正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

MSP Lieutenant John Fanning: Alan Jackson requested an evidentiary hearing on jury tampering (Lt. Fanning). Auntie Bev denied. The taillight “magic” and ring video “errors” were not the only statistical miracles to defy the odds against Karen Read. Jury selection did too. On closing argument day, 4 of 16...

TheChauffeurX's profile picture

Lara

3,320 subscribers

61,736 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Trooper John Fanning, one of Michael Proctor’s supervisors at the NCDAO State Police Detective Unit (SPDU), reportedly “supervised” the jury at the #KarenReadTrial. As if this conflict alone wasn’t concerning, the fact that Fanning was later under an inconclusive internal investigation by the MSP for “whether [he] failed to adequately supervise by not taking appropriate action after Trooper Proctor sent inappropriate texts to a group of subordinate members, specifically, if he took any corrective action to address the unprofessionalism and inappropriateness of Trooper Proctor's texts”—thereby making him a potential witness & demonstrating his clear conflict, is incredibly concerning. In the full sit down interview w/ #KarenRead & Attorney Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel asks them about the potential jury tampering that occurred at the first trial—notably with the ultra curious last minute dismissal of 3 jurors, whose body language, reactions/expressions & outward demeanor appeared favorable to the defense, in addition to the “supervision” of the jury by one of Michael Proctor’s bosses, NCDAO SPDU Trooper John Fanning. It would be dishonest to try to claim that Trooper Fanning had no stake in the outcome of the Karen Read trial. Arguably, anyone with ties to the NCDAO, its SPDU or the Canton Police Department—and notably those with close ties to Michael Proctor, like his own supervisor, have clear conflicts of interest in this case. As you may recall, Trooper John Fanning was the lead investigator in the Sandra Birchmore case where he and his investigators concluded that Birchmore committed suicide while allegedly pregnant with a fellow Police Officer, Matthew Farwell’s baby, and wasn’t the obvious victim of murder by that same Officer who also raped and groomed her from a young age as revealed by 30k+ text messages inexplicably “overlooked” by Trooper Nicholas Guarino & Fanning. The Feds investigated that “investigation” too and have since indicted Matthew Farwell in Sandra Birchmore‘s murder. Additionally, Trooper Fanning was in one of Michael Proctor’s abhorrent group text message threads where he disparaged Karen Read. Fanning was subsequently internally investigated by MSP for this, and his failure to properly “supervise” Trooper Proctor—interesting that such a person would be chosen to “supervise” the jury. In a statement from the State Police, they said: “The Department’s internal affairs investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation that Lieutenant Fanning violated rules and regulations by failing to uphold the responsibilities of a supervisory member. This allegation has been classified as unfounded.” Frankly, given the circumstances of this case, it would be concerning if any member of the State Police oversaw and supervised the jury. Why was ANY member of the State Police supervising the jury? Has anyone ever heard of this before—Police Officers from the same agency that investigated, testified against & was a part of the prosecution against a defendant having one of their personnel in charge of and in direct control of the jury? This can’t possibly be a standard practice due to the obvious existing conflict, no? Plus, were it standard protocol, then why wasn’t the defense made aware of this fact until 10 minutes before making closing argument, after a nearly 10 week long trial? ——— Something majorly stinks about this, and perhaps it sheds some light on something peculiar that one of the deliberating jurors, who was recently interviewed by Aidan Kearney, kept saying in regard to the jury’s deliberative process. Specifically, something that stood out to me from juror Ron’s interview was his repeated use and references of the other jurors’ use of the term “distractors” to qualify or describe the abundant evidence representing “reasonable doubt” brought out by the defense at trial. “Distractors.” It’s somewhat of a novel term, especially in this context, and is obviously antithetical to a jury’s duty to assess a case based on the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is inherently intertwined with an assessment of the existence of, or lack thereof, reasonable doubt. There was no evidence or instructions from the court that came out at trial directing jurors to view defense evidence or ARCCA experts, for instance, as “distractors,” and the jury is very specifically instructed not to view/consume/bring any outside information into their deliberations. In other words, if they’re unsure who the ARCCA experts were there on behalf of (the Feds), they’re specifically told not to “fill in the blank” with information that’s not there, or evidence that didn’t come in at trial. So where did the information—this use of the term “distractors” come from? Who fed this term and this concept to the jury? The reason why it seems like it was “fed” to the jury is because it goes against everything the court, Judge Beverly Cannone, instructed them on. So, what prompted the whole “distractors” concept to taint the jurors’ minds and deliberations? ——— What immediately came to mind was the jury tampering by court clerk Becky Hill in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial. In that case, according to Murdaugh’s attorneys, Ms. Hill “invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty”. Judge Clifton Newman, who oversaw the murder trial, removed the female juror from the panel. According to the Murdaugh defense motion, Ms. Hill had gone to Judge Newman – the day after Murdaugh testified, not long before closing arguments – claiming that she had seen a post in the local Facebook group ‘Walterboro Word of Mouth’ from the juror’s former husband, Tim Stone. The post purportedly claimed that the juror was drinking with her ex-husband and, when she became drunk, she expressed her views on whether Murdaugh was innocent or guilty. A follow-up post from an account called Timothy Stone apologised for the post saying that he was driven by “Satan”. Murdaugh’s attorneys claimed that the Mr. Stone behind the Facebook posts was actually a random Georgia man who was ranting about his wife’s aunt – and has no connection to the case. Additionally, information from jurors had come to the defense’s attention about inappropriate comments supposedly made to them by Ms. Hill while she was “supervising” them—the same role as “supervisor” that Trooper John Fanning allegedly played in the Karen Read trial. In Murdaugh’s case, the jurors were *actually* brought back into the court and were called to the stand one by one and questioned about potential comments that may have tainted their verdict. A female juror, identified only as juror Z, said that Ms. Hill had told some of the jurors to “watch [Murdaugh] closely.” “To me, it felt like ... she made it feel like he was already guilty,” juror Z said. A separate juror, Juror E, said that he heard Ms. Hill say “watch [Murdaugh’s] body language”, but claimed that this did not affect his decision. ——— There were reports, at the time of the dismissal of the 3 defense-favorable jurors at Karen Read’s trial, that right before closing arguments, Trooper Fanning had reported the information responsible for dismissing these jurors to Judge Cannone. Among that information was reportedly a story about one of those jurors, claiming they’d been overheard discussing the case while drinking at a bar (or something to that effect)—a story that sounded highly suspicious at the time, particularly given the fact that Trooper Fanning had allegedly had that information weeks before, but never reported it to the court. The similarity in Becky Hill and John Fanning’s “stories” leading to the dismissal of defense-favorable jurors is rather uncanny. ——— Is it not problematic to have individuals—with conflicts of interest, who are also potential witnesses, and who seemingly have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial—be in charge of overseeing and supervising the jury? I’ve attached the referenced MSP Internal Investigative Report for Trooper Fanning to this post (attached in the comments below). What’s troubling is that, despite acknowledging in their report that “these allegations came to light on June 10, 2024, during the trial,” they didn’t immediately initiate an internal investigation, but instead waited until AFTER the trial ended, July 3, 2024, to launch their internal investigation, almost as if they were planning on not initiating an investigation had Karen Read been convicted, because apparently in that case the misconduct would’ve been justified… or something? It should also be noted that this same practice was employed for most, if not all, of the other Police Officers in this case, whose misconduct was exposed by the defense throughout the prosecution’s case at trial—whereby, despite admissions and the existence of evidence of their misconduct, the MSP, NCDAO and Canton PD seemingly did everything they could to avoid initiating any investigations or holding their officers accountable for their misconduct until after the trial ended—when they could no longer justify not doing anything. It makes you wonder: Had Karen Read been convicted, do you think they’d (the MSP, NCDAO or CPD) ever launch any internal investigations into the misconduct of their officers, as evidenced at trial, weeks before? ——— It should be mentioned that in the Sandra Birchmore case, which Trooper Fanning led the investigation of, despite the Feds spoon feeding the State Police & NCDAO (DA Michael Morrissey’s Office) overwhelming evidence + probable cause, in addition to punting the ball back to the state to do the right thing and charge Farwell with murder—a state level charge, they’ve refused to take any action to this day. In fact, not only has it now been nearly 6 months since the Feds apprehended & indicted Farwell, but the NCDAO, Fanning and the State Police, aside from taking no action, have made no statements and are still of the official position that Sandra Birchmore killed herself. To try to save face, the NCDAO, through its former spokesperson David Traub, tried to create the impression that the DA’s Office had been long working in collaboration with the Feds to secure an arrest in the Sandra Birchmore case, claiming that “two of [the NCDAO SPDU’s] detectives were present at the command post ... while federal authorities were attempting to take Matthew Farwell into custody”—whatever that means. This, of course, is patently absurd because the DA’s Office and State Police could’ve “secured an arrest” years ago—nobody was stopping them, but instead they framed Sandra Birchmore for her own murder. Spokesperson Traub then had the gall to say that “much of the information that they [federal authorities] built on originated with our investigation, including the collection of thousands of text messages.” (See a collection of statements from the NCDAO on the Birchmore case from reporting over the years, attached in comments below). While the Feds might be somewhat playing along with this narrative, don’t be fooled. Perhaps it’s to appease the very individuals who they’re investigating for the supposed coverup of Sandra Birchmore’s murder. Why? If the Feds had actually been collaborating with the State Police investigators from the NCDAO who investigated Sandra’s death, then at the Feds’ press conference announcing Farewell’s indictment, U.S. Attorney (at the time) Joshua Levy wouldn’t have feigned ignorance when asked who the lead investigator was on the case before his agency got involved (see clip 3 attached). Had the Feds actually been *collaborating* with the State Police & the DA’s Office, John Fanning’s name would’ve been the first thing uttered out of Josh Levy’s mouth. On a side note: I think this is very telling. Does it mean the U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating Fanning? Who knows. But one thing’s for sure: Josh Levy 100% knew who the State Police lead investigator was and he deliberately avoided saying it. This observation is reflected in FBI Special Agent Chenee Castruita’s 45-page long probable cause affidavit for the arrest of Matthew Farwell, which notably contains ZERO references whatsoever to John Fanning, or any of the other involved State Police investigators for that matter. That’s telling. If there was so much “collaboration,” like DA Michael Morrissey’s Office wants the public to think, then not only would USA Josh Levy have had, at the very least, Trooper Fanning up there side-by-side with him at that press conference, but he would’ve acknowledged him by name in his press conference. Why hasn’t the NCDAO charged disgraced former Stoughton cop Matthew Farwell with murder? Is it yet another case of “pinning it on the girl” to cover up for fellow Police Officers’ crimes? ——— Of note, Trooper Fanning grew up in Stoughton, graduating from Stoughton High School in 1998, the same year that Matthew and his twin brother William—who also grew up in Stoughton—then 12 years old, became participants in the Stoughton police youth program. As Karen Read points out in the interview with Ted Daniels: “There were familiarities among players that never should’ve happened. There’s a sleeve of homicide in the Norfolk DA’s office, as there is in the other counties of Massachusetts. And yet, the person assigned to investigate this case—ostensibly investigate this case—lives a mile down the street from the crime scene.” (See clip 4 attached). Why is it that when there’s seemingly crimes—in this case murders, involving cops, that the NCDAO SPDU appears to send the most conflicted Trooper with the closest ties to that cop/those cops? In Officer John O’Keefe’s murder, the Trooper that lives down the street from 34 Fairview and is “second family” with the Alberts is obviously the last person who should’ve ever responded to that case, yet he was the lead investigator. Given Trooper John Fanning’s close ties to Stoughton, isn’t it interesting that he’s the one who was the lead investigator of Sandra Birchmore‘s death—a murder that allegedly involved a former Stoughton cop? What say you?
1:20

