Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

CAUGHT IN A LIE: Tough sell for the Commonwealth, whose only evidence regarding if Officer #JohnOKeefe’s body was possibly on Brian Albert’s front lawn when it would’ve needed to be there for #KarenRead to even potentially be culpable—“evidence” that was problematic and unreliable at best—comes from a witness whose...

OliviaLambo_'s profile picture

Olivia

28,162 subscribers

73,982 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

#JohnOKeefe#KarenRead
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“We did not take Michael Proctor’s word for that! And thank god we didn’t! Because, WE. LEARNED. THAT. WAS. A. LIE!” — Attorney David Yannetti If Karen Read were so guilty and thus Officer #JohnOKeefe’s body would’ve had to have been in front of 34 Fairview from 12:25am to 6:03am, during which snowplows would’ve passed by, then why did Lead Investigator Michael Proctor lie and say that Fairview Road had not been plowed during that time? (Because then he would have to reveal a witness—the snowplow driver—who could and would exculpate Karen Read). Why hide witnesses if you’re prosecuting the right person? If #KarenRead were guilty of striking and leaving Officer O’Keefe for dead in front of 34 Fairview, then why would she go out of her way to find out who was snowplowing Fairview Road that night, when that person could potentially incriminate her? If Karen Read were guilty, then why would Michael Proctor want to hide and lie about all of this evidence, and these witnesses, that could incriminate her? Why hide evidence when you’re prosecuting the right person? #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption
1:44

“We did not take Michael Proctor’s word for that! And thank god we didn’t! Because, WE. LEARNED. THAT. WAS. A. LIE!” — Attorney David Yannetti If Karen Read were so guilty and thus Officer #JohnOKeefe’s body would’ve had to have been in front of 34 Fairview from 12:25am to 6:03am, during which snowplows would’ve passed by, then why did Lead Investigator Michael Proctor lie and say that Fairview Road had not been plowed during that time? (Because then he would have to reveal a witness—the snowplow driver—who could and would exculpate Karen Read). Why hide witnesses if you’re prosecuting the right person? If #KarenRead were guilty of striking and leaving Officer O’Keefe for dead in front of 34 Fairview, then why would she go out of her way to find out who was snowplowing Fairview Road that night, when that person could potentially incriminate her? If Karen Read were guilty, then why would Michael Proctor want to hide and lie about all of this evidence, and these witnesses, that could incriminate her? Why hide evidence when you’re prosecuting the right person? #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption

Olivia

69,914 views • 2 years ago

Jen McCabe: “I knew John never came in the house so I had no concern for anyone’s safety inside the house.” “I was not worried at all because something happened on the front lawn that had nothing to do with anything inside that house.” Jen McCabe would literally have no way of knowing at that point what happened to John O’Keefe, or that “something happened on the front lawn that had nothing to do with anything inside that house.” In fact, Jen McCabe claims that all three of her phone calls to her sister, Nicole Albert, that morning went unanswered despite phone records showing them as answered. Wouldn’t this fact alone make her incredibly concerned for her sister’s safety, especially after finding John O’Keefe dead on her front lawn? ———— Attorney Alan Jackson seems to sum up Jen McCabe’s behavior pretty well: “You weren’t worried about [Nicole and Brian Albert] at all, because you knew what really happened, didn’t you Mrs. McCabe?” #KarenRead #JenMcCabe #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe
2:07

Jen McCabe: “I knew John never came in the house so I had no concern for anyone’s safety inside the house.” “I was not worried at all because something happened on the front lawn that had nothing to do with anything inside that house.” Jen McCabe would literally have no way of knowing at that point what happened to John O’Keefe, or that “something happened on the front lawn that had nothing to do with anything inside that house.” In fact, Jen McCabe claims that all three of her phone calls to her sister, Nicole Albert, that morning went unanswered despite phone records showing them as answered. Wouldn’t this fact alone make her incredibly concerned for her sister’s safety, especially after finding John O’Keefe dead on her front lawn? ———— Attorney Alan Jackson seems to sum up Jen McCabe’s behavior pretty well: “You weren’t worried about [Nicole and Brian Albert] at all, because you knew what really happened, didn’t you Mrs. McCabe?” #KarenRead #JenMcCabe #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

