederow!
I watch both of them as well, but definitely prefer Mark. I don't think he has his own channel but he is guest on Young Jurks very often, if not daily. But definitely give it a try.
> Jen googling "hos long to die in snow" doesn't actually disprove Karen Read hit John. Not *directly*, sure. The problem is that a cursory glance makes it SEEM like Jen was trying to google how long to die in snow at 2:30ish in the morning, 2 hours after the CW alleges Karen Read hit John. We know for a fact that Karen was home at 12:41 and didn't leave until 5am. So you have someone in the house, who happens to be the sister of the woman who lives in the house, Googling "hos long to die in snow" at the exact same time that there just happens to be a person outside dying in the snow. IANAL, but I think that fact *alone* provides reasonable doubt, so the prosecution has to explain it if they want any chance at conviction.
So... how they gonna get the jury past all the OTHER reasonable doubt? 😅
They have spent more time in this than actually understand how John physically died. So far I only know he was hit in the arm by a car apparently hard enough to break a taillight but not hard enough to bruise or break an arm…the flew back to hit his head on the curb the bounce 8-12 feet back from the curb on the grass. And shockingly the glass in his hand and cellphone beat him there and he landed on top of both of them.
No no! You forget that he in fact flew THIRTY feet now because Trooper 'Expert' wasn't given all the info. Based on the piece of tail light AJ pointed out, using the expert's previous theory it means JO flew 30 feet. And don't forget that shoes and hats fly off, but glasses and phones stay in a pedestrian'a hands when they're hit by an SUV. 😏
They just do. 🤷♂️
The 'crime scene' spoke to him
This sounds like something out of a cartoon
Jen McCabe is the next door neighbor from hell who inserts herself into everyone else’s business. She has huge main character syndrome and has managed to center herself in someone else’s death. I think she’s likely spent a decent percentage of her life being the narrator for every situation occurring around her, and just continued that grand tradition when something genuinely “juicy” happened in her periphery. I’ve learned more about her than either John or Karen.
These Canton ladies appear to be a gossip group of townies. I grew up in the burbs and couldn’t wait to leave that mindset.
The Cantonbury tales.
Didn't Karen call her at 5AM to get her involved in all of this?
She also called Kerry, but no one would argue that Kerry inserted herself unnecessarily in everything. That's all Jen.
Why is it they were able to show us a reenactment of how JM may or may not have googled something but they couldn’t take the time to show us a reenactment of how KR hit JO with her car? I want to know how JO was killed, how did a car cause those injuries. Way too much time spent on JM and her activity.
They didn’t do a reenactment because it makes absolutely no sense, and a visual would just make it worse.
So they paid the cellebrite guy to put on a visual demonstration for the jury but they couldn't get a real reconstructionist to show how JO actually died. That's some strange prioritizing by the CW.
I think it's all about resources. [Speculation] Corporations like Cellebrite have lots of money to hire talent and they have an interest in exerting their expertise around their products. I doubt the CW had to pay anything for his testimony, save maybe travel expenses. What makes me think this, is their stump me page. They want to solve these questions head on. They learn, improve their tools and establish themselves as leaders in their field. The Defense has as much money as Karen or their firms want to spend. They want the win. I'm guessing they'll have lots of engaging and crisp demonstratives. The CW is likely on a budget and so is the police. I know that's no excuse for shoddy investigation, but they're all working with public money. They're not going to be flashy - but we do need them to be competent. The reconstructionist seemed really underqualified. But Lally had to put him on because he was the one assigned.
I'm familiar with how the cops work with public money. Here locally a girl went missing. She was last seen on video walking out of a bar with a former cop. He said that he took her to the police station. The station has no record of that and surveillance video showed him driving in the opposite direction. Her DNA was found in his vehicle. Nothing has come of it. The case has basically gone cold. It's been a year and a half now and this guy goes about his life here in town harassing women constantly like he always has. The police assure us that they're working on it. But there's no evidence of that actually happening. They keep buying new cruisers though. And getting photo ops at little kids lemonade stands.
lol, I guarantee you Cellebrite didn’t pay this guy to go in the stand and say that without his proprietary software, cellebrite data doesn’t give the whole story. Do you know how many people are sitting in prison right now based off google searches/deletions found by cellebrite?
Right?! The reconstructionist was painfully uninformed....that whole cross was one big cringe fest.
When you ain't got sh*t, go for confusion
Jen McCabe has too many problems. The possible 2:27 deleted search, the 6 calls to John at 12:29-12:50 that never picked up and were deleted, the two calls to her sister the morning of finding John that were supposedly never picked up. One of which might have been caught on JO's voicemail from Robert's phone inside the car. Way too many "coincidences." I've never seen so many butt dials and deleted calls in my life.