Trooper John Fanning, one of Michael Proctor’s supervisors at the NCDAO State Police Detective Unit (SPDU), reportedly “supervised” the jury at the #KarenReadTrial. As if this conflict alone wasn’t concerning, the fact that Fanning was later under an inconclusive internal investigation by the MSP for “whether [he] failed to adequately supervise by not taking appropriate action after Trooper Proctor sent inappropriate texts to a group of subordinate members, specifically, if he took any corrective action to address the unprofessionalism and inappropriateness of Trooper Proctor's texts”—thereby making him a potential witness & demonstrating his clear conflict, is incredibly concerning. In the full sit down interview w/ #KarenRead & Attorney Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel asks them about the potential jury tampering that occurred at the first trial—notably with the ultra curious last minute dismissal of 3 jurors, whose body language, reactions/expressions & outward demeanor appeared favorable to the defense, in addition to the “supervision” of the jury by one of Michael Proctor’s bosses, NCDAO SPDU Trooper John Fanning. It would be dishonest to try to claim that Trooper Fanning had no stake in the outcome of the Karen Read trial. Arguably, anyone with ties to the NCDAO, its SPDU or the Canton Police Department—and notably those with close ties to Michael Proctor, like his own supervisor, have clear conflicts of interest in this case. As you may recall, Trooper John Fanning was the lead investigator in the Sandra Birchmore case where he and his investigators concluded that Birchmore committed suicide while allegedly pregnant with a fellow Police Officer, Matthew Farwell’s baby, and wasn’t the obvious victim of murder by that same Officer who also raped and groomed her from a young age as revealed by 30k+ text messages inexplicably “overlooked” by Trooper Nicholas Guarino & Fanning. The Feds investigated that “investigation” too and have since indicted Matthew Farwell in Sandra Birchmore‘s murder. Additionally, Trooper Fanning was in one of Michael Proctor’s abhorrent group text message threads where he disparaged Karen Read. Fanning was subsequently internally investigated by MSP for this, and his failure to properly “supervise” Trooper Proctor—interesting that such a person would be chosen to “supervise” the jury. In a statement from the State Police, they said: “The Department’s internal affairs investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation that Lieutenant Fanning violated rules and regulations by failing to uphold the responsibilities of a supervisory member. This allegation has been classified as unfounded.” Frankly, given the circumstances of this case, it would be concerning if any member of the State Police oversaw and supervised the jury. Why was ANY member of the State Police supervising the jury? Has anyone ever heard of this before—Police Officers from the same agency that investigated, testified against & was a part of the prosecution against a defendant having one of their personnel in charge of and in direct control of the jury? This can’t possibly be a standard practice due to the obvious existing conflict, no? Plus, were it standard protocol, then why wasn’t the defense made aware of this fact until 10 minutes before making closing argument, after a nearly 10 week long trial? ——— Something majorly stinks about this, and perhaps it sheds some light on something peculiar that one of the deliberating jurors, who was recently interviewed by Aidan Kearney, kept saying in regard to the jury’s deliberative process. Specifically, something that stood out to me from juror Ron’s interview was his repeated use and references of the other jurors’ use of the term “distractors” to qualify or describe the abundant evidence representing “reasonable doubt” brought out by the defense at trial. “Distractors.” It’s somewhat of a novel term, especially in this context, and is obviously antithetical to a jury’s duty to assess a case based on the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is inherently intertwined with an assessment of the existence of, or lack thereof, reasonable doubt. There was no evidence or instructions from the court that came out at trial directing jurors to view defense evidence or ARCCA experts, for instance, as “distractors,” and the jury is very specifically instructed not to view/consume/bring any outside information into their deliberations. In other words, if they’re unsure who the ARCCA experts were there on behalf of (the Feds), they’re specifically told not to “fill in the blank” with information that’s not there, or evidence that didn’t come in at trial. So where did the information—this use of the term “distractors” come from? Who fed this term and this concept to the jury? The reason why it seems like it was “fed” to the jury is because it goes against everything the court, Judge Beverly Cannone, instructed them on. So, what prompted the whole “distractors” concept to taint the jurors’ minds and deliberations? ——— What immediately came to mind was the jury tampering by court clerk Becky Hill in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial. In that case, according to Murdaugh’s attorneys, Ms. Hill “invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty”. Judge Clifton Newman, who oversaw the murder trial, removed the female juror from the panel. According to the Murdaugh defense motion, Ms. Hill had gone to Judge Newman – the day after Murdaugh testified, not long before closing arguments – claiming that she had seen a post in the local Facebook group ‘Walterboro Word of Mouth’ from the juror’s former husband, Tim Stone. The post purportedly claimed that the juror was drinking with her ex-husband and, when she became drunk, she expressed her views on whether Murdaugh was innocent or guilty. A follow-up post from an account called Timothy Stone apologised for the post saying that he was driven by “Satan”. Murdaugh’s attorneys claimed that the Mr. Stone behind the Facebook posts was actually a random Georgia man who was ranting about his wife’s aunt – and has no connection to the case. Additionally, information from jurors had come to the defense’s attention about inappropriate comments supposedly made to them by Ms. Hill while she was “supervising” them—the same role as “supervisor” that Trooper John Fanning allegedly played in the Karen Read trial. In Murdaugh’s case, the jurors were *actually* brought back into the court and were called to the stand one by one and questioned about potential comments that may have tainted their verdict. A female juror, identified only as juror Z, said that Ms. Hill had told some of the jurors to “watch [Murdaugh] closely.” “To me, it felt like ... she made it feel like he was already guilty,” juror Z said. A separate juror, Juror E, said that he heard Ms. Hill say “watch [Murdaugh’s] body language”, but claimed that this did not affect his decision. ——— There were reports, at the time of the dismissal of the 3 defense-favorable jurors at Karen Read’s trial, that right before closing arguments, Trooper Fanning had reported the information responsible for dismissing these jurors to Judge Cannone. Among that information was reportedly a story about one of those jurors, claiming they’d been overheard discussing the case while drinking at a bar (or something to that effect)—a story that sounded highly suspicious at the time, particularly given the fact that Trooper Fanning had allegedly had that information weeks before, but never reported it to the court. The similarity in Becky Hill and John Fanning’s “stories” leading to the dismissal of defense-favorable jurors is rather uncanny. ——— Is it not problematic to have individuals—with conflicts of interest, who are also potential witnesses, and who seemingly have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial—be in charge of overseeing and supervising the jury? I’ve attached the referenced MSP Internal Investigative Report for Trooper Fanning to this post (attached in the comments below). What’s troubling is that, despite acknowledging in their report that “these allegations came to light on June 10, 2024, during the trial,” they didn’t immediately initiate an internal investigation, but instead waited until AFTER the trial ended, July 3, 2024, to launch their internal investigation, almost as if they were planning on not initiating an investigation had Karen Read been convicted, because apparently in that case the misconduct would’ve been justified… or something? It should also be noted that this same practice was employed for most, if not all, of the other Police Officers in this case, whose misconduct was exposed by the defense throughout the prosecution’s case at trial—whereby, despite admissions and the existence of evidence of their misconduct, the MSP, NCDAO and Canton PD seemingly did everything they could to avoid initiating any investigations or holding their officers accountable for their misconduct until after the trial ended—when they could no longer justify not doing anything. It makes you wonder: Had Karen Read been convicted, do you think they’d (the MSP, NCDAO or CPD) ever launch any internal investigations into the misconduct of their officers, as evidenced at trial, weeks before? ——— It should be mentioned that in the Sandra Birchmore case, which Trooper Fanning led the investigation of, despite the Feds spoon feeding the State Police & NCDAO (DA Michael Morrissey’s Office) overwhelming evidence + probable cause, in addition to punting the ball back to the state to do the right thing and charge Farwell with murder—a state level charge, they’ve refused to take any action to this day. In fact, not only has it now been nearly 6 months since the Feds apprehended & indicted Farwell, but the NCDAO, Fanning and the State Police, aside from taking no action, have made no statements and are still of the official position that Sandra Birchmore killed herself. To try to save face, the NCDAO, through its former spokesperson David Traub, tried to create the impression that the DA’s Office had been long working in collaboration with the Feds to secure an arrest in the Sandra Birchmore case, claiming that “two of [the NCDAO SPDU’s] detectives were present at the command post ... while federal authorities were attempting to take Matthew Farwell into custody”—whatever that means. This, of course, is patently absurd because the DA’s Office and State Police could’ve “secured an arrest” years ago—nobody was stopping them, but instead they framed Sandra Birchmore for her own murder. Spokesperson Traub then had the gall to say that “much of the information that they [federal authorities] built on originated with our investigation, including the collection of thousands of text messages.” (See a collection of statements from the NCDAO on the Birchmore case from reporting over the years, attached in comments below). While the Feds might be somewhat playing along with this narrative, don’t be fooled. Perhaps it’s to appease the very individuals who they’re investigating for the supposed coverup of Sandra Birchmore’s murder. Why? If the Feds had actually been collaborating with the State Police investigators from the NCDAO who investigated Sandra’s death, then at the Feds’ press conference announcing Farewell’s indictment, U.S. Attorney (at the time) Joshua Levy wouldn’t have feigned ignorance when asked who the lead investigator was on the case before his agency got involved (see clip 3 attached). Had the Feds actually been *collaborating* with the State Police & the DA’s Office, John Fanning’s name would’ve been the first thing uttered out of Josh Levy’s mouth. On a side note: I think this is very telling. Does it mean the U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating Fanning? Who knows. But one thing’s for sure: Josh Levy 100% knew who the State Police lead investigator was and he deliberately avoided saying it. This observation is reflected in FBI Special Agent Chenee Castruita’s 45-page long probable cause affidavit for the arrest of Matthew Farwell, which notably contains ZERO references whatsoever to John Fanning, or any of the other involved State Police investigators for that matter. That’s telling. If there was so much “collaboration,” like DA Michael Morrissey’s Office wants the public to think, then not only would USA Josh Levy have had, at the very least, Trooper Fanning up there side-by-side with him at that press conference, but he would’ve acknowledged him by name in his press conference. Why hasn’t the NCDAO charged disgraced former Stoughton cop Matthew Farwell with murder? Is it yet another case of “pinning it on the girl” to cover up for fellow Police Officers’ crimes? ——— Of note, Trooper Fanning grew up in Stoughton, graduating from Stoughton High School in 1998, the same year that Matthew and his twin brother William—who also grew up in Stoughton—then 12 years old, became participants in the Stoughton police youth program. As Karen Read points out in the interview with Ted Daniels: “There were familiarities among players that never should’ve happened. There’s a sleeve of homicide in the Norfolk DA’s office, as there is in the other counties of Massachusetts. And yet, the person assigned to investigate this case—ostensibly investigate this case—lives a mile down the street from the crime scene.” (See clip 4 attached). Why is it that when there’s seemingly crimes—in this case murders, involving cops, that the NCDAO SPDU appears to send the most conflicted Trooper with the closest ties to that cop/those cops? In Officer John O’Keefe’s murder, the Trooper that lives down the street from 34 Fairview and is “second family” with the Alberts is obviously the last person who should’ve ever responded to that case, yet he was the lead investigator. Given Trooper John Fanning’s close ties to Stoughton, isn’t it interesting that he’s the one who was the lead investigator of Sandra Birchmore‘s death—a murder that allegedly involved a former Stoughton cop? What say you?