151,204 views • 1 year ago

On October 3, 2022, the defense for #KarenRead vigorously argued its Rule 17 Motion (filed September 16, 2022) addressing the fact that none of the several witnesses who left 34 Fairview saw the dead body on the front lawn. Surely, if there were any possible witnesses who could’ve seen Officer #JohnOKeefe’s body there—in the investigation of the murder of a fellow Police Officer—investigators would’ve interviewed them promptly, right? Certainly, if someone possessed such critical information, honest homicide detectives would want to know it, right? This would be pertinent information in a murder investigation, right? Presumably, they wouldn’t wait until over 8 months to speak with such an individual—whose existence they were aware of on day 1, since January 29, 2022, right? WRONG! Enter: Julie Nagel. Is it convenient or just a coincidence that only AFTER the defense argued this Rule 17 Motion—requesting cell records of all the individuals who were present at the Albert residence on the night in question—conflicted Lead Investigator Michael Proctor miraculously is able to produce a witness who would say she “observed a dark object in the white snow by the flagpole”? In fact, it was just 2 days later (on October 5, 2022) that Proctor for the first time interviewed this individual, Julie Nagel, despite being aware of her identity/presence at 34 Fairview since January 29, 2022. Seems awfully convenient, doesn’t it? When looking at the procedural history of the #KarenRead case, it becomes clear that much of the Commonwealth’s (CW) actual case was reactionary—contrived in response to the actual factual basis of events brought forth & slowly trickled out by the defense. This seems to be, in large part, reflected in their trial strategy. We’re three weeks into trial & have seen little, if any, case or evidence whatsoever regarding how the defendant, Karen Read, was supposedly on the “outs” with her boyfriend, had a toxic, tumultuous relationship, was intoxicated, was fighting so badly with her boyfriend that she wanted to murder him, or how she supposedly murdered him with her taillight. The defense points out the obvious problems with the CW’s case—like the fact that a body not being on the front lawn from approximately 12:30am onward, means Karen Read did not kill Officer O’Keefe—and days/weeks later, the CW gets a witness to say they saw a blob on the lawn to assuage the Court. …Because the last thing they want is to have to turn over Brian Albert or Colin Albert’s cellphone data to the defense, pursuant to their Rule 17 filing. But, there’s a few problems with the credulity of Julie Nagel’s claims: 1) She self-admittedly was drunk 2) She wasn’t interviewed until at least eight months after the fact 3) She’s close enough to Jen McCabe to have: provided child- and dog-care for her, been to her house, and had a nickname for her—a fact that Nagel was hardly forthcoming about But, we’re supposed to believe that this witness, who was drunk at the time, had such astute recall, of a mere flash in time over 8 months ago, to remember seeing—over Sara Levinson’s shoulder (from the opposite side of the car) out the window, while in a moving car—a black blob where Officer O’Keefe’s body was later found. And after months & months of having presumably heard the state’s story that Karen hit John, leaving his body in the front lawn before Nagel would’ve left 34 Fairview. How accurate is one’s memory after 8 months anyway? How accurate is Nagel’s memory given she was intoxicated at the time? And how reliable is her testimony, as it’s presumably biased by her relationship with the McCabes? My question is: If Julie Nagel truly saw a black blob, where she would’ve been well aware Officer O’Keefe’s body was found as early as January 29, 2022—obviously critical information for investigators—why would she wait for them to come to her, over 8 months later, to share it? #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup
0:39

On October 3, 2022, the defense for #KarenRead vigorously argued its Rule 17 Motion (filed September 16, 2022) addressing the fact that none of the several witnesses who left 34 Fairview saw the dead body on the front lawn. Surely, if there were any possible witnesses who could’ve seen Officer #JohnOKeefe’s body there—in the investigation of the murder of a fellow Police Officer—investigators would’ve interviewed them promptly, right? Certainly, if someone possessed such critical information, honest homicide detectives would want to know it, right? This would be pertinent information in a murder investigation, right? Presumably, they wouldn’t wait until over 8 months to speak with such an individual—whose existence they were aware of on day 1, since January 29, 2022, right? WRONG! Enter: Julie Nagel. Is it convenient or just a coincidence that only AFTER the defense argued this Rule 17 Motion—requesting cell records of all the individuals who were present at the Albert residence on the night in question—conflicted Lead Investigator Michael Proctor miraculously is able to produce a witness who would say she “observed a dark object in the white snow by the flagpole”? In fact, it was just 2 days later (on October 5, 2022) that Proctor for the first time interviewed this individual, Julie Nagel, despite being aware of her identity/presence at 34 Fairview since January 29, 2022. Seems awfully convenient, doesn’t it? When looking at the procedural history of the #KarenRead case, it becomes clear that much of the Commonwealth’s (CW) actual case was reactionary—contrived in response to the actual factual basis of events brought forth & slowly trickled out by the defense. This seems to be, in large part, reflected in their trial strategy. We’re three weeks into trial & have seen little, if any, case or evidence whatsoever regarding how the defendant, Karen Read, was supposedly on the “outs” with her boyfriend, had a toxic, tumultuous relationship, was intoxicated, was fighting so badly with her boyfriend that she wanted to murder him, or how she supposedly murdered him with her taillight. The defense points out the obvious problems with the CW’s case—like the fact that a body not being on the front lawn from approximately 12:30am onward, means Karen Read did not kill Officer O’Keefe—and days/weeks later, the CW gets a witness to say they saw a blob on the lawn to assuage the Court. …Because the last thing they want is to have to turn over Brian Albert or Colin Albert’s cellphone data to the defense, pursuant to their Rule 17 filing. But, there’s a few problems with the credulity of Julie Nagel’s claims: 1) She self-admittedly was drunk 2) She wasn’t interviewed until at least eight months after the fact 3) She’s close enough to Jen McCabe to have: provided child- and dog-care for her, been to her house, and had a nickname for her—a fact that Nagel was hardly forthcoming about But, we’re supposed to believe that this witness, who was drunk at the time, had such astute recall, of a mere flash in time over 8 months ago, to remember seeing—over Sara Levinson’s shoulder (from the opposite side of the car) out the window, while in a moving car—a black blob where Officer O’Keefe’s body was later found. And after months & months of having presumably heard the state’s story that Karen hit John, leaving his body in the front lawn before Nagel would’ve left 34 Fairview. How accurate is one’s memory after 8 months anyway? How accurate is Nagel’s memory given she was intoxicated at the time? And how reliable is her testimony, as it’s presumably biased by her relationship with the McCabes? My question is: If Julie Nagel truly saw a black blob, where she would’ve been well aware Officer O’Keefe’s body was found as early as January 29, 2022—obviously critical information for investigators—why would she wait for them to come to her, over 8 months later, to share it? #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup

Olivia

127,152 views • 2 years ago

Candace knew about the lawsuit before she went to Rome. Yet she says she hadn’t had time to talk to her husband about it? So Candace Baby, they sent you the detailed information on why and that they were suing you the day you went to Rome but you are surprised by the suit when it dropped and haven’t had time to talk to Georgie about it? So no time on the plane or in Rome you and George discussed the lawsuit? Were you even together? If I received a detailed letter and notice a lawsuit was about to hit….it would be the main topic of conversation between my husband and I for days. Another lie of Candace, she always forgets what she says, and then has to spin it. One lie that gets another lie, which gets another lie going. She knew, George knew and their PR move now is to use George as the reason they will file up dismiss.
0:14

Candace knew about the lawsuit before she went to Rome. Yet she says she hadn’t had time to talk to her husband about it? So Candace Baby, they sent you the detailed information on why and that they were suing you the day you went to Rome but you are surprised by the suit when it dropped and haven’t had time to talk to Georgie about it? So no time on the plane or in Rome you and George discussed the lawsuit? Were you even together? If I received a detailed letter and notice a lawsuit was about to hit….it would be the main topic of conversation between my husband and I for days. Another lie of Candace, she always forgets what she says, and then has to spin it. One lie that gets another lie, which gets another lie going. She knew, George knew and their PR move now is to use George as the reason they will file up dismiss.

Raven Grace 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

44,771 views • 3 months ago

Imagine how badly Jessica Hyde & Ian Whiffin wanted to back out as expert witnesses for the Commonwealth when they found out that the FBI, including a Quantico trained Special Agent with the FBI’s Regional Computer Forensics Lab, specifically confirmed that the search “hos long to die in cold” was made on Jen McCabe’s phone, and it was made at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #Cellebrite #PoliceCorruption
0:40

Imagine how badly Jessica Hyde & Ian Whiffin wanted to back out as expert witnesses for the Commonwealth when they found out that the FBI, including a Quantico trained Special Agent with the FBI’s Regional Computer Forensics Lab, specifically confirmed that the search “hos long to die in cold” was made on Jen McCabe’s phone, and it was made at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #Cellebrite #PoliceCorruption

Olivia

293,051 views • 2 years ago

Kerry Roberts complained about being a “victim” of “harassment” for “the crime of telling the truth” yesterday on Good Morning America. Then she took the witness stand & admitted to lying under oath & committing perjury at a grand jury to protect Jen McCabe. The Feds are the ONLY reason we know this information. What does that tell you? These witnesses are comfortable lying under oath at the state grand jury because they know they’ve got immunity from DA Michael Morrissey’s Office. They’re protected. But suddenly, once under investigation by the Feds, and under the threat of federal perjury charges while on the witness stand at a federal grand jury, a whole lot of admissions and truth started coming out. This is also why Brian Higgins testified (at the federal grand jury) that he saw someone, that fit John O’Keefe’s criteria, enter the house. Higgins didn’t know what the Feds knew at the time, and being an ATF agent, he’s surely well aware of the fact that he could be facing prison time for lying to a federal agent. The only reason Kerry Roberts changed her testimony and told the truth—that she never heard Karen Read ask Jen McCabe to Google anything—was because she knew she no longer had the protection of her friends at the federal grand jury. This is what the general public finds so outrageous about these “witnesses”. It’s how they brazenly lie to your face to frame an innocent woman for a murder she did not commit, and then if you dare call them on it, they have to make themselves “victims” by whining and crying about “hawassment” and “witness intimidation”. The public is going to be critical and unfavorable of you when you willingly lie to coverup and frame someone else for murder. That’s a necessary age-old aspect of society called “shame”. If you don’t like it, don’t lie or do shameful things. It’s really that simple. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe
0:05

