Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

THIS is why when the third party culprits/McAlberts all testify with some elaborate & contrived story about how they all coincidentally & inexplicably didn’t see the body on the front lawn when leaving 34 Fairview, it completely strains credulity. Here’s a disinterested, non-McAlbert witness, Heather Maxon, who testifies like... a normal human being observant of their surroundings. Between Maxon, Ryan Nagel and Richard D’Antuano, these three witnesses all were observant of things on the front lawn and to the right of the roadway as they drove past it when leaving 34 Fairview. Notice how none of these witnesses provide some ridiculous story to explain why they were looking anywhere BUT where John’s body would later be found? Why did all of the witnesses that left 34 Fairview AFTER this point have some elaborate story for why they weren’t looking somewhere, but for consciousness of guilt? #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefeshow more

Olivia

28,183 subscribers

74,151 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness Nachrichten & Politik Bildung

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Kommentare

Profilbild von SavageInviteDeadPool

SavageInviteDeadPoolvor 1 Jahr

What was the CW trying to accomplish with the endless "did you see anyone walk to the house" questions? She saw him in the SUV before they arrived. He was not in the SUV when they left. Does it really matter that she didn't see him walking? He didn't vaporize. He left the SUV.

Profilbild von Olivia

Oliviavor 1 Jahr

Exactly. Common sense.

Profilbild von The Daily Muck

The Daily Muckvor 1 Jahr

Read our next article in this ongoing investigation that shows how the government's seizure of this private property and arrest of its owner further exposes the eco-tyranny happening in California...

Profilbild von Steph 🏴‍☠️

Steph 🏴‍☠️vor 1 Jahr

He’s not in the car. Or walking on the lawn or laying on the lawn. Unless he’s hiding in the freakin bushes… he’s already in the house.

Profilbild von Kimberly Templeton

Kimberly Templetonvor 1 Jahr

They were very credible in my opinion. It’s crazy that every witness the CW calls ends up being better for the defense. Shows you just how ridiculous this whole thing is. It’s despicable and evil they would do this to another human being

Profilbild von Dizzy

Dizzyvor 1 Jahr

You always make the best points!

Profilbild von NattieJ

NattieJvor 1 Jahr

And she doesn’t pretend that she wasn’t intoxicated

Profilbild von Mike

Mikevor 1 Jahr

Yeah, but they didn't have the Peanut butter to strike up a memorable and lively conversation.

Profilbild von Son of the South

Son of the Southvor 1 Jahr

Not to mention the unbelievable amount of "Butt Dials" made, all from smart phones. I have never seen a smart phone butt dial.

Profilbild von tm

tmvor 1 Jahr

Notice Sarah now says the bread 🥖 was for the storm and not for Jenn’s easy lunch making.

Profilbild von Karen Groves

Karen Grovesvor 1 Jahr

Exactly, and when Matt, Jen and the girls backed out of the driveway and turned to go past the flagpole, at one point the headlights would have been pointing right at John, if he was there.

Ähnliche Videos

NEW: Brian Higgins apparently told investigators during his interview that the reason he couldn’t see John O’Keefe’s body on the front lawn when he was leaving 34 Fairview that night was because “he didn’t see a body because it was hidden by a snowbank.” There was hardly a dusting of snow on the ground when Brian Higgins left 34 Fairview. That’s a huge problem. #KarenRead #BrianHiggins #YuriBukhenik #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

NEW: Brian Higgins apparently told investigators during his interview that the reason he couldn’t see John O’Keefe’s body on the front lawn when he was leaving 34 Fairview that night was because “he didn’t see a body because it was hidden by a snowbank.” There was hardly a dusting of snow on the ground when Brian Higgins left 34 Fairview. That’s a huge problem. #KarenRead #BrianHiggins #YuriBukhenik #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

159,884 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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

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

Olivia

69,914 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Remember when the fedsloppers had a very elaborate explanation for why Charlie’s shirt did crazy things bc they knew that wasn’t normal? It’s insane how confident they all were and how none of them have explained how they squared this circle when it turned out they were wrong.