Olivia

138,699 次观看 • 1 年前

Alan Jackson states himself that, “jury selection is everything,” and all roads for jury tampering, lead back to Kearney. The juries in both trials had already been subjected for over a year and a half to a campaign to brainwash potential jurors into believing other people were responsible for John’s death. Who was the person who implemented this campaign? Kearney. Again, Killer Karen is walking around free because of Kearney.
0:33

Alan Jackson states himself that, “jury selection is everything,” and all roads for jury tampering, lead back to Kearney. The juries in both trials had already been subjected for over a year and a half to a campaign to brainwash potential jurors into believing other people were responsible for John’s death. Who was the person who implemented this campaign? Kearney. Again, Killer Karen is walking around free because of Kearney.

Andie (Albert) Dufrense

35,740 次观看 • 9 个月前

JUROR RON & "JUROR E" Did the jury vote Not Guilty on ALL 3 of the MAIN charges? Karen Read faced 3 charges in trial 1: 1. Second degree murder 2. OUI Manslaughter 3. Leaving the scene of a accident resulting in death •The trial was ultimately declared a mistrial. Since then, multiple jurors have came forward to both the defense & CW, stating that they unanimously voted Not Guilty on charges 1 & 3. •Unlike charges 1 & 3, charge 2 "OUI manslaughter" had lesser included charges attached to it. To consider the "lesser included charges" you'd first have to find KR Not Guilty on the upper charge. The lessers Include: - Involuntary Manslaughter - Motor Vehicle homicide • On July 18th, Alan Jackson filed an affidavit. "Juror E" came forward in to tell their accounts of what happened in deliberations... "Juror E went on to state that the only count on which the jury was deadlocked was in relation to the "lower charges" on Count 2." (PHOTO BELOW) Key words: ***LOWER CHARGES*** •During Aidan Kearney interview with Ron, he reveals something that supports "Juror Es" account from July 18th. •While discussing the deliberations regarding count 2, Ron states the following: "The one charge that we were NOT all in agreement on was the one charge, involuntary manslaughter" (VIDEO BELOW) Involuntary manslaughter is one of the "Lesser Charges on count 2" (Juror E) **In a previous interview, Ron makes it clear that he did not reach out to the lawyers. (PICTURE BELOW) meaning Ron & juror E were not the same person. We now have 2 jurors that have made the statement that they were hung on the lesser included charge when it comes to count 2 "OUI Manslaughter" From an interview with Ted Daniels, Alan Jackson seems to agree. (VIDEO BELOW) Karen Read should have been & should still be acquitted on all 3 of the main charges against her. In every other court case in every other courtroom across the country, that's what would have happened. But not in Norfolk County, not against the CW or Massachusetts and certainly not with Judge Cannone.
0:27

JUROR RON & "JUROR E" Did the jury vote Not Guilty on ALL 3 of the MAIN charges? Karen Read faced 3 charges in trial 1: 1. Second degree murder 2. OUI Manslaughter 3. Leaving the scene of a accident resulting in death •The trial was ultimately declared a mistrial. Since then, multiple jurors have came forward to both the defense & CW, stating that they unanimously voted Not Guilty on charges 1 & 3. •Unlike charges 1 & 3, charge 2 "OUI manslaughter" had lesser included charges attached to it. To consider the "lesser included charges" you'd first have to find KR Not Guilty on the upper charge. The lessers Include: - Involuntary Manslaughter - Motor Vehicle homicide • On July 18th, Alan Jackson filed an affidavit. "Juror E" came forward in to tell their accounts of what happened in deliberations... "Juror E went on to state that the only count on which the jury was deadlocked was in relation to the "lower charges" on Count 2." (PHOTO BELOW) Key words: ***LOWER CHARGES*** •During Aidan Kearney interview with Ron, he reveals something that supports "Juror Es" account from July 18th. •While discussing the deliberations regarding count 2, Ron states the following: "The one charge that we were NOT all in agreement on was the one charge, involuntary manslaughter" (VIDEO BELOW) Involuntary manslaughter is one of the "Lesser Charges on count 2" (Juror E) **In a previous interview, Ron makes it clear that he did not reach out to the lawyers. (PICTURE BELOW) meaning Ron & juror E were not the same person. We now have 2 jurors that have made the statement that they were hung on the lesser included charge when it comes to count 2 "OUI Manslaughter" From an interview with Ted Daniels, Alan Jackson seems to agree. (VIDEO BELOW) Karen Read should have been & should still be acquitted on all 3 of the main charges against her. In every other court case in every other courtroom across the country, that's what would have happened. But not in Norfolk County, not against the CW or Massachusetts and certainly not with Judge Cannone.

