Carrie Ann's banner

Carrie Ann

@carriecherry75 • 6,517 subscribers

Recovering Journalist. True Crime Junkie. Trial Paralegal. Marshall Grad.

Shorts

So I saw the foreperson comment that Donna Adelson yelled out “You convicted an innocent woman!” after the verdict was read. I couldn’t make out what she was saying before but after reading that comment, I can totally hear that now. And it explains Judge Everett’s response even more. Oh, Donna Donna Donna, you’re quite the drama queen.

So I saw the foreperson comment that Donna Adelson yelled out “You convicted an innocent woman!” after the verdict was read. I couldn’t make out what she was saying before but after reading that comment, I can totally hear that now. And it explains Judge Everett’s response even more. Oh, Donna Donna Donna, you’re quite the drama queen.

106,018 просмотров

As Karen Read trial followers, do y’all find yourselves hearing a small detail or piece of testimony that leads you down a rabbit hole? Or is that just me? For example, this tidbit during Jen McCabe’s cross yesterday caught my attention. She was asked about her view as she looked out the window of 34 Fairview in the early morning hours of January 29th. She said there was a streetlight that illuminated the road enough that she could see tire tracks in the snow. This made a light bulb (pun intended) go off in my brain. Now, the Google map street view of Fairview does not show a streetlight across the street like she’s referencing. I don’t know if there was one there or not. Google maps does show, however, a big ol’ streetlight at the end of the Albert’s driveway. But in the first trial, Brian Albert testified like this: There’s no streetlight there at all. He went further to tell us just how dark it was that night. He said the porch lights were off because “sometimes the bulbs don’t even work in them.” This man, a 30-year officer with the Boston Police Department, a former Marine, can’t change a light bulb? He’s a member of the Fugitive Task Force and lives on a dark street in a dark house and also doesn’t lock his door. There was a lot of detail about that too – oh, the kids come in and out at all hours so we just leave it unlocked… oh, we got the locks changed and don’t know what key goes with what. I struggle to believe this man does nothing to protect his family, especially since his German Shephard isn’t coming to their rescue. Sara Levinson testified there was a lamppost by the driveway and also a spotlight by the garage. All of the witnesses who left 34 Fairview that night had detailed stories to explain why they didn’t see a 200+ pound man on the lawn mere feet from where they were: they were distracted by the peanut butter, they didn’t listen to their mom and wore the high-heeled boots so they had to watch their feet, they were distracted by windshield wipers and defrosters, they were turned to the left to gaze lovingly at Tristan Morris. But now, according to Jen McCabe, there was a streetlight across the street, seemingly not far from the flagpole. Make it make sense.

As Karen Read trial followers, do y’all find yourselves hearing a small detail or piece of testimony that leads you down a rabbit hole? Or is that just me? For example, this tidbit during Jen McCabe’s cross yesterday caught my attention. She was asked about her view as she looked out the window of 34 Fairview in the early morning hours of January 29th. She said there was a streetlight that illuminated the road enough that she could see tire tracks in the snow. This made a light bulb (pun intended) go off in my brain. Now, the Google map street view of Fairview does not show a streetlight across the street like she’s referencing. I don’t know if there was one there or not. Google maps does show, however, a big ol’ streetlight at the end of the Albert’s driveway. But in the first trial, Brian Albert testified like this: There’s no streetlight there at all. He went further to tell us just how dark it was that night. He said the porch lights were off because “sometimes the bulbs don’t even work in them.” This man, a 30-year officer with the Boston Police Department, a former Marine, can’t change a light bulb? He’s a member of the Fugitive Task Force and lives on a dark street in a dark house and also doesn’t lock his door. There was a lot of detail about that too – oh, the kids come in and out at all hours so we just leave it unlocked… oh, we got the locks changed and don’t know what key goes with what. I struggle to believe this man does nothing to protect his family, especially since his German Shephard isn’t coming to their rescue. Sara Levinson testified there was a lamppost by the driveway and also a spotlight by the garage. All of the witnesses who left 34 Fairview that night had detailed stories to explain why they didn’t see a 200+ pound man on the lawn mere feet from where they were: they were distracted by the peanut butter, they didn’t listen to their mom and wore the high-heeled boots so they had to watch their feet, they were distracted by windshield wipers and defrosters, they were turned to the left to gaze lovingly at Tristan Morris. But now, according to Jen McCabe, there was a streetlight across the street, seemingly not far from the flagpole. Make it make sense.