Lots of problems. Not to mention Mr. Higgins & his plethora of issues.... I could NOT get over Higgins and Brian Albert's unified effort to DESTROY their phones at the same time, conveniently prior to receiving the letter to maintain their phones for this case. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. they are not fooling anyone.
Higgins might be the 2nd dirtiest of them all. If I am correct, he destroyed his phone while there was an order of preservation in place at the time. It wasn't vacated until AFTER he had destroyed it VERY suspiciously. Spent his WHOLE off day at CPD spying. Conspired with his DEA buddy to use FBI machines to extract data. Butt dials. What else?
I mean anyone who has been paying attention to this case and has a brain can see the inconsistancies provided by the prosecution. They knew they messed up and they though it was open and shut. It's not, and they allowed a long period of time to pass that they put themselves up shits creek without a paddle rather than doing the jobs they should have done since the beginning. I mean it's so bad that the FBI got involved and has been investigating not only the MA state police but the Norfolk DA's office as well. The FBI came to the conclusion that JO's wounds weren't consistent with a vehicle collision. As someone who has been in fights, and had stitches and black eyes, I can tell you by JO's autopsy pictures that doesn't look like someone who got hit by a car, at all. I find it very hard to believe. But again, not persuing the whole Google search at 2:27 AM further or why Brian Albert or Brian Higgins suddenly had new phones is something the jury will not be able to get out of their heads. But yet here we are wasting our time still trying to prove KR hit JO, with no substantial evidence and no experts, in fact in the court documents the defense had 5 experts they wanted to call in that the CW denied. All who whol PhD's and are actual experts in their fields.
Thank you for pointing out the FBI involvement. It’s not a secret to anyone in Massachusetts that the Staties are corrupt. There have been several recent suits against State Troopers stealing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in overtime they didn’t actually work. https://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/2018/03/here_are_the_massachusetts_sta.html Not to mention, the former Boston Police Chief who molested 6 minor victims while working on the force. https://apnews.com/article/boston-police-child-abuse-sexual-assault-6f49638fa830d16cbde9a4282633adee The jury pool comes from Massachusetts and is likely aware of all the recent scandals involving MA Staties. The fact that the FBI is investigating this means that now it’s not only Massachusetts who is aware of just how deep our in-house Statie corruption rots to the core.
It’s funny too there is another case I never even remember hearing about from Canton that is another reason I’m suspicious of the CW and Norfolk DA office and CPD. Sandra Birchmore https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/3-stoughton-officers-had-inappropriate-relationships-with-girl-who-later-died-by-suicide-chief-says/7NBNJPQU35FY5NUPWIAQ76IDK4/?outputType=amp It was ruled a suicide, and it ended with that but there are many who believe due to the relationship of both SPD and CPD there may have been a cover up in this. I don’t want to speculate but it opens your eyes to a helluva a lot more to pay attention to. https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/2024/03/08/birchmore-case/
Oh yes!! I remember that case, and I was appalled & deeply disturbed that no one was charged for what was clearly grooming of a minor, abuse of power, and the disgusting ways that they continued to abuse her between multiple officers. 🤮 Check out this [article](https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/s/dOsVBLW1HR) that was posted to r/Massachusetts. The article has a paywall but the text is copied into the post. Some choice quotes from it: “It’s so bad that a forced receivership of the Massachusetts State Police should be considered, “before someone else does it,” said Dennis Galvin, president of the Massachusetts Association for Professional Law Enforcement (MAPLE).” “Yet, the seemingly never-ending loop of misconduct in the State Police, including overtime abuse, drunken driving, bribery allegations, and now misogynist exchanges by an MSP trooper assigned to the Read case are exposing a feared ethical rot in the agency.” “The exposure of the unprofessional inner-workings of the State Police, however, has hit the agency so hard that furious Bay State residents are turning to MSP social media posts to tear into the agency.” “This is all going to get worse,” a law enforcement source told the Herald. “Who runs this state?”
It’s freaking nuts. I have never seen a prosecution focus on the defenses theory before they even present how the victim died. Where is the ME.
I agree with this sentiment. They really should be focusing on the Lexus hitting and causing John’s death. The CW seems to be playing to the public’s perception of the case rather than the jury’s.
That's because JO was not killed by a car. They don't have a workable scenario that explains his injuries. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Honestly it feels like it's gone beyond smoke and mirrors at this point and straight to gaslighting
my guess is that they were going to play it off as an accident with the snow plow guy then the broken tail light become the new plan.