Kerry Roberts complained about being a “victim” of “harassment” for “the crime of telling the truth” yesterday on Good Morning America. Then she took the witness stand & admitted to lying under oath & committing perjury at a grand jury to protect Jen McCabe. The Feds are the ONLY reason we know this information. What does that tell you? These witnesses are comfortable lying under oath at the state grand jury because they know they’ve got immunity from DA Michael Morrissey’s Office. They’re protected. But suddenly, once under investigation by the Feds, and under the threat of federal perjury charges while on the witness stand at a federal grand jury, a whole lot of admissions and truth started coming out. This is also why Brian Higgins testified (at the federal grand jury) that he saw someone, that fit John O’Keefe’s criteria, enter the house. Higgins didn’t know what the Feds knew at the time, and being an ATF agent, he’s surely well aware of the fact that he could be facing prison time for lying to a federal agent. The only reason Kerry Roberts changed her testimony and told the truth—that she never heard Karen Read ask Jen McCabe to Google anything—was because she knew she no longer had the protection of her friends at the federal grand jury. This is what the general public finds so outrageous about these “witnesses”. It’s how they brazenly lie to your face to frame an innocent woman for a murder she did not commit, and then if you dare call them on it, they have to make themselves “victims” by whining and crying about “hawassment” and “witness intimidation”. The public is going to be critical and unfavorable of you when you willingly lie to coverup and frame someone else for murder. That’s a necessary age-old aspect of society called “shame”. If you don’t like it, don’t lie or do shameful things. It’s really that simple. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

58,743 views • 1 year ago

Julie Nagel says she went out the front door. Coco says Julie went out the side door. Jen McCabe didn’t say what door but she went to the front door when Julie went out. Matt McCabe says Julie Nagel used the side door, but he either looked out the window or went to the front door himself Was there a light show out there? A car? A commotion? Because for people who all swear “the guy never came in the house,” they sure seemed awfully focused on what was happening outside of it. Almost like they were all watching something or someone in the driveway.
1:46

Julie Nagel says she went out the front door. Coco says Julie went out the side door. Jen McCabe didn’t say what door but she went to the front door when Julie went out. Matt McCabe says Julie Nagel used the side door, but he either looked out the window or went to the front door himself Was there a light show out there? A car? A commotion? Because for people who all swear “the guy never came in the house,” they sure seemed awfully focused on what was happening outside of it. Almost like they were all watching something or someone in the driveway.

Dixie Normus

23,550 views • 9 months ago

You may be wondering why one of the MSP Troopers who investigated Officer #JohnOKeefe’s murder is glaringly absent from the prosecutions witness list in the #KarenReadTrial. Is that because her testimony might be devastating for the claim that Jen McCabe didn’t make that google search at 2:27am? Yes, it’d appear so! (Part 1 of 2). Attorney Yannetti gave us some insight yesterday into why Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kathleen Prince is notably missing from the state’s witness list, but is on the defense’s witness list. Why would the state want to avoid calling the Trooper that interviewed star “witness” Jen McCabe on February 1, 2022? After all, unlike Lead Investigator Michael Proctor’s unrecorded & unsigned interview of Jen, Trooper Prince’s interview is far more detailed and thorough, and Prince also didn’t wait several months to write down & document her interview like Proctor did. Well, perhaps it’s because Trooper Prince’s is the only interview of Jen McCabe’s that ever even mentions anything about the Google search & from Jen McCabe herself. However, this is not the only lie seemingly told by Jen McCabe that Trooper Prince’s interview will expose. McCabe claims that: “Karen was told to sit in a car. Jen went over to Karen when she was in the car…Jen also stated that while her and Karen were in the back of the car, Karen was yelling and screaming one moment and then completely calm the next. Jen said that they prayed the "Our Father" together. Karen then immediately yelled at Jen two times to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?" That’s a big problem for McCabe, which the state probably later realized, hence why they took the creative liberty to completely distort & change Jen’s statements in their later court filings, particularly about how the Google search came about. Why? Jen probably didn’t realize when making this statement to Trooper Prince, who she’s not close friends with unlike Michael Proctor, that the Police cars have dash-cams in them. Thus, if this conversation ever actually happened, like Jen claims, then it’d all be recorded on dash-cam footage. It’s convenient how Jen’s story about when #KarenRead purportedly asked her to Google such a thing also happened inside a car where nobody else would be able to hear it to corroborate Jen’s story. But again, in this early stage of the investigation, Jen likely was unaware that her entire claim would be debunked by the dash-cams that would’ve captured it as proof. So to her, being inside a car was the perfect explanation for why no one else at the scene heard Karen ask that. Because Karen never actually asked it! THIS is Jen McCabe framing Karen Read. But beyond this, we also now have confirmation from Officer Mullaney that Karen & Jen never got into a car together while he was there. So this entire story seems to have been fabricated altogether. In a desperate attempt to remedy this critical fact issue, the state just completely fabricated new testimony in its documents, stating that immediately upon finding John’s body, ‘The defendant then yelled at Ms. McCabe twice to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?’, or something to that effect.” What else was fabricated? The claim that Jen McCabe was taking any measures to try to help save Officer O’Keefe’s life, unlike Read who was. In her interview with Prince, Jen claims: “[She] observed Karen to have blood on her hands and face. Karen was holding her hands up and was saying, ‘I have my period.’ Jen said that she told Karen that was not her blood that it was John's blood from them doing CPR.” Jen McCabe’s trying to win favor for trying to help save John’s life—something she did not do—when she says that the blood on Karen’s face “was John’s blood from them doing CPR”. Except “they” didn’t do CPR. Only Karen Read did CPR as confirmed by yesterday’s 3 state’s first responder witnesses who confirmed as such. #FreeKarenRead
0:47