Remember when the fedsloppers had a very elaborate explanation for why Charlie’s shirt did crazy things bc they knew that wasn’t normal? It’s insane how confident they all were and how none of them have explained how they squared this circle when it turned out they were wrong.

Mel

190,608 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The Commonwealth’s alleging that at 12:31/12:32am, #KarenRead’s vehicle struck and incapacitated John O’Keefe, causing his death. Ryan Nagel testified this morning to having arrived at 34 Fairview behind Karen Read, at around 12:30am, and was there for at minimum 5 minutes. This means that Ryan Nagel and the other two people with him, Richard D'Antuono and Heather Maxon, were all in front of 34 Fairview from 12:30am to at least 12:35am. None of them saw any vehicle pedestrian collision around 12:31/12:32am like the Commonwealth alleges. This is a huge hole in the DA’s case. Moreover, it highlights the importance and necessity of obtaining digital data and third party records as evidence, particularly in a case where the timeline is so tight. Had investigators or the DA’s Office done the proper thing, as seen in normal murder investigations, aka pulling cell phone data and records for all witnesses at the time—specifically those of Ryan Nagel’s, for instance, then we could have the exact, precise phone location data to see exactly when he arrived and left the scene that night—and we wouldn’t have to be relying on vague and imprecise memories. But, they deliberately avoided retrieving any such evidence and steadfastly opposed the defense’s attempts at accessing it. #RyanNagel #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

The Commonwealth’s alleging that at 12:31/12:32am, #KarenRead’s vehicle struck and incapacitated John O’Keefe, causing his death. Ryan Nagel testified this morning to having arrived at 34 Fairview behind Karen Read, at around 12:30am, and was there for at minimum 5 minutes. This means that Ryan Nagel and the other two people with him, Richard D'Antuono and Heather Maxon, were all in front of 34 Fairview from 12:30am to at least 12:35am. None of them saw any vehicle pedestrian collision around 12:31/12:32am like the Commonwealth alleges. This is a huge hole in the DA’s case. Moreover, it highlights the importance and necessity of obtaining digital data and third party records as evidence, particularly in a case where the timeline is so tight. Had investigators or the DA’s Office done the proper thing, as seen in normal murder investigations, aka pulling cell phone data and records for all witnesses at the time—specifically those of Ryan Nagel’s, for instance, then we could have the exact, precise phone location data to see exactly when he arrived and left the scene that night—and we wouldn’t have to be relying on vague and imprecise memories. But, they deliberately avoided retrieving any such evidence and steadfastly opposed the defense’s attempts at accessing it. #RyanNagel #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

65,449 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Why is this Judge YET AGAIN improperly and inappropriately interjecting herself to protect witnesses like Jen McCabe—witnesses who lied to the FBI, no less!? Here she literally answers for the witness! This is so inappropriate and disgusting to see how eager she is to protect obviously deceitful witnesses and keep the truth from the jury. Judge Beverly Cannone is so completely out of line. She apparently doesn’t care about judicial erring all over the place! #KarenRead #JenMcCabe #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Why is this Judge YET AGAIN improperly and inappropriately interjecting herself to protect witnesses like Jen McCabe—witnesses who lied to the FBI, no less!? Here she literally answers for the witness! This is so inappropriate and disgusting to see how eager she is to protect obviously deceitful witnesses and keep the truth from the jury. Judge Beverly Cannone is so completely out of line. She apparently doesn’t care about judicial erring all over the place! #KarenRead #JenMcCabe #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

88,661 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Rep. Roy: “And it goes beyond Fauci…Why aren't we hauling Deborah Birx in front of a committee? Why don't we haul a whole host of the bureaucrats at the NIH and the CDC who were all very well advised of what was going on. How about those federal employees that were trying to get the grants for Fauci? Why don't we look to see what they knew and when they knew it?”

Rep. Roy: “And it goes beyond Fauci…Why aren't we hauling Deborah Birx in front of a committee? Why don't we haul a whole host of the bureaucrats at the NIH and the CDC who were all very well advised of what was going on. How about those federal employees that were trying to get the grants for Fauci? Why don't we look to see what they knew and when they knew it?”