Joe Flipperhead

59,787 次观看 • 1 年前

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.
0:20

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.

Julie Carpenter

94,866 次观看 • 1 年前

What's this? John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial witness Jen McCabe DID tell a grand jury that Karen said "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" at the scene where Karen is alleged to have struck John, while drunk-driving, and then left John to die in the snow? This is bad news heading into the end of Alan Jackson's cross on Friday (there is no court today). Jackson spent hours going in circles on Wednesday as to whether McCabe had told a grand jury about Karen's confession to "hitting John" and now the world gets an early preview of prosecutor Hank Brennan's re-direct via the video below (where Brennan will, no doubt, have McCabe confirm she told the Grand Jury those very words as to Karen's confession to hitting John). See video of McCabe testifying, on direct, that Karen said the words "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" on the scene of John's death, leaving jurors stunned - Although McCabe did not recall, when being asked by Jackson, if she gave such testimony to the grand jury, McCabe was able to recall that information on re-direct during testimony in the first Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial (which I have clipped and included below). Furthermore, Brennan has also announced in open court that, at the conclusion of McCabe's testimony, Brennan will be playing videos of Karen's own remarks for the jury, wherein Karen apparently talks about getting into an argument with John O'Keefe in the moments leading up to 12:32:16am ET on 1/29/22 (the moment Karen is alleged to have backed up her Lexus, with a BAC between 0.13 and 0.29, struck John and then left him to die in a blizzard on a lawn). See video of Brennan confirming in open court that those videos --where Karen talks about an argument with John during his last moments-- will be played for jurors, at the close of McCabe's testimony and after she is off the stand, here - Karen's argument with John, between 12:24am and 12:31am, was apparently about a woman John had dated years earlier ("Bella's mom"). McCabe has already testified, during Read's re-trial, that McCabe mentioned Bella's mom as a way to help Karen and John find their way to a house party in the moments before John was allegedly struck and killed by Karen's car. McCabe further testified that, for some reason, Karen started talking about Bella's mom, and John "cheating on Karen," in the moments before John's body was discovered by Karen, McCabe and Kerry Roberts after 6am on 1/29/22. See McCabe's testimony about Karen being upset about Bella's mom, from earlier this week in the Read re-trial, here - Karen, herself, had been cheating on John in the weeks leading up to this death, and John had expressed to Karen that the relationship had run it's course. Karen, for her part, felt John's adopted, double-orphaned, niece and nephew were putting a strain on the relationship. See text messages, from Karen herself, confirming she tried to cheat on John, in his own home, with John's friend (only for John's friend to shut the affair down when that friend realized Karen was trying to emotionally abuse John by way of that affair) here - That argument about Bella's mom (although not it's content) between Karen and John was also relayed, by Karen, to first responders when Karen was on the way to the hospital after 6am the next morning (Karen's parents had her sectioned due to threats of self-harm, and that is how Karen's blood was taken, thus confirming Karen was drunk at the time she allegedly backed into John and left him to die). See video of a firefighter/EMT confirming Karen made those statements about Karen's last words to John being an argument, in the moments leading up to 12:32:16am on 1/29/22, here - Jurors have already seen video of Karen confessing, to a documentary crew, to being too drunk to drive that morning (Karen's BAC was 2-4 times the legal limit of 0.08) and, shocking, a video of Karen mocking John's mother, Peggy, after Peggy told Karen, on the morning of 1/29/22, that John "looked like he got hit by a car." Watch video of Karen ruthlessly mocking Peggy O'Keefe here - Watch videos, played for jurors, of Karen admitting to being too drunk to drive in the moments before John O'Keefe was allegedly struck by Karen's car here - Jackson's cross, in some ways, was ill-fated before it began. Ian Whiffin, a world-renowned cell phone data expert and software coder from Cellebrite, confirmed for jurors that Jen McCabe's Google searches for "how long to die in cold", done at Karen Read's request while at the scene of John's death, occurred at 6:23am and 6:23am on 1/29/22. Watch video of that confirmation, which devastated Karen and her legal team, here - Wiffin also confirmed that John O'Keefe's phone never moved from the lawn of Fairview Road, based on GPS and temperature data, between 12:32:16am and after 6am on 1/29/22 (when John was found). See that testimony here - In turn, Friday should be a very bad day for Karen Read's defense. I'll be with you early tomorrow morning, as always, to provide special Towel Multi-Cam coverage --including the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -
2:08

What's this? John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial witness Jen McCabe DID tell a grand jury that Karen said "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" at the scene where Karen is alleged to have struck John, while drunk-driving, and then left John to die in the snow? This is bad news heading into the end of Alan Jackson's cross on Friday (there is no court today). Jackson spent hours going in circles on Wednesday as to whether McCabe had told a grand jury about Karen's confession to "hitting John" and now the world gets an early preview of prosecutor Hank Brennan's re-direct via the video below (where Brennan will, no doubt, have McCabe confirm she told the Grand Jury those very words as to Karen's confession to hitting John). See video of McCabe testifying, on direct, that Karen said the words "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" on the scene of John's death, leaving jurors stunned - Although McCabe did not recall, when being asked by Jackson, if she gave such testimony to the grand jury, McCabe was able to recall that information on re-direct during testimony in the first Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial (which I have clipped and included below). Furthermore, Brennan has also announced in open court that, at the conclusion of McCabe's testimony, Brennan will be playing videos of Karen's own remarks for the jury, wherein Karen apparently talks about getting into an argument with John O'Keefe in the moments leading up to 12:32:16am ET on 1/29/22 (the moment Karen is alleged to have backed up her Lexus, with a BAC between 0.13 and 0.29, struck John and then left him to die in a blizzard on a lawn). See video of Brennan confirming in open court that those videos --where Karen talks about an argument with John during his last moments-- will be played for jurors, at the close of McCabe's testimony and after she is off the stand, here - Karen's argument with John, between 12:24am and 12:31am, was apparently about a woman John had dated years earlier ("Bella's mom"). McCabe has already testified, during Read's re-trial, that McCabe mentioned Bella's mom as a way to help Karen and John find their way to a house party in the moments before John was allegedly struck and killed by Karen's car. McCabe further testified that, for some reason, Karen started talking about Bella's mom, and John "cheating on Karen," in the moments before John's body was discovered by Karen, McCabe and Kerry Roberts after 6am on 1/29/22. See McCabe's testimony about Karen being upset about Bella's mom, from earlier this week in the Read re-trial, here - Karen, herself, had been cheating on John in the weeks leading up to this death, and John had expressed to Karen that the relationship had run it's course. Karen, for her part, felt John's adopted, double-orphaned, niece and nephew were putting a strain on the relationship. See text messages, from Karen herself, confirming she tried to cheat on John, in his own home, with John's friend (only for John's friend to shut the affair down when that friend realized Karen was trying to emotionally abuse John by way of that affair) here - That argument about Bella's mom (although not it's content) between Karen and John was also relayed, by Karen, to first responders when Karen was on the way to the hospital after 6am the next morning (Karen's parents had her sectioned due to threats of self-harm, and that is how Karen's blood was taken, thus confirming Karen was drunk at the time she allegedly backed into John and left him to die). See video of a firefighter/EMT confirming Karen made those statements about Karen's last words to John being an argument, in the moments leading up to 12:32:16am on 1/29/22, here - Jurors have already seen video of Karen confessing, to a documentary crew, to being too drunk to drive that morning (Karen's BAC was 2-4 times the legal limit of 0.08) and, shocking, a video of Karen mocking John's mother, Peggy, after Peggy told Karen, on the morning of 1/29/22, that John "looked like he got hit by a car." Watch video of Karen ruthlessly mocking Peggy O'Keefe here - Watch videos, played for jurors, of Karen admitting to being too drunk to drive in the moments before John O'Keefe was allegedly struck by Karen's car here - Jackson's cross, in some ways, was ill-fated before it began. Ian Whiffin, a world-renowned cell phone data expert and software coder from Cellebrite, confirmed for jurors that Jen McCabe's Google searches for "how long to die in cold", done at Karen Read's request while at the scene of John's death, occurred at 6:23am and 6:23am on 1/29/22. Watch video of that confirmation, which devastated Karen and her legal team, here - Wiffin also confirmed that John O'Keefe's phone never moved from the lawn of Fairview Road, based on GPS and temperature data, between 12:32:16am and after 6am on 1/29/22 (when John was found). See that testimony here - In turn, Friday should be a very bad day for Karen Read's defense. I'll be with you early tomorrow morning, as always, to provide special Towel Multi-Cam coverage --including the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -

Grant Smith Ellis

22,211 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨🚨 Juror in #RobertRoberson’s trial just testified that she now believes he is INNOCENT, that the entire case against him was 'shaken baby syndrome' - not beating - and that the jury did not have all the evidence. I keep being told to believe the jury. So I went and found an actual juror from 2003. She couldn’t wait to testify. Here’s what she had to say: Fact: this was ONLY a shaken baby case. Fact: the prosecution never gave evidence that Nikki was beaten. Fact: the jury knew nothing about the severity of Nikki’s illness and her extensive history of illness. Fact: the jury did NOT hear everything they needed to in order to make a correct decision in this case. Fact: this juror, having learned the new scientific evidence, now believes Robert is INNOCENT and would NOT have voted to convict. I believe this juror, who knows more about the trial than those opining on Twitter. Justice demands a new trial. Watch 👇 #txlege
36:28

🚨🚨 Juror in #RobertRoberson’s trial just testified that she now believes he is INNOCENT, that the entire case against him was 'shaken baby syndrome' - not beating - and that the jury did not have all the evidence. I keep being told to believe the jury. So I went and found an actual juror from 2003. She couldn’t wait to testify. Here’s what she had to say: Fact: this was ONLY a shaken baby case. Fact: the prosecution never gave evidence that Nikki was beaten. Fact: the jury knew nothing about the severity of Nikki’s illness and her extensive history of illness. Fact: the jury did NOT hear everything they needed to in order to make a correct decision in this case. Fact: this juror, having learned the new scientific evidence, now believes Robert is INNOCENT and would NOT have voted to convict. I believe this juror, who knows more about the trial than those opining on Twitter. Justice demands a new trial. Watch 👇 #txlege

Brian Harrison

26,944 次观看 • 1 年前

What transparency looks like vs. what the Commonwealth v. Karen Read looks like when selecting the alternate jurors & final deliberating jury. In the first example, at the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Judge Schroeder gives the defendant all of the juror numbers to be put into the tumbler, enabling the defendant to confirm in front of everyone that all of the juror numbers are accounted for & entered into the tumbler. Next, he has the defendant himself spin the tumbler, which is placed at defense counsel’s table, and then select the numbers himself from the tumbler. Could there be any better way of doing this?! ————— In the Commonwealth v. #KarenRead, the foreperson was chosen BEFORE the alternate jurors were and the clerk, Jim McDermott, selected the numbers from the tumbler, not the defendant. The tumbler was kept over at the clerk’s table, not the defendant’s. Notably, the numbers weren’t shown to either party, let alone the defendant, nor were they held up and shown to the Court/the public to confirm that each juror number was accounted for before they were placed into the tumbler for selection. Furthermore, the numbers were not held up & shown to the defendant or the Court/the public as they were chosen, for full transparency. Instead, they were quickly placed down to the side, and the entire contraption (tumbler, numbers & all) was quickly removed and placed elsewhere as soon as the selections were made. ————— When the tumbler, with numbered blocks (used by the Commonwealth), is spun to jumble up the numbers, you can actually hear the blocks tumble about inside, as both appear to be made of wood, and the tumbler with hexagonal sides. Curiously, when it is spun, it does not sound like there’s anywhere near 16 (or up to 19, depending) blocks inside of it. I’ll let you be your own judge, but at most it sounds like there’s just a few blocks/numbers in it. What do you think? ————— TRANSPARENCY. What’s the purpose? When the state does things openly & transparently, they vastly decrease & eliminate the possibilities for the public’s doubts. In a case where allegations of corruption of the state have been levied, and in many ways shown, and where the state is under a microscope as a result—one would imagine they’d opt for the comparatively more transparent way of doing things, if it’s not already their default. It’s akin to a properly conducted criminal investigation, whereby law enforcement removes all reasonable doubt by investigating any & all other possible leads until they’ve systematically been ruled out. ————— In a case & prosecution that completely lacks transparency & fairness—where everything seems to be tainted, things are far more readily called into question. Why didn’t Judge Beverly Cannone call both parties back into the courtroom, without the jury present—like she did with all other jury notes, to read the final jury note to both the defense & prosecution, so they’re able to organically process & respond (at least be heard) as to how they’d like the Judge to proceed? Why didn’t Judge Cannone allow both parties to see the jury notes, especially the last one, as they came out? Why didn’t Jim McDermott show the defense, prosecution & the Court the juror numbers before putting them into the tumbler and subsequently selecting the alternates? Why didn’t he similarly hold up/show the numbers, for everyone to see, so that there’s no question about how the alternates, and thus the final deliberating jury are really being chosen? Why was the foreperson chosen before the alternates were struck from the jury? While the template criminal trial jury instructions for the Commonwealth outline two suggestions for the Court, it particularly highlights “Option 2: Clerk Chooses Alternates, then Judge Selects Foreperson”, noting that “in the interest of fairness, judges will often draw the numbers of the alternate jurors before designating the foreperson”. #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup
0:45

What transparency looks like vs. what the Commonwealth v. Karen Read looks like when selecting the alternate jurors & final deliberating jury. In the first example, at the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Judge Schroeder gives the defendant all of the juror numbers to be put into the tumbler, enabling the defendant to confirm in front of everyone that all of the juror numbers are accounted for & entered into the tumbler. Next, he has the defendant himself spin the tumbler, which is placed at defense counsel’s table, and then select the numbers himself from the tumbler. Could there be any better way of doing this?! ————— In the Commonwealth v. #KarenRead, the foreperson was chosen BEFORE the alternate jurors were and the clerk, Jim McDermott, selected the numbers from the tumbler, not the defendant. The tumbler was kept over at the clerk’s table, not the defendant’s. Notably, the numbers weren’t shown to either party, let alone the defendant, nor were they held up and shown to the Court/the public to confirm that each juror number was accounted for before they were placed into the tumbler for selection. Furthermore, the numbers were not held up & shown to the defendant or the Court/the public as they were chosen, for full transparency. Instead, they were quickly placed down to the side, and the entire contraption (tumbler, numbers & all) was quickly removed and placed elsewhere as soon as the selections were made. ————— When the tumbler, with numbered blocks (used by the Commonwealth), is spun to jumble up the numbers, you can actually hear the blocks tumble about inside, as both appear to be made of wood, and the tumbler with hexagonal sides. Curiously, when it is spun, it does not sound like there’s anywhere near 16 (or up to 19, depending) blocks inside of it. I’ll let you be your own judge, but at most it sounds like there’s just a few blocks/numbers in it. What do you think? ————— TRANSPARENCY. What’s the purpose? When the state does things openly & transparently, they vastly decrease & eliminate the possibilities for the public’s doubts. In a case where allegations of corruption of the state have been levied, and in many ways shown, and where the state is under a microscope as a result—one would imagine they’d opt for the comparatively more transparent way of doing things, if it’s not already their default. It’s akin to a properly conducted criminal investigation, whereby law enforcement removes all reasonable doubt by investigating any & all other possible leads until they’ve systematically been ruled out. ————— In a case & prosecution that completely lacks transparency & fairness—where everything seems to be tainted, things are far more readily called into question. Why didn’t Judge Beverly Cannone call both parties back into the courtroom, without the jury present—like she did with all other jury notes, to read the final jury note to both the defense & prosecution, so they’re able to organically process & respond (at least be heard) as to how they’d like the Judge to proceed? Why didn’t Judge Cannone allow both parties to see the jury notes, especially the last one, as they came out? Why didn’t Jim McDermott show the defense, prosecution & the Court the juror numbers before putting them into the tumbler and subsequently selecting the alternates? Why didn’t he similarly hold up/show the numbers, for everyone to see, so that there’s no question about how the alternates, and thus the final deliberating jury are really being chosen? Why was the foreperson chosen before the alternates were struck from the jury? While the template criminal trial jury instructions for the Commonwealth outline two suggestions for the Court, it particularly highlights “Option 2: Clerk Chooses Alternates, then Judge Selects Foreperson”, noting that “in the interest of fairness, judges will often draw the numbers of the alternate jurors before designating the foreperson”. #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup

Olivia

51,971 次观看 • 2 年前

This should end the Parents of Karmelo Anthony… and their disgusting lies that it was an “all white jury” Gin & Juice Podcast: "Damn near half of the black people who could have been on the jury canceled themselves out because they said they couldn’t be fair and put a black man in jail— Don't say I hate white people. Don’t do that. When you go up there, and say I can be fair.” There were Three qualified Black prospective jurors who were struck during selection because they expressed difficulty with convicting a young Black man, even if he was guilty. Exactly as I said yesterday. There were 6 minorities total on the full 18-person panel (12 jurors + 6 alternates) • the jury that decided his sons fate included Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern/Indian jurors. And Karmelo even requested the jury sentence him instead of the judge. And finally, the majority of witnesses who spoke against Karmelo were young black student’s. Karmelo Anthony’s parents should apologize to the world for lying. They have done their son so damn dirty…
1:34

This should end the Parents of Karmelo Anthony… and their disgusting lies that it was an “all white jury” Gin & Juice Podcast: "Damn near half of the black people who could have been on the jury canceled themselves out because they said they couldn’t be fair and put a black man in jail— Don't say I hate white people. Don’t do that. When you go up there, and say I can be fair.” There were Three qualified Black prospective jurors who were struck during selection because they expressed difficulty with convicting a young Black man, even if he was guilty. Exactly as I said yesterday. There were 6 minorities total on the full 18-person panel (12 jurors + 6 alternates) • the jury that decided his sons fate included Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern/Indian jurors. And Karmelo even requested the jury sentence him instead of the judge. And finally, the majority of witnesses who spoke against Karmelo were young black student’s. Karmelo Anthony’s parents should apologize to the world for lying. They have done their son so damn dirty…