You may be wondering why one of the MSP Troopers who investigated Officer #JohnOKeefe’s murder is glaringly absent from the prosecutions witness list in the #KarenReadTrial. Is that because her testimony might be devastating for the claim that Jen McCabe didn’t make that google search at 2:27am? Yes, it’d appear so! (Part 1 of 2). Attorney Yannetti gave us some insight yesterday into why Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kathleen Prince is notably missing from the state’s witness list, but is on the defense’s witness list. Why would the state want to avoid calling the Trooper that interviewed star “witness” Jen McCabe on February 1, 2022? After all, unlike Lead Investigator Michael Proctor’s unrecorded & unsigned interview of Jen, Trooper Prince’s interview is far more detailed and thorough, and Prince also didn’t wait several months to write down & document her interview like Proctor did. Well, perhaps it’s because Trooper Prince’s is the only interview of Jen McCabe’s that ever even mentions anything about the Google search & from Jen McCabe herself. However, this is not the only lie seemingly told by Jen McCabe that Trooper Prince’s interview will expose. McCabe claims that: “Karen was told to sit in a car. Jen went over to Karen when she was in the car…Jen also stated that while her and Karen were in the back of the car, Karen was yelling and screaming one moment and then completely calm the next. Jen said that they prayed the "Our Father" together. Karen then immediately yelled at Jen two times to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?" That’s a big problem for McCabe, which the state probably later realized, hence why they took the creative liberty to completely distort & change Jen’s statements in their later court filings, particularly about how the Google search came about. Why? Jen probably didn’t realize when making this statement to Trooper Prince, who she’s not close friends with unlike Michael Proctor, that the Police cars have dash-cams in them. Thus, if this conversation ever actually happened, like Jen claims, then it’d all be recorded on dash-cam footage. It’s convenient how Jen’s story about when #KarenRead purportedly asked her to Google such a thing also happened inside a car where nobody else would be able to hear it to corroborate Jen’s story. But again, in this early stage of the investigation, Jen likely was unaware that her entire claim would be debunked by the dash-cams that would’ve captured it as proof. So to her, being inside a car was the perfect explanation for why no one else at the scene heard Karen ask that. Because Karen never actually asked it! THIS is Jen McCabe framing Karen Read. But beyond this, we also now have confirmation from Officer Mullaney that Karen & Jen never got into a car together while he was there. So this entire story seems to have been fabricated altogether. In a desperate attempt to remedy this critical fact issue, the state just completely fabricated new testimony in its documents, stating that immediately upon finding John’s body, ‘The defendant then yelled at Ms. McCabe twice to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?’, or something to that effect.” What else was fabricated? The claim that Jen McCabe was taking any measures to try to help save Officer O’Keefe’s life, unlike Read who was. In her interview with Prince, Jen claims: “[She] observed Karen to have blood on her hands and face. Karen was holding her hands up and was saying, ‘I have my period.’ Jen said that she told Karen that was not her blood that it was John's blood from them doing CPR.” Jen McCabe’s trying to win favor for trying to help save John’s life—something she did not do—when she says that the blood on Karen’s face “was John’s blood from them doing CPR”. Except “they” didn’t do CPR. Only Karen Read did CPR as confirmed by yesterday’s 3 state’s first responder witnesses who confirmed as such. #FreeKarenRead

Olivia

193,892 views • 2 years ago

A lot has been made about the knowledge of guilt exhibited by Jen McCabe when she did not immediately run into the house to check on her family after “finding” John. I would argue that these responding officers were intentionally shielding Brian Albert to the same, if not more egregious, extent as Jen. They’ve been on the scene of many, many emergencies. They know how lookie-loos typically behave - calling out to ask what’s going on, vacuuming their yard just to be nosy etc. They knew they were at Brian Albert’s house, and they knew who Brian Albert was. They knew John O’Keefe was an officer. Off the top of my head I can name multiple recent instances of people creating emergency scenes to attack police. The fact that in the 25 minutes between when they arrived on the scene and when they calmly walked in the front door, not a single responding officer began to worry about the fact that Brian hadn’t come out and no lights had turned on inside makes me wonder what else they knew.
0:48

A lot has been made about the knowledge of guilt exhibited by Jen McCabe when she did not immediately run into the house to check on her family after “finding” John. I would argue that these responding officers were intentionally shielding Brian Albert to the same, if not more egregious, extent as Jen. They’ve been on the scene of many, many emergencies. They know how lookie-loos typically behave - calling out to ask what’s going on, vacuuming their yard just to be nosy etc. They knew they were at Brian Albert’s house, and they knew who Brian Albert was. They knew John O’Keefe was an officer. Off the top of my head I can name multiple recent instances of people creating emergency scenes to attack police. The fact that in the 25 minutes between when they arrived on the scene and when they calmly walked in the front door, not a single responding officer began to worry about the fact that Brian hadn’t come out and no lights had turned on inside makes me wonder what else they knew.