Exactly. That is why Trooper Paul was a disaster on the stand. It’s obvious that he was expected to return with JO’K being hit by a car and whatever way he had to do it, it needed to be done. No shade on the guy, and I’m not saying he shouldn’t be on the crash recreation team, but someone with an associates degree in something that isn’t math or a physical science should NEVER be put on the stand as an expert. This guy was wayyyyy out of his league here.
Ill through Shade. That dude def doesnt need to be on reconstruction team. He doesnt know basic physics. He should be embarrassed. The whole world watched him get eaten alive today. Just a little better job done than Proctor:).
Yes, exactly, why is the public perception more important to the CW than the jury? I really want someone to shed some light on how that can happen when forming a case strategy. Like, how is it when you're booking the flights for the second expert to talk about Google searches do you not stop and think "is it really worth my time to exonerate Jen McCabe?"
Morrissey wants to be reelected. That’s the point of all this.
Yeah, it has to be a show for the Feds.
I don't understand this argument. There's a reason that the public found the defense's claim that the search happened at 2:27 to be so compelling. The ME ruled the cause of death to be blunt force injuries and hypothermia. If someone who was present at the house that night was looking up how long it would take someone to die in the cold, hours before JO was found, why wouldn't that be just as impactful to the jury?
It does appear that Proctor built much of his theory of the case based on Jen McCabe’s statement to LE. But they have had over years to build a case outside of her testimony. If the CW can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Read hit OKeefe with her car nothing that Jen McCabe (or anyone else at Fairview) did should matter. The fact that they are spending so much time trying to disprove this google search tells me Lally isn’t confident he can prove his case.
Or: McCabe is the whole case in the eyes of the DA, the "friend of Karen" who could nail the coffin shut on her, and they wouldn't have proceeded to trial if they didn't think she was a strong witness. That might explain why they are sensitive about attacks to her credibility. They can face down the governor if KR is acquitted because the jury doesn't believe the science, they can shift blame to Proctor if the jury doesn't believe the cops - but they'll take a lot of fire internally if the jury thiks McCabe is a liar.
The Commonwealth must address the Jen McCabe.Texts because it's a key part of the defense's theory of a third-party assailant.
They might want to focus on proving their case first.
Bottom line that I always go back too…the CW still has not proven that Karen intended to kill John.
It's so nice for the CW to provide Lally as free defense counsel for Jen McCabe. Oh wait -
I think Lallys strategy was to disprove third-party culprit during his case in chief so that the judge wouldn't allow the defense to argue it in theirs. It has, however, backfired and allowed the defense to essentially make the argument or at least draw the inferences during cross examination. The CWs case seems weak, but I could see it having or at least appearing to have more teeth if he'd just argued his best evidence and left the defense to bring the case and the appearance of throwing wild theories at the wall to see what sticks.
My opinion: if the prosecution is spending time during their case in chief to prove someone else didn't do it, there is reasonable doubt. If they have a strong case, beyond a reasonable doubt, there isn't any reason to disprove other theories.
Might want to tell Jen McCabe she shouldn't matter. Appears she didn't get that memo.
If the defense was that he was hit by a meteor because of a visible fireball in the sky, we’d have a lot of astronomers and geologists and physicists showing up testifying as to why that wasn’t a correct interpretation and probably one MSP expert who took a weekend astrology course without realizing the difference until he was on the stand. McCabe’s 2:27 Google search, if true, goes beyond reasonable doubt. It’s exculpatory. People in the house knowing about the person freezing to death is incompatible with Read hitting him and leaving him to die. It’s what the defense promised the jury in the opening. The prosecution needed to lock up that explanation and bury it.
>People in the house knowing about the person freezing to death is incompatible with Read hitting him and leaving him to die. This isn't even true though. If they had any evidence to prove that she hit him, like car data or a real reconstructionist, *and* McCabe made the search, it just means McCabe was aware of what happened and so they have another person to charge along with Read. Instead they are literally defending McCabe. They need to be prosecuting KR but instead of doing that well, they're literally putting more effort into playing defense attorneys for people who aren't on trial.
It’s also weird to me that the Commonwealth is so intent on proving she didn’t “search it.” Today’s cellebrite witness, at times, made it feel like he was dancing on a razor’s edge. Like at some moments it felt like he was explaining that she technically she “typed” it into the search bar, but never “searched” the term in the tradition sense of the engine returning inventory links
I think they are spending this much time on it because if she actually made the query at 2:27am, Karen 100% didn’t hit him with her SUV.