MJTruthUltra

789,659 次观看 • 1 个月前

The foreman of the jury continues to give interviews, and just like Paul Prado, the more he talks, the more disturbing it gets. Here, after previously stating he needed to "orchestrate" the deliberations, he calls the witnesses "suspects" and questions the way they were interviewed, much like Alan Jackson's three years of twisting this into the nefarious "friends & family meetings." Yuri Bukhenik testified everyone who was there that morning INCLUDING KAREN, who was interviewed with her father,a man who helped the defendant remove the murder weapon according to the CW, was interviewed this way because of the trauma they had been through and the weather. The jurors continue to use the same terminology, reiterate they relied on things other than the evidence they were presented, fail to acknowledge the evidence they were given, and continue to taunt the O'Keefes by calling for the "real killers" to be found. This is both shocking and deplorable. John O'Keefe's life mattered. He deserved better.
0:22

The foreman of the jury continues to give interviews, and just like Paul Prado, the more he talks, the more disturbing it gets. Here, after previously stating he needed to "orchestrate" the deliberations, he calls the witnesses "suspects" and questions the way they were interviewed, much like Alan Jackson's three years of twisting this into the nefarious "friends & family meetings." Yuri Bukhenik testified everyone who was there that morning INCLUDING KAREN, who was interviewed with her father,a man who helped the defendant remove the murder weapon according to the CW, was interviewed this way because of the trauma they had been through and the weather. The jurors continue to use the same terminology, reiterate they relied on things other than the evidence they were presented, fail to acknowledge the evidence they were given, and continue to taunt the O'Keefes by calling for the "real killers" to be found. This is both shocking and deplorable. John O'Keefe's life mattered. He deserved better.

Julie Carpenter

216,037 次观看 • 1 年前

There was a massive John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial bombshell that went under the surface last week. Not only were 17 Ring videos deleted from John's system between 12:37am and 5:08am on 1/29/22, another video of Karen and her family collecting the murder weapon after 12pm ET that day was also deleted. This means someone (probably Karen) accessed John's Ring system --access that John's niece and nephew have testified Karen possessed-- sometime in the afternoon of 1/29/22 (before search warrants were served on Karen's phone and her car, after 4pm that day, when the vehicle was located by State Police at the home of Karen's parents in Dighton). Indeed, Karen would only need knowledge of John's Ring login information --something Karen had, as evidenced by the document below-- in order to access the system remotely from any device. The fact that there was a video deleted after 12pm on 1/29/22, and that the video in question directly captured Karen and her family leaving John's home with the murder weapon, indicates at least some of the deletions in questions did not occur until Karen was released from the hospital. Karen's access to John's rings system, and the timeline of the deleted videos, thus raises the potential that Karen also deleted 17 of the 18 Ring videos from earlier that morning --between 12:37am and 5:08am, as mentioned-- while at her parents house in Dighton. In turn, this would mean Karen left specific Ring videos on the system, including a staged "bump" into John's car at at 5:08am, in anticipation of being criminally charged. Read a prior public court motion regarding Karen's access to John's ring system here - If these deletions are confirmed, Karen's prior statement during a news interview becomes an ominous double entendre. "I mean, what kind of criminal mastermind am I? Not a very good one," said Read with a smirk to the camera. Perhaps in a prescient manner, when that clip first aired in March of 2025, this is what I reported (at the time, I did not fully realize the implications of Karen also deleting another damning Ring video from after 12pm on 1/29/22); "Karen Read, as I predicted many months ago, left a single Ring video on John O'Keefe's system , from roughly 5:08am, wherein Karen may have staged a fake "bump" into John O'Keefe's car to, in real time, plant reasonable double as to the cause of Read's broken taillight." "I am actually stunned that, in that moment, Karen managed to make sure the other 17 Ring videos on John's system were deleted (from between 12:37am and 5:08am), and managed to stage a fake "bump" into John's car, as a preemptive form of artificial reasonable doubt." "Karen didn't pull it off, but her mind was certainly in overdrive that morning before Read hatched her plan to, in my view, return to Fairview Road (circa 5:23am), confirm John was indeed dead, as a result of Karen hitting John with her car at 12:31am that morning, while drunk, and then leaving John on the lawn in a blizzard." "Then, Read, after 5:35am, went to pick up Jen McCabe and Kerri Roberts, returned to John's house with the two women, told them to stop searching in John's house because "John wasn't there," left the alleged murder weapon in John's driveway, and returned to Fairview Road after 6am (in Kerri's car), whereupon Karen somehow "saw" John's body in the snow, through a blizzard, and before the three women passed the tree line of the lawn of the home where John met his lonesome and untimely end earlier that morning (as a result of what, I believe, was a fight between John and Karen, as to the breakdown of their relationship, spiraling when Karen felt she was losing control of the situation)." See that clip of Karen's "criminal mastermind" statement, and read my shockingly accurate prediction, here - Also of note, in towel's exclusive Karen Cam footage from May 8th, 2025 --when jurors in Read's re-trial were show evidence of Karen's father and brother collecting Read's Lexus from John's home in Canton after 12pm ET on 1/29/22-- prior observations by social media users --related to Bill Read leaving the courtroom within seconds of those clips being shown to jurors-- were confirmed. Read the initial reporting of Mr. Read leaving the courtroom in very seconds after clips were played here - Bill Read --already under observation by a court officer due to reports Mr. Read was staring at jurors as state witnesses were testifying over recent days-- noticeably left the front bench behind his daughter for nearly 40 minutes in the immediate aftermath of the deleted Ring videos (in particular from after 12pm that day involving Mr. Read, Karen's brother, and Karen's sister-in-law - all three of whom are on the state's witness list for the re-trial, but have yet to be called). This was the first time, throughout any proceeding, that Mr. Read left the courtroom benches during trial for an extended period of time. Interestingly, Hank Brennan announced last week in a court motion that the keeper of records for Ring will be testifying in Karen's re-trial --something that did not happen in the first trial-- which, further, suggests that Ring may have a log of when John's account was accessed, where it was accessed from and, most importantly, what videos were deleted from that account (along with when those videos were deleted). Read that motion related to Ring's upcoming testimony, between May 12 and May 16 of 2025, here - If it is indeed confirmed that Karen, or her family member, accessed John's Ring system to remove 17 of the 18 videos recorded between 12:37am and 5:08am on 1/29/22, along with another video after 12pm showing Karen's family collecting the vehicle, with a broken taillight, before taking it back to Dighton-- that is devastating evidence to Karen's defense. It has already been revealed in court papers, in that regard, that Karen was on her laptop at her parent's house around 4pm on 1/29/22 --when Karen's phone and car were collected as evidence by the police-- and, in turn, that may be the smoking gun as to Karen's consciousness of guilt if Ring records indicate videos from John's system were deleted from a remote location (in particular Dighton, Massachusetts) circa 2-4pm or so on that afternoon. Those deleted videos are no doubt very damaging to Karen, and would certainly show her taillight broken when Karen returned to John's home at 12:37am that morning --as confirmed by Karen connecting to John's home wifi at that time-- as well as that taillight being broken when Karen, her father, her brother and her sister-in-law came to collect the alleged murder weapon after 12pm ET on 1/29/22. See testimony from Karen's first trial wherein Karen admitted to one of John's friends --whom Karen tried to bait into an affair by manipulating that friend about John hugging someone on a vacation prior to John's death, until John's friend cut off the affair when he realized Karen was only trying to hurt John-- that Karen "knew where the Ring cameras were" in John's home in the weeks leading up to John's last moments alive, here - Karen, of course, was taken to the hospital (at the request of her own parents) for threatening self harm after confessing to hitting John O'Keefe, while drunk and with a BAC of 0.14-0.28 (2-4 times the legal limit) at exactly 12:32:16am ET on 1/29/22. Firefighter Katie McLaughlin, a key witness in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial, testified that she was the person who asked Karen if John had experienced any trauma in the early morning of 1/29/22, to which Karen replied, "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" At that point, multiple witnesses to the statement (including other first responders) realized Karen was confessing to hitting John O'Keefe with her car, while drunk with a BAC between 0.14 and 0.28, and then the Canton Police called in their supervisor. See that earthshattering testimony from Firefighter McLaughlin here - Jurors have already seen shocking videos, from Karen's own media interviews, wherein Read admits that she should not have been drunk driving in the moments before she John drove from a bar to an after party a local home. The clips, in turn, not only showed Karen admitting to her state of intoxication while driving but, at the same time, they also showed Karen ADMITTING to having up to nine drinks over just three or so hours on the evening of 1/28/22 and the early morning of 1/29/22. Indeed, see that admission by Read, as to her state of intoxication while driving in the moment's before John was allegedly struck, here - "I had been out late, I had been drinking, John was in the last general vicinity of where I saw him...within 50 feet...he's in the front yard so I'm thinking "Jesus, was I starting to pull away and did I run over his foot." "So when I found him, I was thinking, did I clip him somehow," said Read, in further footage played before jurors. Read's team fought hard to keep those pieces of footage secret from jurors, and the public, but that plan failed. Watch the previously-secret footage of Karen's admission as to potentially hitting John with her car while drunk here - Somehow making Read's situation worse, Hank Brennan than played interviews with Read wherein Karen admitted to attempting to frame one of John's dear friends, Jen McCabe, for Karen's actions. "Jen McCabe? It's me or her! Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are!" Read told a film crew, in remarks played for jurors during week 2 of Karen's re-trial as to causing John's death. See that moment here - Of note, Hank Brennan has played multiple audio and video recordings for the jury related to Karen Read admitting that Karen and John O'Keefe were in an argument in the minutes leading up to Read allegedly striking John with her car, while drunk driving. Karen was upset because the name of John's former girlfriend was mentioned on the drive to Fairview Road. See more background about that argument between a possessive, controlling, Karen Read and John O'Keefe, in the moments before John was allegedly struck by Karen's car at 12:32am on 1/29/22, here - Earlier last week, jurors were aghast at Karen mocking John's mother, Peggy O'Keefe, also in a media interview. See those moments here - Also, as a final note, I want to extend a huge thank you to super towel MrrderByMaestro for noticing the subtle moment in court this week when confirmation came down that a Ring video from John's home system -- that is obviously quite damaging to Karen Read's defense-- was deleted (along with the 17 of 18 videos deleted earlier that morning that also implicate Karen, and her broken taillight, as the cause of John's death). I believe Mr. ByMaestro to be the exemplar of noble towel service to humanity, and I thus deem him a member of Nobilis ordo Linteo (N.o.L.). As always, watch live coverage of Monday's (day 13) presentation of evidence in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial, chat with the wonderful towel friends and watch special Towel MultiCam Coverage --including the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -
20:16