Emily See

100,623 views • 9 months ago

🎙️| Back on Feb. 23, 2022 #Akademiks went online and posted some tweets that was rumored to be given to him to put out misinformation regarding Tory Lanez DNA not being on the weapon.. that allegedly according to testimony was used to sh^^t #Megantheestallion. Megan that same day responded & debunked in her ig story WHST AKADEMIKS reported on a day of Pre Hearing where court was NOT held that day and was rescheduled to April allegedly . Also in this very day #MilagroGramz Tok to her twitter to also repost what AKADEMIKS posted amongst other things that were unfairly , bias’s misinformation that was #imo maliciously intentional to push a negative narrative . Not only did Milagro go on twitter the same day she went in her Stationhead to say that a her and AKADEMIKS has the SAME “SOURCE” . She also tells her audience that she had been giving them HINTS about what was going to be revealed before courts meaning the tweet AKADEMIKS posted to give out misinformation to sway the public of the facts. Milagro ,also goes on to say when was told that journalist allegedly said that the misinformation that was posted by AKADEMIKS and her were not a fact she goes on to say she does not care what they are saying #allegedly SN: The reason for this post wit audio of Milagro admitting to directly to her audience of knowing about this form that was going to be shared and to point out that she had sources and speaks of it many times and says she’s going to call her source and she will return to give more information to her audience . It is also to show how malicious Milagro is with the overkill of attacking Megan Pete and to push narratives of misinformation during the trial and after . Even with debunking the misinformation knowingly < keyword with the court paperwork with lawyers debunking about the allegations regarding the DNA stop currently Milagro continues to push a lie to the public and manipulating the public #imo to think she’s only posing questions when she has admitted that she does not care . I want this post audio SHARED LIKED COMMENTS PLEASE SHARE THE AUDIOS NEED TO BE SHARED
4:30

🎙️| Back on Feb. 23, 2022 #Akademiks went online and posted some tweets that was rumored to be given to him to put out misinformation regarding Tory Lanez DNA not being on the weapon.. that allegedly according to testimony was used to sh^^t #Megantheestallion. Megan that same day responded & debunked in her ig story WHST AKADEMIKS reported on a day of Pre Hearing where court was NOT held that day and was rescheduled to April allegedly . Also in this very day #MilagroGramz Tok to her twitter to also repost what AKADEMIKS posted amongst other things that were unfairly , bias’s misinformation that was #imo maliciously intentional to push a negative narrative . Not only did Milagro go on twitter the same day she went in her Stationhead to say that a her and AKADEMIKS has the SAME “SOURCE” . She also tells her audience that she had been giving them HINTS about what was going to be revealed before courts meaning the tweet AKADEMIKS posted to give out misinformation to sway the public of the facts. Milagro ,also goes on to say when was told that journalist allegedly said that the misinformation that was posted by AKADEMIKS and her were not a fact she goes on to say she does not care what they are saying #allegedly SN: The reason for this post wit audio of Milagro admitting to directly to her audience of knowing about this form that was going to be shared and to point out that she had sources and speaks of it many times and says she’s going to call her source and she will return to give more information to her audience . It is also to show how malicious Milagro is with the overkill of attacking Megan Pete and to push narratives of misinformation during the trial and after . Even with debunking the misinformation knowingly < keyword with the court paperwork with lawyers debunking about the allegations regarding the DNA stop currently Milagro continues to push a lie to the public and manipulating the public #imo to think she’s only posing questions when she has admitted that she does not care . I want this post audio SHARED LIKED COMMENTS PLEASE SHARE THE AUDIOS NEED TO BE SHARED