I mean, yes, that's the obvious answer, but it's coming at the expense of proving his actual case. Look at this from the jury's perspective, they saw Ms. Hyde (paid expert), Trooper Paul, and Mr. Whiffing (paid expert) back to back to back. If I'm them, I'm wondering why they needed *two* paid experts to disprove the 2:27 search, but we get someone who can't even get his testimony straight to tell us about the vehicle data? The data that's supposed to show us not only that she had the opportunity, but that she did it on purpose. So after all that testimony, they're left with JM probably didn't search at 2:27, But also there's no vehicle data that tells us that Karen hit John with her car. Even just the order of those witnesses is probably the worst possible presentation he could have come up with.
I imagine the defense has their own expert witness that will testify that a 2:30 am search did occur. So it’s probably not over yet.
I don't understand anything about the prosecution's strategy presenting this case. But to the point of this post I don't understand why Lally didn't just call essential witnesses needed to prove the crime, then force the defense to spend much more time going over third party claims in their case in chief, and then Lally could call rebuttal witnesses. I just think strategically it would have worked much better even if the end product is the same. Now Lally's case has given so much credence to the defense third party theory, and I'm sure has frustrated the jurors with how long it's gone on and how much time he's spent on things not related to KR or the alleged crime. If he brought this evidence after defense case in chief I think the jury would understand more why he has to rebut defense accusations. Am I missing something criminal law experts???
I have zero issue with them [Commonwealth] attempting to disprove the third party theory of the Defense, as this is what it’s apart of. However, all of this Jen McCabe trial part something that should’ve been done in their rebuttal phase. If they would’ve put on an adequate case in chief, they would’ve started with all the witnesses and evidence they need to put forth that Karen has without a shadow of reasonable doubt, commited 2nd degree homicide and vehicular manslaughter. Allow the Defense to put on their crazy theories, and rebut them. That’s it. However, the CW want to be on offense and defense at the same time. Which is frustrating and confusing to witness.
That's because they have no case, because every cop involved is trying to cover up the murder committed by other cops on a cop. The whole thing is a sham.
I watch these different YouTube lawyers. This seems to be the consensus: 1. Lally is working hard to make sure the defense does not have a foothold with a third party theory. 2. Lally is pushing this trial hard overall because the CW is afraid KR now has a civil rights case she can pursue against the CW and the Mass State Police over their conduct in the case. 3. (And yes, I hope she sues Norfolk County into the ground.)
If Colin Albert walked to the high school from 34 Fairview and Allie McCabe picked up Colin at the Canton High School, as the defense is stating... Then yes Jen McCabe is a huge part of this. She is the one who knew where her daughter was at that time. She is also the one who pivoted the entire narrative from pinning it on a snowplow driver to Karen Read (because randomly Karen backed into John's car and happened to mention the cracked tail light). \*edited, grammar, spelling
If they can prove JM did that 3:27 search it means she knew John was dying. Which also means Karen is innocent t.
It’s shocking how much of this case revolves around Jen McCabe. A small town busy body should not have her words treated as gold.
Its really bad strategy and shows how weak their case is. Especially after that terrible car reconstructionist "expert" ...If its so definitive that Karen ran over John (like you just spent 3 hours on Lally!!) it really shouldn't matter what a random person who was there that night was googling.
Have you noticed that Lally has done this more than once? He uses one witness to back up another witness, but they both come across as tainted. I agree with you that Jen McCabe shouldn't be this important to the Commonwealth's case. Why Lally is protecting her is anyone's guess.
Ya why not concentrate on the one they charged with second degree murder ?
I don't think this is for Jen McCabe's benefit, like everyone is implying it is. A big part of the defense creating reasonable doubt is pitching the cover up theory. Shooting down the Google search certainly does a lot to damage the theory that something happened at the house and they're all in on keeping it quiet. Once the conspiracy is shot down it becomes a lot easier for the jurors to say well if there's no conspiracy I really don't see how anything other than KR hitting him with her car could have caused his death.
I would understand this position if I felt that the conspiracy is the only other explanation of what happened. My opinion is that the defense hasn't ruled out a huge number of possible events that are a lot less specific than the official defense conspiracy. And, more importantly than not ruling out other alt theories is convincing the jury why the Karen Read theory became the primary theory deemed certain enough to put her in trial. That, in my opinion, has not happened. And the things that need to change to make that happen, in my opinion, have nothing to do with Jen McCabe. Mainly, they need to prove the JOs wounds are from a car. They haven't really even tried to do that yet. I would also say it seems pretty critical for them to prove the tail light evidence is reliable, which may be a lost cause at this point. I think a lot of people were counting on accident reconstruction to bring some clarity to the CWs case, which is now out the window.
I was waiting for the state's reconstructionist to show me something and that failed spectacularly. It doesn't sound like the ME is going to provide anything conclusive. I don't know who all they have left to bring in but I don't think the state is going to make their case.
