Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Remember the grave concerns that Judge Beverly Cannone had when the Commonwealth falsely and prejudicially represented that “embedded within the bumper to [Karen Read’s] vehicle is pieces of cocktail glass” during pretrial litigation? Me neither. This greatly prejudiced #KarenRead to the public and potential jury pool before she’d ever...

83,550 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

In the process of defending Colin Albert, Judge Cannone exonerated #KarenRead, and her own ruling proves Karen couldn’t have killed John O’Keefe. She claims Colin’s “screenshot” alibi removes his opportunity to have killed John. Well that means Karen connecting to the WiFi at 1 Meadows Ave at 12:36am also proves she couldn’t have killed John either, warranting dismissal of the charges. Specifically, Judge Beverly Cannone validated Colin Albert’s alibi, stating: “There is no evidence that [he] was at 34 Fairview when the defendant and Mr. O’Keefe arrived at the home.” “Evidence at the first trial was that Colin Albert had already been picked up by the time O’Keefe and the defendant arrived at 34 Fairview.” She’s apparently playing “fact finder” (the jury’s role) now to deny more constitutional rights of Karen Read’s, and preclude her from raising a third party culprit defense involving Colin Albert based on nothing more than some flimsy, unverifiable, metadata-stripped screenshots of alleged “text messages” as an alibi, provided 2 years after the fact by un-credible witnesses. Well, guess what Beverly? I’d say you just provided excellent grounds for a subsequent Motion to Dismiss, per the Commonwealth’s evidence proving the defendant’s alibi—that Karen Read was back home and connected to the WiFi at 1 Meadows Ave by 12:36am. Not only is this far more credible and reliable alibi evidence (data don’t lie) than a purported screenshot, but the Commonwealth’s own timeline and the evidentiary timeline make it physically impossible for Karen Read to have killed John O’Keefe—she was nowhere near John nor 34 Fairview during the time that he was killed, and thus categorically had no opportunity to do so. In Karen’s case, not only is the evidence of opportunity wholly inadequate, but digital forensic data evidence from both the WiFi system at 1 Meadows Ave and Karen Read’s cellphone unequivocally prove she did not and could not have killed John O’Keefe. Dismiss the case and lock this disgraceful, tyrannical Judge up! #KarenReadTrial #CantonCoverup #FreeKarenRead

Olivia

101,136 просмотров • 1 год назад