51,236 просмотров

According to Jen McCabe’s retrial testimony, she did not “burst” into Brian and Nicole Albert’s bedroom. She was trying to be calm and not give them a heart attack. Perhaps this is to explain how Chloe didn’t start barking? But Brian and Nicole Albert saw it differently, at least in the first trial. They both say she “burst” in and both describe her as “hysterical.” What do you think?

According to Jen McCabe’s retrial testimony, she did not “burst” into Brian and Nicole Albert’s bedroom. She was trying to be calm and not give them a heart attack. Perhaps this is to explain how Chloe didn’t start barking? But Brian and Nicole Albert saw it differently, at least in the first trial. They both say she “burst” in and both describe her as “hysterical.” What do you think?

23,387 просмотров

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

There’s debate in Melanie’s chat tonight about when Jen McCabe first testified that Karen Read said “I hit him.” Some people were saying it was at the first trial because of the testimony where Alan Jackson wanted her to go through her entire state grand jury transcript - and we learned she was asked 12 different ways and McCabe’s answer every time then was “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” However, it was actually at the federal grand jury in June 2023 when McCabe first officially attributed “I hit him” to Read, which Jackson pointed out was right after she and her family became the subject of public scorn when the 2:27 am Google search came to light.

There’s debate in Melanie’s chat tonight about when Jen McCabe first testified that Karen Read said “I hit him.” Some people were saying it was at the first trial because of the testimony where Alan Jackson wanted her to go through her entire state grand jury transcript - and we learned she was asked 12 different ways and McCabe’s answer every time then was “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” However, it was actually at the federal grand jury in June 2023 when McCabe first officially attributed “I hit him” to Read, which Jackson pointed out was right after she and her family became the subject of public scorn when the 2:27 am Google search came to light.

39,061 просмотров • 4 дней назад

Kouri Richins’ defense attorney said in opening that Kouri indeed bought drugs from Carmen - at Eric’s request. In fact, they said, we’re gonna hear it straight from Kouri’s mouth. So I’m struggling with their tactics on cross of Carmen. Why do they need to discredit her or destroy her or bring up her learning disability or nitpick over whether the money was in a closet or a firepit? They admit Kouri bought drugs from Carmen. Is this strategy just to raise doubt over whether Kouri used the word “fentanyl”?

Kouri Richins’ defense attorney said in opening that Kouri indeed bought drugs from Carmen - at Eric’s request. In fact, they said, we’re gonna hear it straight from Kouri’s mouth. So I’m struggling with their tactics on cross of Carmen. Why do they need to discredit her or destroy her or bring up her learning disability or nitpick over whether the money was in a closet or a firepit? They admit Kouri bought drugs from Carmen. Is this strategy just to raise doubt over whether Kouri used the word “fentanyl”?

25,961 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Linda Bailey's entire vibe was offensive. Her condescending way of describing Dan Markel completely negated the purpose of her testimony on behalf of Donna Adelson. Here's what I mean: Dan Markel is a Harvard educated attorney. He was a law school professor, spoke at conferences, authored journals, started an influential blog and was on his way up. Yet Linda Bailey - with her FSU degree and 37 years' experience practicing family law in Tallahassee, Florida - mocked and belittled him on the stand. She justified the nickname "Gibbers" by saying his motions and memorandums were gibberish. Without any proof, she claimed Markel drafted his own pleadings ("like he was drafting a law review article"), basically forcing his lawyers to just sign off. These are the words she used to describe the writings she is convinced are his: nonsense, inconsistent, verbose, wordy, hyperbolic, inflammatory. Most importantly, Bailey says they lacked legal merit. In 37 years, she had never ever seen filings this horrible. She was "taken aback" that a lawyer would have signed them and allowed them to be filed. And despite all of this, the entire point of Bailey's testimony was that, according to her, this divorce was not contentious. On the contrary, it was "routine" and "amicable" and everyone was "calm and measured." Sure, Linda. In getting those digs in against Markel, she was basically spewing nonsense and gibberish on the stand, no?

Linda Bailey's entire vibe was offensive. Her condescending way of describing Dan Markel completely negated the purpose of her testimony on behalf of Donna Adelson. Here's what I mean: Dan Markel is a Harvard educated attorney. He was a law school professor, spoke at conferences, authored journals, started an influential blog and was on his way up. Yet Linda Bailey - with her FSU degree and 37 years' experience practicing family law in Tallahassee, Florida - mocked and belittled him on the stand. She justified the nickname "Gibbers" by saying his motions and memorandums were gibberish. Without any proof, she claimed Markel drafted his own pleadings ("like he was drafting a law review article"), basically forcing his lawyers to just sign off. These are the words she used to describe the writings she is convinced are his: nonsense, inconsistent, verbose, wordy, hyperbolic, inflammatory. Most importantly, Bailey says they lacked legal merit. In 37 years, she had never ever seen filings this horrible. She was "taken aback" that a lawyer would have signed them and allowed them to be filed. And despite all of this, the entire point of Bailey's testimony was that, according to her, this divorce was not contentious. On the contrary, it was "routine" and "amicable" and everyone was "calm and measured." Sure, Linda. In getting those digs in against Markel, she was basically spewing nonsense and gibberish on the stand, no?