OPINIONATED_TRUTHS_PODCAST™️

12,379 views • 1 year ago

To the people in the back who aren’t aware, surviving roommate and State’s “star witness," Dylan Mortensen, did NOT identify Bryan Kohberger as the suspect in the Idaho 4 murders when she saw his photo after his arrest. In fact, almost the entire time leading up to Bryan’s arrest on 12/30/22, Dylan believed it was Jack Showalter ("Hoodie Guy") who committed the murders, a fellow student and neighbor of the victims. Since she knew exactly who Jack was and what he looked like, her belief that he was the killer also meant accepting that he could have been the masked man she allegedly saw the night of the murders. She never explicitly said Jack was the masked man, but if she believed with certainty he was the killer, then by implication she had already reconciled his appearance with the person she reported seeing in the house. In her 12/30 interview after Bryan was arrested, investigators asked who she thought murdered her friends, and she answered quite assuredly and without hesitation, "Oh, Jack Showalter." Dylan then explained that during her most recent conversation with the FBI, they had told her Showalter was not the suspect because "he had been cooperative and blah, blah, blah." Her reaction, in an almost disappointed tone, was, "Oh shit, well I guess it wasn't him..." Dylan also explained that after seeing the video of Jack walking with Maddie and Kaylee, she thought, "Shit, well maybe he's not the guy because he's walking with them." She went on to say that if it wasn’t Jack, then it had to have been a University of Idaho student who knew the victims, knew the layout of the house, and knew which roommates occupied which rooms in the three-story home. It should be noted that Bryan, who lived in another state and went to a different school (WSU, not U of I), had NO connection to the victims or any of their friends (not physically or digitally), no one in their entire social circle knew who he was, he had never been to the house, and the State admitted after he initially accepted the plea deal, there was NO stalking of any of the victims or anyone at that house. At the end, when investigators pressed her again about Bryan Kohberger, Dylan said that upon looking at his photo, she had NO idea who he was and could NOT say he was the masked man she allegedly saw. In fact, she said she felt like she WOULD have recognized him if he had been the masked man in the house, and she could NOT. And yet, also knowing what Showalter looked like, she had to have been perfectly fine accepting that he could have been the masked man she allegedly saw since she was so certain he was the killer for weeks after the massacre. But with Kohberger - “When I looked at his picture, nothing came back to me at all.” Clip of interview below: (Note: I do NOT believe Jack Showalter was involved in the murders. He was ruled out by local law enforcement and the FBI, and that is not the takeaway here.) #Idaho4
4:20

To the people in the back who aren’t aware, surviving roommate and State’s “star witness," Dylan Mortensen, did NOT identify Bryan Kohberger as the suspect in the Idaho 4 murders when she saw his photo after his arrest. In fact, almost the entire time leading up to Bryan’s arrest on 12/30/22, Dylan believed it was Jack Showalter ("Hoodie Guy") who committed the murders, a fellow student and neighbor of the victims. Since she knew exactly who Jack was and what he looked like, her belief that he was the killer also meant accepting that he could have been the masked man she allegedly saw the night of the murders. She never explicitly said Jack was the masked man, but if she believed with certainty he was the killer, then by implication she had already reconciled his appearance with the person she reported seeing in the house. In her 12/30 interview after Bryan was arrested, investigators asked who she thought murdered her friends, and she answered quite assuredly and without hesitation, "Oh, Jack Showalter." Dylan then explained that during her most recent conversation with the FBI, they had told her Showalter was not the suspect because "he had been cooperative and blah, blah, blah." Her reaction, in an almost disappointed tone, was, "Oh shit, well I guess it wasn't him..." Dylan also explained that after seeing the video of Jack walking with Maddie and Kaylee, she thought, "Shit, well maybe he's not the guy because he's walking with them." She went on to say that if it wasn’t Jack, then it had to have been a University of Idaho student who knew the victims, knew the layout of the house, and knew which roommates occupied which rooms in the three-story home. It should be noted that Bryan, who lived in another state and went to a different school (WSU, not U of I), had NO connection to the victims or any of their friends (not physically or digitally), no one in their entire social circle knew who he was, he had never been to the house, and the State admitted after he initially accepted the plea deal, there was NO stalking of any of the victims or anyone at that house. At the end, when investigators pressed her again about Bryan Kohberger, Dylan said that upon looking at his photo, she had NO idea who he was and could NOT say he was the masked man she allegedly saw. In fact, she said she felt like she WOULD have recognized him if he had been the masked man in the house, and she could NOT. And yet, also knowing what Showalter looked like, she had to have been perfectly fine accepting that he could have been the masked man she allegedly saw since she was so certain he was the killer for weeks after the massacre. But with Kohberger - “When I looked at his picture, nothing came back to me at all.” Clip of interview below: (Note: I do NOT believe Jack Showalter was involved in the murders. He was ruled out by local law enforcement and the FBI, and that is not the takeaway here.) #Idaho4

𝕂𝕒𝕥𝕖

899,199 views • 16 days ago

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.
1:16

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

26,897 views • 9 months ago

NEW OVERNIGHT: Julie Nagel made a move on Lindsey Gaetani during a party at Jen McCabe's sister's house, in front of an entire room of people, and the only person who tried to intervene to help Lindsey was Colin Albert. Then, after Julie Nagel tried to make that move, Colin Albert was talking to Lindsey away from the others. Kate Peter lied to Colin's mom and said Colin was making a move on Lindsey, and Lindsey wonders if this was to prevent Colin from leaking information to Lindsey. Colin's mom came up to Lindsey, Colin and Matt McCabe screaming at Lindsey right after Kate Peter tried to spread that rumor. After Lindsey left the party, Julie Nagel sent Lindsey Gaetani a text message telling Lindsey that Julie wanted to "hook up" with Lindsey. The next day, Jen McCabe and others tried to talk to Lindsey to probe for information as to if Lindsey remembered what happened with Julie Nagel (and Colin's mom). When Lindsey did remember, the people who attended the party went silent. The people at the party were; Lindsey Jen McCabe's sister Kate Peter Jen McCabe Matt McCabe Kate's friend Gina/Jen Colin Albert Ali McCabe Brian Albert Julie Albert Proctor's mother and sister and/or wife Julie Nagel Bella's dad Brian Albert Jr. Julie Nagel Lisa Crisello Julie Crisello Source = Ray from Dallas's epic interview with Lindsey and myself late into Thursday night/Friday morning. Ray did a great job. He's the only one who can do these kind of interviews and he has a bright future.
47:24