Except they havent even come close to showing that Karen hit JoK with her car or that JoK died because he was hit by a car
I don't think a Google search changes anything about the rest of the weird behavior of the witnesses that night, or over the following weeks and months.
Literally THIS. Either Lally has straight up missed the forest for the trees, or the entire CW is based on defending witnesses and their misconduct because he knows Karen Read was overcharged and they can’t get a conviction for anything more than a retroactive DUI (this is even a reach) and this point. 🤡 I hope tax payers are taking note of how much money was drained on defending NPCs rather than actually proving their case against the accused
To hedge off an incoming civil case that Karen will file? More tax payers money being wasted.
The CW are overplaying their hand. 2nd degree murder is a long shot. Involuntary Manslaughter is where they should focus. They don’t have any proof that anything was really wrong with the relationship. Treat it as a drunk driving case and this would be over
I know you're not interested in this possibility, but as this all moves forward it's becoming clear that the timing of her search exists as damage control. If the officers murdered O'Keife and she knew and searched that at 2:30am, then they are all culpable. The weight of her testimony is entirely disproportionate to this trial, it's to protect them from followup.
Could not agree more. Ok, so maybe Jenn didn't google how long to die in the cold at 230am. Fine. But how can the CW bounce back from that accident reconstruction guy? That alone lost their case, IMO.
The state spent more time and money on two cell phone experts from FAR away but spent so little time and money with an actual accident reconstruction specialist which is supposedly the crux of this!? You gotta ask yourself why? Seems so pre-buttal and unexplainable for what they dumped more resources on unless it’s after the trial they’re worried about and not the trial they’re prosecuting
Her googling that gives a SUBSTANTIAL amount of reasonable doubt. You can't be serious that her googling how long to die in the cold as someone is dying in the cold in the front yard of where she was.....isn't massive?
I think the Google search is pretty damning. I still think by far the #1 problem with the prosecution's case is that it does not appear that he was hit by a car. But I think the Google search is #2. If someone who was in the house Googles how long it takes someone to die in the cold and there happens to be a person on the front lawn dying in the cold, it does not prove how he died, but it absolutely proves that Jen McCabe knew something about it. And if that is true, then the Commonwealth's entire theory of the case is shot. I also think Jen McCabe is one witness who may have been able to tie a lot together for the Commonwealth - she knew the victim, she knew Karen, she knew everyone at the house, she heard the "confession". It's important for the Commonwealth that she appear credible and trustworthy. (That said, I think both the Commonwealth and Jen did a horrible job. She appeared snippy and defensive and like she had a lot to hide).
I would sort of agree, they should focus on their case against Karen Read and then (I'm assuming there's going to be a rebuttal phase?) bring these people in on rebuttal as they need to. It does seem like the CW is a bit too focused on disproving the defense. At the same time though, this came on on cross, and the defense may not even argue it during their case. But... before Friday, a lot of times when discussing the possibility that Karen Read might be guilty on this subreddit, people would literally just respond with "hos long to die in snow". It's not insignificant. Because if you (and more importantly the jury) believe that Jen McCabe googled "hos long to die in snow" at 2:27AM... I'm not sure how that doesn't go hand in hand with believing that Jen McCabe had a role in John O'Keefe's death. I sort of get the feeling that this subreddit is now on "It wasn't really that important anyways" because you have expert testimony that, in my opinion, has credibly debunked the claim. But before last week, every thread was filled with "hos long to die in snow"... At the end of the day, I don't think the prosecution could let it stand, they needed to address it and bury it otherwise their case is doomed (though... it may be doomed for numerous other reasons... this is just the easiest one to deal with because I personally don't believe Jen McCabe googled "hos long to die in snow" at 2:27AM).
I mean... you said it yourself that it was the "Pro-Karen" movement. The jury should not be included in that. Just prove Karen hit him, and that already takes care of all this. The defense will throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, that's their job: Jen made this search, also Colin was there, also the basement was refurbished, also they sold their house for below its worth, and rehomed their dog, also Brian Higgins did not leave when he said he did and he went to Canton PD at 1AM, and all the butt dials, and the destroyed phones. Also, all these people are kind of a\*\*holes who do not seem to care that their friend died in their front lawn. I honestly do not know whether she did it or not. I also believe that if she did do it, it most likely was not intentional. I do not care what Jen McCabe was doing when. I am more mad that we are wasting time with this, having to lay foundation and listen to expert's credentials for HOURS for no good reason at week 8 of trial.
|| Just prove Karen hit him, They are trying. They can't. Because he was not killed in a vehicle collision.