43,309 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

This triggered me. As someone who has dealt with the death of a spouse, the dismissive tone of Brennan’s “I’m sorry for your loss” felt cruel. Anyone else?

This triggered me. As someone who has dealt with the death of a spouse, the dismissive tone of Brennan’s “I’m sorry for your loss” felt cruel. Anyone else?

48,247 просмотров • 1 год назад

Ian Whiffin: It’s possible John O’Keefe’s phone was inside the house. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello: The injuries don’t look like a car accident so I can’t rule this a homicide. Dr. Aizik Wolf: This looks exactly like the injuries we see when someone slips and falls on their head. Dr. Judson Welcher: We don’t know exactly how he was struck. We just don’t have enough information in this case to determine that.

Ian Whiffin: It’s possible John O’Keefe’s phone was inside the house. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello: The injuries don’t look like a car accident so I can’t rule this a homicide. Dr. Aizik Wolf: This looks exactly like the injuries we see when someone slips and falls on their head. Dr. Judson Welcher: We don’t know exactly how he was struck. We just don’t have enough information in this case to determine that.

47,580 просмотров • 1 год назад

Yes, EDB! Thank you for putting into words the “what the actual fuck” feeling we all had while watching this. “I am perplexed by his incredulity.” This applies to most investigators in this case, actually.

Yes, EDB! Thank you for putting into words the “what the actual fuck” feeling we all had while watching this. “I am perplexed by his incredulity.” This applies to most investigators in this case, actually.

42,105 просмотров • 1 год назад

“An absolute raging brat!” Yes Andrea Burkhart 🐟🐟🐟🐟🏴‍☠️!!

“An absolute raging brat!” Yes Andrea Burkhart 🐟🐟🐟🐟🏴‍☠️!!

38,645 просмотров • 1 год назад

There were so many troubling things that revealed themselves during the Motion to Dismiss hearing in the Karen Read case this week. There was the fact that the full sally port video was recorded in 6-hour chunks that have never been turned over. There was Trooper Proctor having video in his possession for 26 months before anyone knew about it. There was news the inverted camera has been destroyed. There was Chief Rafferty LOLing about tampering with evidence. But this clip that I am sharing is what sent me over the edge. Here we are in a murder case – and not just any murder case – it’s the murder of a COP. And the prosecution is using evidence where you have to zoom in, squint, cover one eye, stand on one foot and back up 10 feet to try to see. It’s absurd. And totally avoidable. Proctor is not just a dirtbag who calls suspects cunts and says female medical examiners are whack jobs and wishes people would kill themselves and looks for nudes in women’s phones. He’s a shitty cop. This is just one more example that if he’d just followed basic standard protocols, this case might not be in the dismal shape it is in. All he had to do was take a photo of the taillight before it entered the sally port. Instead, we have these snow-covered images from various times of the day where you can’t tell what is what. Where you just have to GUESS and take their word that it’s shattered to oblivion and missing 47 pieces to send a person to prison for 20 years. Proctor claims he sent those nasty texts about Karen Read because he was so angry about what she did to a fellow officer. Yet, John O’Keefe was not worthy enough for Proctor to take out his phone and snap a photo of the alleged murder weapon. And you can add a whole bunch of other things here – O’Keefe wasn’t worthy enough for Proctor to fill out a chain of custody form. Or record an interview. Or document evidence collection. Or knock on doors to see if anyone had Ring cameras. Or turn over video evidence instead of hiding it away in his files for two years. And on and on and on. Shame on him.