Rep. Chip Roy Press Office

11,680 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The 7am family meeting at 34 Fairview is where they decided to put the blame on Karen Read for the murder of John O'Keefe. This is why Lank was called back. Their original story had holes and could easily be questioned. Karen had a broken taillight. She was the easiest target.

The 7am family meeting at 34 Fairview is where they decided to put the blame on Karen Read for the murder of John O'Keefe. This is why Lank was called back. Their original story had holes and could easily be questioned. Karen had a broken taillight. She was the easiest target.

BoozeyBeauty

36,709 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

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

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

Olivia

127,238 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

#KarenRead || That awkward moment when ADA Adam Lally was asking Julie Albert about her morning donuts run to 34 Fairview when she went inside the house, if anything seemed different, “out of place or off from the evening before when [she] was there”. 🍩 Without missing a beat, Julie Albert replied: “Nothing”. But I thought Julie Albert didn’t go to 34 Fairview the evening before? Did ADA Adam Lally and Julie Albert momentarily forget the script? This is interesting because Julie and Chris Albert’s whereabouts after the bar always seem to be conflicting. —————— In the official Police report of Lead Investigator Michael Proctor and Yuri Bukhenik’s unrecorded & unsigned group interview (on February 10, 2022), of Julie and Chris Albert, it states: “Both Julie and Chris were present at the Waterfall Bar and Grill the night of January 28, 2022 and then followed to Brian Albert's home in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022. The purpose of the interview was to get their recollection of events both at the bar and then from 34 Fairview Rd.” (See attached). —————— Later in that same interview, Julie then happens to mention leaving the bar to go home due to a migraine. But, interestingly enough, there’s no information about where Chris Albert goes, how he gets there, etc., upon leaving the Bar. —————— So, did Julie and/or Chris Albert go to 34 Fairview after the Waterfall Bar? Why do their and the Commonwealth’s statements constantly seem to change regarding this fact? #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #JohnOKeefe

#KarenRead || That awkward moment when ADA Adam Lally was asking Julie Albert about her morning donuts run to 34 Fairview when she went inside the house, if anything seemed different, “out of place or off from the evening before when [she] was there”. 🍩 Without missing a beat, Julie Albert replied: “Nothing”. But I thought Julie Albert didn’t go to 34 Fairview the evening before? Did ADA Adam Lally and Julie Albert momentarily forget the script? This is interesting because Julie and Chris Albert’s whereabouts after the bar always seem to be conflicting. —————— In the official Police report of Lead Investigator Michael Proctor and Yuri Bukhenik’s unrecorded & unsigned group interview (on February 10, 2022), of Julie and Chris Albert, it states: “Both Julie and Chris were present at the Waterfall Bar and Grill the night of January 28, 2022 and then followed to Brian Albert's home in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022. The purpose of the interview was to get their recollection of events both at the bar and then from 34 Fairview Rd.” (See attached). —————— Later in that same interview, Julie then happens to mention leaving the bar to go home due to a migraine. But, interestingly enough, there’s no information about where Chris Albert goes, how he gets there, etc., upon leaving the Bar. —————— So, did Julie and/or Chris Albert go to 34 Fairview after the Waterfall Bar? Why do their and the Commonwealth’s statements constantly seem to change regarding this fact? #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #JohnOKeefe

Olivia

130,533 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Kim Fair said she’s screenshotting every one of my posts, so Kim, screenshot this one nice and clear. I’ve been saying this all along, Allie, Colin, and Higgins are not three separate stories. Their timelines overlap. If Higgins’ Jeep was where they say it was, Allie should have seen it when she pulled in. Allie Could not tell MSP how Colin was at Fairview ummm well.... colin told us in court Allie drove him!!!!! Higgins should have seen Allie arrive. Colin should have seen Higgins’ Jeep when he came out. This was not some complicated maze. There are only so many ways to get to 34 Fairview. Yet Allie could not clearly remember the route she took to pick Colin up, and now the filing says Life360 data from Jennifer McCabe’s phone showed Allie did not travel straight home after dropping Colin off and even more importantly, showed no evidence of Allie arriving at or departing from 34 Fairview or Colin’s house on January 29. So once again, the “simple explanation” is not simple at all. If Colin left the house exactly how they said he did, why does the data make the story messier instead of clearer? If Allie picked him up at 34 Fairview, why does the record not cleanly show that? If Higgins’ Jeep was there, why does nobody’s testimony cleanly account for who saw who? A normal pickup does not need this much explaining. Screenshot that.