Sensitive content

NEW OVERNIGHT: Julie Nagel made a move on Lindsey Gaetani during a party at Jen McCabe's sister's house, in front of an entire room of people, and the only person who tried to intervene to help Lindsey was Colin Albert. Then, after Julie Nagel tried to make that move, Colin Albert was talking to Lindsey away from the others. Kate Peter lied to Colin's mom and said Colin was making a move on Lindsey, and Lindsey wonders if this was to prevent Colin from leaking information to Lindsey. Colin's mom came up to Lindsey, Colin and Matt McCabe screaming at Lindsey right after Kate Peter tried to spread that rumor. After Lindsey left the party, Julie Nagel sent Lindsey Gaetani a text message telling Lindsey that Julie wanted to "hook up" with Lindsey. The next day, Jen McCabe and others tried to talk to Lindsey to probe for information as to if Lindsey remembered what happened with Julie Nagel (and Colin's mom). When Lindsey did remember, the people who attended the party went silent. The people at the party were; Lindsey Jen McCabe's sister Kate Peter Jen McCabe Matt McCabe Kate's friend Gina/Jen Colin Albert Ali McCabe Brian Albert Julie Albert Proctor's mother and sister and/or wife Julie Nagel Bella's dad Brian Albert Jr. Julie Nagel Lisa Crisello Julie Crisello Source = Ray from Dallas's epic interview with Lindsey and myself late into Thursday night/Friday morning. Ray did a great job. He's the only one who can do these kind of interviews and he has a bright future.

Grant Smith Ellis

23,384 views • 8 months ago

Oprah Winfrey said she called Meghan Markle in early 2018 asking for an interview and was told “it wasn’t the right time.” Now it’s being spun as if the palace blocked it. If Oprah was so interested in Meghan, what stopped her from interviewing her before Harry was even in the picture? Where was that interest when Meghan was just another working actress trying to make it? Where was the sit-down when she was deep in Suits, far from global headlines? No one needed palace permission back then. No one was “banned.” No palace. No restrictions. No “people in the room.” No one to “block” anything. You want to blame the palace as if it was some kind of silencing move, but you fail to understand that instead it exposes what this really is. Meghan Markle was simply not someone Oprah was prioritising for a major sit-down. Nor was Meghan Markle relevant enough for that level of attention. It’s also interesting how Meghan frames it as not being “allowed” to speak privately, with others present, as if that’s unusual. She was about to marry into one of the most scrutinised institutions in the world. Of course communications are structured. That’s not some shocking revelation, that’s standard. Then comes the key line. “Now we can speak freely.” “Now I can say yes.” So what changed? It only became “the right time” once she had the global platform, the title, and the leverage that came with the royal connection. You can’t rewrite this into a story about being silenced by the palace when the timeline shows something much simpler. The demand wasn’t there before Harry. The value wasn’t there before the royal family connection. And suddenly, after everything, we’re supposed to believe this was always about “not being allowed” rather than finally having something to sell. Let that sink it.
1:42

Oprah Winfrey said she called Meghan Markle in early 2018 asking for an interview and was told “it wasn’t the right time.” Now it’s being spun as if the palace blocked it. If Oprah was so interested in Meghan, what stopped her from interviewing her before Harry was even in the picture? Where was that interest when Meghan was just another working actress trying to make it? Where was the sit-down when she was deep in Suits, far from global headlines? No one needed palace permission back then. No one was “banned.” No palace. No restrictions. No “people in the room.” No one to “block” anything. You want to blame the palace as if it was some kind of silencing move, but you fail to understand that instead it exposes what this really is. Meghan Markle was simply not someone Oprah was prioritising for a major sit-down. Nor was Meghan Markle relevant enough for that level of attention. It’s also interesting how Meghan frames it as not being “allowed” to speak privately, with others present, as if that’s unusual. She was about to marry into one of the most scrutinised institutions in the world. Of course communications are structured. That’s not some shocking revelation, that’s standard. Then comes the key line. “Now we can speak freely.” “Now I can say yes.” So what changed? It only became “the right time” once she had the global platform, the title, and the leverage that came with the royal connection. You can’t rewrite this into a story about being silenced by the palace when the timeline shows something much simpler. The demand wasn’t there before Harry. The value wasn’t there before the royal family connection. And suddenly, after everything, we’re supposed to believe this was always about “not being allowed” rather than finally having something to sell. Let that sink it.

Queen Esther

149,986 views • 3 months ago

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR
0:06

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

20,211 views • 1 year ago