There was a massive John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial bombshell that went under the surface last week. Not only were 17 Ring videos deleted from John's system between 12:37am and 5:08am on 1/29/22, another video of Karen and her family collecting the murder weapon after 12pm ET that day was also deleted. This means someone (probably Karen) accessed John's Ring system --access that John's niece and nephew have testified Karen possessed-- sometime in the afternoon of 1/29/22 (before search warrants were served on Karen's phone and her car, after 4pm that day, when the vehicle was located by State Police at the home of Karen's parents in Dighton). Indeed, Karen would only need knowledge of John's Ring login information --something Karen had, as evidenced by the document below-- in order to access the system remotely from any device. The fact that there was a video deleted after 12pm on 1/29/22, and that the video in question directly captured Karen and her family leaving John's home with the murder weapon, indicates at least some of the deletions in questions did not occur until Karen was released from the hospital. Karen's access to John's rings system, and the timeline of the deleted videos, thus raises the potential that Karen also deleted 17 of the 18 Ring videos from earlier that morning --between 12:37am and 5:08am, as mentioned-- while at her parents house in Dighton. In turn, this would mean Karen left specific Ring videos on the system, including a staged "bump" into John's car at at 5:08am, in anticipation of being criminally charged. Read a prior public court motion regarding Karen's access to John's ring system here - If these deletions are confirmed, Karen's prior statement during a news interview becomes an ominous double entendre. "I mean, what kind of criminal mastermind am I? Not a very good one," said Read with a smirk to the camera. Perhaps in a prescient manner, when that clip first aired in March of 2025, this is what I reported (at the time, I did not fully realize the implications of Karen also deleting another damning Ring video from after 12pm on 1/29/22); "Karen Read, as I predicted many months ago, left a single Ring video on John O'Keefe's system , from roughly 5:08am, wherein Karen may have staged a fake "bump" into John O'Keefe's car to, in real time, plant reasonable double as to the cause of Read's broken taillight." "I am actually stunned that, in that moment, Karen managed to make sure the other 17 Ring videos on John's system were deleted (from between 12:37am and 5:08am), and managed to stage a fake "bump" into John's car, as a preemptive form of artificial reasonable doubt." "Karen didn't pull it off, but her mind was certainly in overdrive that morning before Read hatched her plan to, in my view, return to Fairview Road (circa 5:23am), confirm John was indeed dead, as a result of Karen hitting John with her car at 12:31am that morning, while drunk, and then leaving John on the lawn in a blizzard." "Then, Read, after 5:35am, went to pick up Jen McCabe and Kerri Roberts, returned to John's house with the two women, told them to stop searching in John's house because "John wasn't there," left the alleged murder weapon in John's driveway, and returned to Fairview Road after 6am (in Kerri's car), whereupon Karen somehow "saw" John's body in the snow, through a blizzard, and before the three women passed the tree line of the lawn of the home where John met his lonesome and untimely end earlier that morning (as a result of what, I believe, was a fight between John and Karen, as to the breakdown of their relationship, spiraling when Karen felt she was losing control of the situation)." See that clip of Karen's "criminal mastermind" statement, and read my shockingly accurate prediction, here - Also of note, in towel's exclusive Karen Cam footage from May 8th, 2025 --when jurors in Read's re-trial were show evidence of Karen's father and brother collecting Read's Lexus from John's home in Canton after 12pm ET on 1/29/22-- prior observations by social media users --related to Bill Read leaving the courtroom within seconds of those clips being shown to jurors-- were confirmed. Read the initial reporting of Mr. Read leaving the courtroom in very seconds after clips were played here - Bill Read --already under observation by a court officer due to reports Mr. Read was staring at jurors as state witnesses were testifying over recent days-- noticeably left the front bench behind his daughter for nearly 40 minutes in the immediate aftermath of the deleted Ring videos (in particular from after 12pm that day involving Mr. Read, Karen's brother, and Karen's sister-in-law - all three of whom are on the state's witness list for the re-trial, but have yet to be called). This was the first time, throughout any proceeding, that Mr. Read left the courtroom benches during trial for an extended period of time. Interestingly, Hank Brennan announced last week in a court motion that the keeper of records for Ring will be testifying in Karen's re-trial --something that did not happen in the first trial-- which, further, suggests that Ring may have a log of when John's account was accessed, where it was accessed from and, most importantly, what videos were deleted from that account (along with when those videos were deleted). Read that motion related to Ring's upcoming testimony, between May 12 and May 16 of 2025, here - If it is indeed confirmed that Karen, or her family member, accessed John's Ring system to remove 17 of the 18 videos recorded between 12:37am and 5:08am on 1/29/22, along with another video after 12pm showing Karen's family collecting the vehicle, with a broken taillight, before taking it back to Dighton-- that is devastating evidence to Karen's defense. It has already been revealed in court papers, in that regard, that Karen was on her laptop at her parent's house around 4pm on 1/29/22 --when Karen's phone and car were collected as evidence by the police-- and, in turn, that may be the smoking gun as to Karen's consciousness of guilt if Ring records indicate videos from John's system were deleted from a remote location (in particular Dighton, Massachusetts) circa 2-4pm or so on that afternoon. Those deleted videos are no doubt very damaging to Karen, and would certainly show her taillight broken when Karen returned to John's home at 12:37am that morning --as confirmed by Karen connecting to John's home wifi at that time-- as well as that taillight being broken when Karen, her father, her brother and her sister-in-law came to collect the alleged murder weapon after 12pm ET on 1/29/22. See testimony from Karen's first trial wherein Karen admitted to one of John's friends --whom Karen tried to bait into an affair by manipulating that friend about John hugging someone on a vacation prior to John's death, until John's friend cut off the affair when he realized Karen was only trying to hurt John-- that Karen "knew where the Ring cameras were" in John's home in the weeks leading up to John's last moments alive, here - Karen, of course, was taken to the hospital (at the request of her own parents) for threatening self harm after confessing to hitting John O'Keefe, while drunk and with a BAC of 0.14-0.28 (2-4 times the legal limit) at exactly 12:32:16am ET on 1/29/22. Firefighter Katie McLaughlin, a key witness in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial, testified that she was the person who asked Karen if John had experienced any trauma in the early morning of 1/29/22, to which Karen replied, "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" At that point, multiple witnesses to the statement (including other first responders) realized Karen was confessing to hitting John O'Keefe with her car, while drunk with a BAC between 0.14 and 0.28, and then the Canton Police called in their supervisor. See that earthshattering testimony from Firefighter McLaughlin here - Jurors have already seen shocking videos, from Karen's own media interviews, wherein Read admits that she should not have been drunk driving in the moments before she John drove from a bar to an after party a local home. The clips, in turn, not only showed Karen admitting to her state of intoxication while driving but, at the same time, they also showed Karen ADMITTING to having up to nine drinks over just three or so hours on the evening of 1/28/22 and the early morning of 1/29/22. Indeed, see that admission by Read, as to her state of intoxication while driving in the moment's before John was allegedly struck, here - "I had been out late, I had been drinking, John was in the last general vicinity of where I saw him...within 50 feet...he's in the front yard so I'm thinking "Jesus, was I starting to pull away and did I run over his foot." "So when I found him, I was thinking, did I clip him somehow," said Read, in further footage played before jurors. Read's team fought hard to keep those pieces of footage secret from jurors, and the public, but that plan failed. Watch the previously-secret footage of Karen's admission as to potentially hitting John with her car while drunk here - Somehow making Read's situation worse, Hank Brennan than played interviews with Read wherein Karen admitted to attempting to frame one of John's dear friends, Jen McCabe, for Karen's actions. "Jen McCabe? It's me or her! Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are!" Read told a film crew, in remarks played for jurors during week 2 of Karen's re-trial as to causing John's death. See that moment here - Of note, Hank Brennan has played multiple audio and video recordings for the jury related to Karen Read admitting that Karen and John O'Keefe were in an argument in the minutes leading up to Read allegedly striking John with her car, while drunk driving. Karen was upset because the name of John's former girlfriend was mentioned on the drive to Fairview Road. See more background about that argument between a possessive, controlling, Karen Read and John O'Keefe, in the moments before John was allegedly struck by Karen's car at 12:32am on 1/29/22, here - Earlier last week, jurors were aghast at Karen mocking John's mother, Peggy O'Keefe, also in a media interview. See those moments here - Also, as a final note, I want to extend a huge thank you to super towel MrrderByMaestro for noticing the subtle moment in court this week when confirmation came down that a Ring video from John's home system -- that is obviously quite damaging to Karen Read's defense-- was deleted (along with the 17 of 18 videos deleted earlier that morning that also implicate Karen, and her broken taillight, as the cause of John's death). I believe Mr. ByMaestro to be the exemplar of noble towel service to humanity, and I thus deem him a member of Nobilis ordo Linteo (N.o.L.). As always, watch live coverage of Monday's (day 13) presentation of evidence in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial, chat with the wonderful towel friends and watch special Towel MultiCam Coverage --including the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -

Grant Smith Ellis

101,651 次观看 • 1 年前

REASONABLE DOUBT REASON # 1: #KarenReadTrial If a medical examiner couldn’t even determine #JohnOKeefe’s death was a homicide, how can anyone on the jury? Fun Fact: Over 4 months after Karen Read was first arrested, on June 10, 2022, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office upgraded her charges from manslaughter to second degree murder despite the fact that their medical examiner couldn’t even determine if it was a homicide. At that time in June 2022, the DA’s Office said that while some of Officer O’Keefe’s injuries were apparently known, the full autopsy findings were purportedly “not complete”. Hmm… 🤔 Was it that they were “not complete”? Or was it that they were complete but didn’t fit your narrative? The DA’s Office further went on to state: "While the evidence available at this time is not inconsistent with an accidental fall, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has accepted the case and will determine the cause and manner of death.” Despite apparently having neither a cause nor manner of death determination, apparently someone thought it was a good idea to charge Karen Read with not only manslaughter, but also second degree murder. Antithetical to the entire purpose of an investigation, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office and its Massachusetts State Police investigators don’t follow the evidence. Instead, they desperately twist and contort to try to make the evidence fit their narrative. Is this how we get to the truth? Is this why Michael Proctor was texting Trooper David DiCicco on April 28, 2022—in the lead up to the state grand jury to try to secure an indictment on upgraded charges—about how he wasn’t following the evidence in this case, but instead was trying to pressure the medical examiner to give him the determinations he wanted? The DA’s Office itself subsequently said “the evidence available at this time is not inconsistent with an accidental fall” and didn’t have a cause or manner of death determination! 🤯 THAT’S REASONABLE DOUBT. Prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice. They have ethical obligations. Per ABA’s Standards for the Prosecution Function, Standard 3-4.6 says that: “A prosecutor should not seek an indictment unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the charges are supported by probable cause and that there will be admissible evidence sufficient to support the charges beyond reasonable doubt at trial.” This particularly applies to the Quality and Scope of Evidence Before a Grand Jury. Yet, despite having the definition of reasonable doubt, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office moved ahead with charges and upgraded charges against Karen anyway… …because, hey, according to them it could’ve been an “accidental fall”… …which would mean that Karen Read did not kill John O’Keefe, and she’s entirely innocent… …but who cares about the truth anyways? Apparently not this DA’s Office. It’s not like someone’s life isn’t hanging in the balance or anything. I guess this all explains why the Commonwealth wanted to conceal these inconvenient truths—that John’s manner of death could not be determined—evidence exculpatory to Karen Read. They sought to preclude this from the jury at trial (per their Motion In Limine to keep out John’s manner of death evidence)—because, forget about trying to get at the truth of the matter! This was never about justice. ——— VIDEO about reasonable doubt (attached) — Attorney David Howard gives one of my favorite analogy’s for reasonable doubt. Where was there not reasonable doubt in Karen Read’s case? I’m beyond eager to hear any of the jurors from her trial explain this. Anyone have any ideas? #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #KarenRead #CantonCoverup #FreeKarenRead #PoliceCorruption
0:48

REASONABLE DOUBT REASON # 1: #KarenReadTrial If a medical examiner couldn’t even determine #JohnOKeefe’s death was a homicide, how can anyone on the jury? Fun Fact: Over 4 months after Karen Read was first arrested, on June 10, 2022, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office upgraded her charges from manslaughter to second degree murder despite the fact that their medical examiner couldn’t even determine if it was a homicide. At that time in June 2022, the DA’s Office said that while some of Officer O’Keefe’s injuries were apparently known, the full autopsy findings were purportedly “not complete”. Hmm… 🤔 Was it that they were “not complete”? Or was it that they were complete but didn’t fit your narrative? The DA’s Office further went on to state: "While the evidence available at this time is not inconsistent with an accidental fall, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has accepted the case and will determine the cause and manner of death.” Despite apparently having neither a cause nor manner of death determination, apparently someone thought it was a good idea to charge Karen Read with not only manslaughter, but also second degree murder. Antithetical to the entire purpose of an investigation, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office and its Massachusetts State Police investigators don’t follow the evidence. Instead, they desperately twist and contort to try to make the evidence fit their narrative. Is this how we get to the truth? Is this why Michael Proctor was texting Trooper David DiCicco on April 28, 2022—in the lead up to the state grand jury to try to secure an indictment on upgraded charges—about how he wasn’t following the evidence in this case, but instead was trying to pressure the medical examiner to give him the determinations he wanted? The DA’s Office itself subsequently said “the evidence available at this time is not inconsistent with an accidental fall” and didn’t have a cause or manner of death determination! 🤯 THAT’S REASONABLE DOUBT. Prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice. They have ethical obligations. Per ABA’s Standards for the Prosecution Function, Standard 3-4.6 says that: “A prosecutor should not seek an indictment unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the charges are supported by probable cause and that there will be admissible evidence sufficient to support the charges beyond reasonable doubt at trial.” This particularly applies to the Quality and Scope of Evidence Before a Grand Jury. Yet, despite having the definition of reasonable doubt, DA Michael Morrissey’s Office moved ahead with charges and upgraded charges against Karen anyway… …because, hey, according to them it could’ve been an “accidental fall”… …which would mean that Karen Read did not kill John O’Keefe, and she’s entirely innocent… …but who cares about the truth anyways? Apparently not this DA’s Office. It’s not like someone’s life isn’t hanging in the balance or anything. I guess this all explains why the Commonwealth wanted to conceal these inconvenient truths—that John’s manner of death could not be determined—evidence exculpatory to Karen Read. They sought to preclude this from the jury at trial (per their Motion In Limine to keep out John’s manner of death evidence)—because, forget about trying to get at the truth of the matter! This was never about justice. ——— VIDEO about reasonable doubt (attached) — Attorney David Howard gives one of my favorite analogy’s for reasonable doubt. Where was there not reasonable doubt in Karen Read’s case? I’m beyond eager to hear any of the jurors from her trial explain this. Anyone have any ideas? #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #KarenRead #CantonCoverup #FreeKarenRead #PoliceCorruption

Olivia

236,339 次观看 • 2 年前

Anyone who saw John O’Keefe’s injuries can see the arm wounds were from a dog, and experts during the trial concluded were not from a car. It’s insulting to claim otherwise. All people are interested in at this point is when the McAlberts, Proctor, and all of those who conspired to frame Karen Read and persecute Aidan Kearney for doing the act of journalism will be held accountable. Protecting well-connected cop Brian Albert wasn’t their first rodeo. The Feds were investigating DA Morrissey’s office for the Sandra Birchmore murder cover-up a year earlier, in which connected cop Matthew Farwell was not indicted for the grooming and killing of her and her unborn baby that he thought was his. Thankfully, the Feds acted and took this psychopath off the streets. 📺
0:30

Anyone who saw John O’Keefe’s injuries can see the arm wounds were from a dog, and experts during the trial concluded were not from a car. It’s insulting to claim otherwise. All people are interested in at this point is when the McAlberts, Proctor, and all of those who conspired to frame Karen Read and persecute Aidan Kearney for doing the act of journalism will be held accountable. Protecting well-connected cop Brian Albert wasn’t their first rodeo. The Feds were investigating DA Morrissey’s office for the Sandra Birchmore murder cover-up a year earlier, in which connected cop Matthew Farwell was not indicted for the grooming and killing of her and her unborn baby that he thought was his. Thankfully, the Feds acted and took this psychopath off the streets. 📺

Lara

15,239 次观看 • 1 个月前