Kim Fair said she’s screenshotting every one of my posts, so Kim, screenshot this one nice and clear. I’ve been saying this all along, Allie, Colin, and Higgins are not three separate stories. Their timelines overlap. If Higgins’ Jeep was where they say it was, Allie should have seen it when she pulled in. Allie Could not tell MSP how Colin was at Fairview ummm well.... colin told us in court Allie drove him!!!!! Higgins should have seen Allie arrive. Colin should have seen Higgins’ Jeep when he came out. This was not some complicated maze. There are only so many ways to get to 34 Fairview. Yet Allie could not clearly remember the route she took to pick Colin up, and now the filing says Life360 data from Jennifer McCabe’s phone showed Allie did not travel straight home after dropping Colin off and even more importantly, showed no evidence of Allie arriving at or departing from 34 Fairview or Colin’s house on January 29. So once again, the “simple explanation” is not simple at all. If Colin left the house exactly how they said he did, why does the data make the story messier instead of clearer? If Allie picked him up at 34 Fairview, why does the record not cleanly show that? If Higgins’ Jeep was there, why does nobody’s testimony cleanly account for who saw who? A normal pickup does not need this much explaining. Screenshot that.

Dixie Normus

54,944 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Thank you DA Michael Morrissey for essentially confirming that should State Trooper Michael Proctor’s or Yuri Bukhenik’s DNA profile match either of the two unidentified DNA profiles found on any of the 3 pieces of taillight (the only pieces of taillight) found on day 1 at the scene at 34 Fairview, then this thereby means the taillight “evidence” was planted in the #KarenRead case. In Morrissey’s video to the public, internet & distributed to local news media where he offers evidence outside the courthouse that is actually contradicted by the record (under sworn affidavit signed by his DA’s office), he insists that the Lead Investigator, Michael Proctor, never went to the crime scene for the murder he’s lead investigating. That’s reassuring. Wouldn’t the lead investigator be eager to first go to the crime scene they’re presumably unfamiliar with so they can get a feel for what happened & what they’re investigating? (Like how the body was found ~12ft into the front lawn, or the curvature of the road lined with a high curb). Well, perhaps not if they’d already been there (34 Fairview) many a times in the past & thus were quite familiar with the scene?🤔 Morrissey states: “Michael Proctor, the State Police Trooper being accused of planting evidence outside of 34 Fairview Rd. was never at Fairview Rd. on the day of the incident. Proctor and his State Police partner (Yuri Bukhenik) traveled together the entire day while other officers were processing 34 Fairview. Trooper Proctor was not there and did not plant evidence at 34 Fairview Rd. … Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie!” So if there’s DNA of Michael Proctor or Yuri Bukhenik, who Morrissey claims were never at 34 Fairview on the day of the incident, on any of the 3 pieces taillight the state claims were there since the night before when Karen allegedly hit John—-then this would be a huge problem for them. If those taillight pieces were actually there since ~midnight, approximately 18 hours before they were found, what explanation would there be for either of those State Troopers’ DNA being on them? None, other than them having handled said taillight piece(es) before they were “found” presumably. Mr. Morrissey says: “Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie!” Well, unfortunately, that’s not proof, or evidence. DNA profiles? Those are. Depending on the results of the DNA testing, could this mean Mr. Morrissey could’ve potentially made himself a witness? We shall see! #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #CantonMA