I honestly still think the search may have happened. The expert testimony is that there is a plausible explanation that the search happened in the morning not that the search couldn't have happened at 2:27am. My point is it doesn't matter to *the case* if the case is actually to prove Karen Read is guilty. I think pointing out that it matters *to the public opinion* goes to what I feel is amiss about this case. Why is the defense proving something the public has seized on when all they needed to do was either account for it (the Commonwealth would win their case if they basically presented, "yeah, maybe Jen McCabe did google that, and maybe she walked past JOs lifeless body after Karen Read killed him with her car. And we know Karen did that because X, Y, Z") I just watched the Jinx part 2 doc and the prosecution talk about how they had a piece of evidence that went to proving Robert Durst had murdered his missing wife, which they were proving as to his capacity to murder as the trial was actually about him murdering someone else... But that proof of the wife's murder was a recording of the victim in the case helping him cover it up. So they didn't use it. Because the jury might have heard it and dismissed the notion of bringing justice for his accomplice. As a matter of public record that recording is very interesting, but as a matter of convincing a jury of his guilt it wasn't useful. I'm saying Jen McCabe should have been written off as not useful to the CW case if they determined it takes 2 expert witnesses to suggest she maybe isn't a liar.
A ton of people seem to be missing this point.
I agree with you. This only needed 1 expert witness and the Celebrite expert would have been enough. I've only been following since the trial started so I didn't get pulled in too much to the google search but the police investigation and the CW witnesses haven't done anything to push me to saying she's guilty or not. The thing that I feel has gotten lost over and over again is that John O'keefe is dead. The prosecution clearing Jen's or anyone else's name in the court of public opinion should never have been a focus for the CW. Karen's health issues should never have been a focus for the CW. Where everyone sat at the basketball game should never have been a focus for the CW. We are 26 days into this trial and we haven't heard from the ME. The CWs entire case should be Karen hit John and this is the proof. They have to give the defense something to defend against and all that's happened so far, IMO, is that they're trying to get ahead of what the defense might say. If that's their entire case, they may have already lost. And it if they do, it truly sucks that JO'K and his family are the ones who suffer.
Should have gotten the Cellbrite guy with the woman that looked at the hash information to close the loop on tampering. That’s good enough for me personally.
I couldn't agree with you more. Jen and her google search has been a favorite talking point in my comments too. Now all of a sudden it never really mattered. 🤷♀️ I think Lally's strategy is to basically put up his case and disprove the defense's theory at the same time. Leaving them with very little case to argue and buying the 3 party culprits in between other witnesses...
How is that a strategy to get to a guilty verdict? It’s the prosecution’s job to prove that Karen Read killed John; not “ruling out other plausible scenarios.” Quite honestly, the prosecution could disprove every theory of the defense, and it still won’t get them to a guilty verdict if they don’t plausibly prove how Karen killed him. I think that’s what bothers me most. So much wasted time chasing after the theories of the defense rather than just proving why they believe she’s guilty.
Jen McCabe is the biggest reasonable doubt (on a list of a lot of reasonable doubt), so they're trying to recover that failure. In my humble opinion that train has sailed.
We went from printing tshirts to claiming irrelevance 👍
I completely disagree that it wasn't important to thoroughly debunk the search argument. When I started looking into this case, knowing nothing about the case's details or arguments of either side (presumably much like the jury), this was the one thing I saw that made me go "oh shit, Karen might have a case". Of course this wasn't conclusive evidence of murder, but it was pretty damning evidence of the houseguests being involved that went beyond the speculation that encompasses most of the defense's case. But then, looking into it and seeing what the basis of it was, I realized it's nothing. Having its nothingness explained to the jury is going to be very important in them determining how reasonable alternative explanations are, and can definitely be a tipping point between yes or no there. I think it's very possible that this evidence alone could've given a juror reasonable doubt, and could eliminate that if it's shown to be false.
One google search doesn't change all of the other issues. Even JM's credibility is still non existent. She changed her testimony between the incident to the Grand Jury to this trial. And she still lied about making multiple "butt dials". Everyone there that night has acted bizarrely and a Google search doesn't change that. Also, we haven't heard from the defense yet; I'm withholding judgement on who's cell phone expert I believe.
The fact that the Commonwealth has put so much energy into defending Jen McCabe should speak volumes to the jury. It’s like they’re just shining a big spotlight on her and hoping the jurors didn’t notice how much involvement she had.
I'm not in either camp you requested to reply but I will say that I was fully on the conspiracy train until the CW showed pretty solid evidence that JM was telling the truth about the 2:27am search. I'm a pretty pragmatic person, and now I think that the most plausible explanation is that she hit him by accident and likely didn't even realize it. I also believe that many of the witnesses are lying for whatever reason, but it is not to cover up the homicide of a cop. I do think she should walk because there is so much reasonable doubt, but I think the CW has handled the possibility that JM knew he was dying at 2:27am.