There were so many troubling things that revealed themselves during the Motion to Dismiss hearing in the Karen Read case this week. There was the fact that the full sally port video was recorded in 6-hour chunks that have never been turned over. There was Trooper Proctor having video in his possession for 26 months before anyone knew about it. There was news the inverted camera has been destroyed. There was Chief Rafferty LOLing about tampering with evidence. But this clip that I am sharing is what sent me over the edge. Here we are in a murder case – and not just any murder case – it’s the murder of a COP. And the prosecution is using evidence where you have to zoom in, squint, cover one eye, stand on one foot and back up 10 feet to try to see. It’s absurd. And totally avoidable. Proctor is not just a dirtbag who calls suspects cunts and says female medical examiners are whack jobs and wishes people would kill themselves and looks for nudes in women’s phones. He’s a shitty cop. This is just one more example that if he’d just followed basic standard protocols, this case might not be in the dismal shape it is in. All he had to do was take a photo of the taillight before it entered the sally port. Instead, we have these snow-covered images from various times of the day where you can’t tell what is what. Where you just have to GUESS and take their word that it’s shattered to oblivion and missing 47 pieces to send a person to prison for 20 years. Proctor claims he sent those nasty texts about Karen Read because he was so angry about what she did to a fellow officer. Yet, John O’Keefe was not worthy enough for Proctor to take out his phone and snap a photo of the alleged murder weapon. And you can add a whole bunch of other things here – O’Keefe wasn’t worthy enough for Proctor to fill out a chain of custody form. Or record an interview. Or document evidence collection. Or knock on doors to see if anyone had Ring cameras. Or turn over video evidence instead of hiding it away in his files for two years. And on and on and on. Shame on him.

43,815 просмотров • 1 год назад

Hank Brennan made a fuss about a dumpster yesterday during the cross of Lucky Loughran. But there are a couple other dumpsters in this case that the jury needs to hear about – THE DUMPSTERS ON THE ARMY BASE WHERE BRIAN HIGGINS DITCHED HIS PHONE AND SIM CARD! Alan Jackson spent several minutes in his opening statement telling the jury that they “will learn” about Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. The butt dials, Higgins going back to the Canton PD, lying about the phone calls, getting rid of their phones, etc. If the defense doesn’t call at least Higgins, it’s a promise to the jury that they didn’t keep. That’s a big deal. CALL HIGGINS! The detail about how he got rid of his phone a day before the preservation order is so spectacular, absurd, outlandish and sketchy. He cut up the SIM card and put it in one trash bag, put the phone in another trash bag, drove to an Army base and tossed the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in another dumpster. And that’s just one detail with Higgins. There are more! CALL HIM! DO IT! (Pretty please…)

Hank Brennan made a fuss about a dumpster yesterday during the cross of Lucky Loughran. But there are a couple other dumpsters in this case that the jury needs to hear about – THE DUMPSTERS ON THE ARMY BASE WHERE BRIAN HIGGINS DITCHED HIS PHONE AND SIM CARD! Alan Jackson spent several minutes in his opening statement telling the jury that they “will learn” about Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. The butt dials, Higgins going back to the Canton PD, lying about the phone calls, getting rid of their phones, etc. If the defense doesn’t call at least Higgins, it’s a promise to the jury that they didn’t keep. That’s a big deal. CALL HIGGINS! The detail about how he got rid of his phone a day before the preservation order is so spectacular, absurd, outlandish and sketchy. He cut up the SIM card and put it in one trash bag, put the phone in another trash bag, drove to an Army base and tossed the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in another dumpster. And that’s just one detail with Higgins. There are more! CALL HIM! DO IT! (Pretty please…)

32,400 просмотров • 1 год назад

According to Jen McCabe’s retrial testimony, she did not “burst” into Brian and Nicole Albert’s bedroom. She was trying to be calm and not give them a heart attack. Perhaps this is to explain how Chloe didn’t start barking? But Brian and Nicole Albert saw it differently, at least in the first trial. They both say she “burst” in and both describe her as “hysterical.” What do you think?

According to Jen McCabe’s retrial testimony, she did not “burst” into Brian and Nicole Albert’s bedroom. She was trying to be calm and not give them a heart attack. Perhaps this is to explain how Chloe didn’t start barking? But Brian and Nicole Albert saw it differently, at least in the first trial. They both say she “burst” in and both describe her as “hysterical.” What do you think?

23,387 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Mistrial Misfit I found the clip!

The Mistrial Misfit I found the clip!

19,050 просмотров • 1 год назад

What, if anything, makes a girl spit out her coffee when she’s getting ready for work? Watching Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube on replay, saying this with a straight face. “Canada would fall to the Adam Lally boredom bomb.” I died.

What, if anything, makes a girl spit out her coffee when she’s getting ready for work? Watching Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube on replay, saying this with a straight face. “Canada would fall to the Adam Lally boredom bomb.” I died.

18,157 просмотров • 1 год назад

Yes! Alison Motta! The Consti-fucking-tution!

Yes! Alison Motta! The Consti-fucking-tution!

11,148 просмотров • 1 год назад

Больше нет контента для загрузки