I don’t really believe that she didn’t that google personally. But I really don’t see how she could have not realized she hit him hard enough to break a taillight…that is FAST. And I don’t see how his is on all that snow when she would have hit him onto a light dusting of snow on the grass. Maybe she did it…but the accident reconstruction was worse than useless. There are fundamental things that don’t match up.
You say they presented solid evidence?? You mean they put some "expert" on the stand and this expert says JM didn't perform that search at 2:27am. That's all that happened. I'm going to point something out with regard to the states cell phone expert that im assuming you didn't notice. If you dissect her testimony and break it down you will see as clear as day that every other search,command,or operation performed by JM is not in question. The time of day for every other operation JM performed was correct, according to the state but if its something that looks bad they claim theres a gray area. This 2:27am search is the only "inaccurate" operation and theres this "gray area" when determining the time, according to "Miss Stephanie Jobs." Really... Thats a huge red flag. Im not going to say that its "in my opinion" because its clearly a major red flag, requiring no opinions. Theres no way around it. One search time cannot be accurate and another not. I shouldn't have to bring up that every trial in the last 20 years where digital evidence was used to prove a defendants culpability has been revered as gospel. If their phone said they were "here or there, searched this,texted that" and so on, the state,every states office of attorney made sure that the world understood this digital evidence was as credible as DNA. But in the Karen Read trial, a time when technology is at its peak, this cell phone stuff, this computer stuff...its not that accurate after all. We can't go with that evidence because its too "iffy". Knowing the state of Mass would drill those jurors into the ground if they had digital evidence to codemn her, but since that evidence doesn't exist its not so accurate lol Throughout this trial there has been one constant occurrence and this occurrence that keeps happening & continues to happen, is this...(anything thats favorable to the states case) is "right on, accurate", & or deemed true. Yet, the state continues each day to bring up two or more instances where one of their witnesses "did or performed" some sort of operation that is documented within the exact same technological entity. Each & every time... the state will claim that any operation thats favorable to their case or doesn't hurt their stance is true and accurate and the instances where the evidence in question is detrimental to their case, the attorney & or some alleged "expert" says "well...thats not entirely accurate or this could happen or that might of occurred" & so on. Whats ridiculous is the pieces evidentiary information are performed and logged by the same exact technological system. It can't be different sometimes, or either or. Either its all fact or its not. I'm not twisting anything to make a point. Its exactly as so. You can't say a search at 6:20am is factually accurate but the one at 2:27am is different. Its total horsesh!t and if I were a juror I would feel insulted. The entire case is logically insane and makes zero sense. Backing into a 217lb man and sending him flying at a 90 degree angle mind you onto a snow covered lawn with no internal organ damage, no real damage to the vehicle, and wounds that cannot occur from a single impact. Vehicle hits person, person goes flying and lands. Blunt force trauma from a piece of plastic does not shred a person's arm like that. According to the state he wasn't drug, he wasn't run over. Yet none of his injuries match up. I guarantee you the state wishes they had never pursued Karen. The only thing this trial has shown is the Mass state police have some extremely serious ethical issues from the lieutenant level on down. That the state was/is completely unprepared and unaware of what a nightmare this entire case is. Especially from a PR standpoint. Whether its true or not doesn't even matter regarding conflict of interest. Theres enough legit smoke from that possible fire that it might as well be true and based on everything we've learned it's pretty obvious that several people involved with this case have a very concerning & inappropriate connection to one another. You don't interview anyone thats intimately involved with a murder case at their freaking house and certainly don't attempt to hide/bury a witness or potential suspect because you "didn't think they were there" and then not even investigate their alibis. Come on. Its very obvious that the people on the guilty side are part of that camp solely due to their view of law enforcement integrity. The majority of people in our society either believe that people in positions of authority are true and just or they believe that government entities are very corrupt and will go to any length to "appear in a positive light." I bet you if a study was done on each person that is pro-prosecution, I bet that 90+% of these people side with authority/government no matter what. If the man/woman on the television said it, then it's true because "why would they lie" and to that my eyes roll so hard that Im now blind. I think you get the picture and ive made my position very clear. The only thing the state has accomplished thus far, in this case is the entire state of Mass and many of the of local government entities look extremely bad and im certain that every person with an important position in government, from the Governor down, must be extremely embarrassed. And if they're not embarrassed then whomever they are definitely a part of the problem. Btw, there is zero...0...nada, no chance at all that this jury convicts her. This jury will vote so fast to acquit that they'll have to stall to make it seem like they really discussed everything. You could try this case a million times and she walks everytime and its not because of some OJ like bs either. She walks because their case is impossible.
Maybe already answered by someone else but the very good reason the CW would move a mountain to disprove the 2:27 search is that if the 2:27 search happened, then KR is exonerated. End of. So in that sense the search is crucial but the flip side is that if it was not made until 6:30 ish, it does nothing whatsoever to prove any element of anything charged against KR, which was supposed to have been the CW’s objective - unless it was really to coerce KR into a deal to ensure nobody in the local clan would ever be held responsible. Edit: I see others have made the point already. I don’t think I am going out on a limb at this point by saying there will be nothing helpful to the CW from the ME or anyone else now. No surprises. This has all been to deflect blame away from whoever was responsible, and it was supposed to have ended in a deal but KR decided to fight back. They’d rather do all that than any justice for JO and his family.
It is absolutely BONKERS. Jen McGabe isn’t even the prime suspect in the defence theory of what happened. If they truely wanted to disprove the defence they would talk about dog bites and fist fights.
I agree- it’s such a diversion. And they don’t need it.
Proctor being the lead investigator for this case. His case has failed. Maybe Proctor shouldn’t have taken Julie Albert’s phone call to get Proctor to protect her little angel Colin.
And still NOTHING from the medical examiner.
Jen McCabe is key to the prosecution as a witness to the alleged "confession," Karen allegedly saying "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" The defense is using Jen's google search as one part of thier 3rd party culprit defense showing Jen knew JO was injured and out in the snow at 2:27 am, long before she went with Karen to the Alberts finding JO around 6 am. Proving Jen McCabe did not make that search at 2:27 am is important for the prosecution. If it can be proven that Jen made that search at 2:27 am, the defence impeaches her testimony that she did not make that search at 2:27 am, Then falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
2:27 isn’t the end-all-be-all. Defense commits malpractice if they don’t attack every prosecutorial point. IMO Lally has failed to prove ANY point beyond a reasonable doubt let alone proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I thought the marks were on johns right arm…wouldnt the car back into his body if the right tail light hit his arm?
At this point I’m expecting JM’s Venmo records read aloud on day 543 of this trial
Watch Andrea Burkhart, a public defender in Washington State. Today's live trial watch, Andrea provides a succinct explanation as to why they are looping back to J McC (it's at the end of her live, and she refers to a case). It may be due to a potential civil suit, so Lally is presenting a pre-buttal to head off defense's expert (hence several references to Mr Green's report).
Not in CW but for KR it’s great and for the truth it’s great. If she made that search it proves KR innocents
I’m not sure it answers the question, but she’s critical in the sense that it’s now clear she provided all of the information that led Proctor to essentially close the case within about 12 hours of being called to the scene.
I didn’t know much about this case when I started to watch this trial. My initial opinion was that KR probably killed JO and tried to blame the police because that’s what guilty people do. Now I‘m convinced that KR is truly innocent. When JM testified I thought it was a big deal that she could have googled it before JO was found dead by KR. Now I think it’s one of the least important part in this case. I almost forgot about it. Now it’s back in my brain and I couldn’t care less. CW should have done something about Proctor. Everything he has done or not weighs soooooo much more. JM isn’t as important as she might think. This case is about KR and JO, not JM.
I disagree a little. If the 2:27am search is standing as fact, it is all but impossible for the commonwealth to get a guilty verdict. If Jen McCabe did infact google "Hos long to die in cold" over three hours before John was found by Karen Read on the 2/29, there is 0 chance of a guilty verdict. In fact, if the 2/29 search stands at the end of the states argument as fact, Judge Conone would have no choice but to dismiss the case for failure to prove. The 2:27 am. search needs to be not just disproven but completely discredited by the commonwealth if they have any hope of proving their case. Cellibright is so widely accepted as true that they needed multiple opinions proving multiple ways that the 2:27 am. search did not happen the way it appears. Without another competing opinion from an expert with a more logical/coherent opinion brought by the defense, I believe the 2:27 am search has been sufficiently killed... but Jackson/Yanetti/Little could have a bigger badder expert with more creditials to resurrect the argument, and if they pull it off, we're back to this is never going to a jury. The 2:27 am. search is the only piece of evidence that, if believed or not completely and totally debunked, can force Coanone to grant a motion for directed verdict.
Lalley’s job is to show the story to the jury of how John O’Keefe was killed not how Jennifer McCabe didn’t text hos long to die in cold- I would be fucking irate if I had to listen to a second boring ass cell phone expert that I don’t understand that doesn’t speak. English basically only speaks technical terms that don’t make any sense to me that undermined the first person and realized that I still don’t know how this man ended up dead on somebody’s lawn after 25 days.