Olivia

160,409 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Seeing Lt. Mike Lank at the Canton High hockey game reminded me of one of those little details from the Karen Read trial that somehow never gets less strange the more you look at it. Jennifer McCabe testified that on the morning of January 30th she left 1 Meadows, drove to Mike Lank’s house on Oakdale, and only went past 34 Fairview because that’s the normal way to get there. And to be fair, from 1 Meadows to Oakdale, yes… you could pass Fairview depending on the route. No problem there. Except for one small issue. Her Life360 data shows she didn’t go straight from 1 Meadows to Lank’s. It shows she went from 1 Meadows to Country Lane (her house) then she left her house and drove past 34 Fairview, then to Oakdale (Lank’s) Once you go to Country Lane first, driving past Fairview is no longer the natural route to Oakdale. Not even close. You would have to go out of your way to go by 34 Fairview. But in court, the explanation was simple…“We drove by Fairview because that’s the way we go to Lank’s.” Right. That works… only if you ignore the part where the phone data shows you went home first. Just one of those little coincidences in this case where the phones keep telling one story…and the witnesses keep telling another. But sure. Totally normal morning. Nothing to see here.

Seeing Lt. Mike Lank at the Canton High hockey game reminded me of one of those little details from the Karen Read trial that somehow never gets less strange the more you look at it. Jennifer McCabe testified that on the morning of January 30th she left 1 Meadows, drove to Mike Lank’s house on Oakdale, and only went past 34 Fairview because that’s the normal way to get there. And to be fair, from 1 Meadows to Oakdale, yes… you could pass Fairview depending on the route. No problem there. Except for one small issue. Her Life360 data shows she didn’t go straight from 1 Meadows to Lank’s. It shows she went from 1 Meadows to Country Lane (her house) then she left her house and drove past 34 Fairview, then to Oakdale (Lank’s) Once you go to Country Lane first, driving past Fairview is no longer the natural route to Oakdale. Not even close. You would have to go out of your way to go by 34 Fairview. But in court, the explanation was simple…“We drove by Fairview because that’s the way we go to Lank’s.” Right. That works… only if you ignore the part where the phone data shows you went home first. Just one of those little coincidences in this case where the phones keep telling one story…and the witnesses keep telling another. But sure. Totally normal morning. Nothing to see here.

Dixie Normus

24,482 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

This kid is crying because ICE will deport him someday, but I have some questions. These people have been living in the USA for a couple of years. Why didn’t They legally registered their documents; why didn’t they come here in a legal manner? If they’re scared this much, why don’t they obey the laws of the USA? President Trump is doing to save America and make it great again, and that’s only possible when all the illegals return to their home country.

This kid is crying because ICE will deport him someday, but I have some questions. These people have been living in the USA for a couple of years. Why didn’t They legally registered their documents; why didn’t they come here in a legal manner? If they’re scared this much, why don’t they obey the laws of the USA? President Trump is doing to save America and make it great again, and that’s only possible when all the illegals return to their home country.

GABRIEL 🪽

11,591 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

A pair of friends were camping in their van when they noticed they were surrounded by about 8 people, some on foot and some on bikes. Upon investigation they didn’t really see any tire tracks as if the people just vanished. They decided to take it upon themselves to try to track and follow them. In a situation like this where they feel threatened by the group surrounding them, why would anyone go after them, why not just leave?

A pair of friends were camping in their van when they noticed they were surrounded by about 8 people, some on foot and some on bikes. Upon investigation they didn’t really see any tire tracks as if the people just vanished. They decided to take it upon themselves to try to track and follow them. In a situation like this where they feel threatened by the group surrounding them, why would anyone go after them, why not just leave?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

1,579,226 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Now this is a good story. Swimming pools used to be covered with copper and it had all kinds of good qualities and it kept the water clean, but as soon as the elites found out how valuable copper was, they removed it from the swimming pools and replaced it with chlorine. I saw another story about flour and how they strip the flour of all the good qualities, so they could feed it to their cows.

Now this is a good story. Swimming pools used to be covered with copper and it had all kinds of good qualities and it kept the water clean, but as soon as the elites found out how valuable copper was, they removed it from the swimming pools and replaced it with chlorine. I saw another story about flour and how they strip the flour of all the good qualities, so they could feed it to their cows.

Jana

20,249 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

I see the Leftist/Ukrainian bots got a new talking point. They say “these labs weren’t even a secret”. Yeah, no shit, they were officially on the books via the DTRA. But if these labs were not a secret, then why did the Biden admin and MSM claim that these labs didn’t exist? Why did they censor and ban anyone who talked about these labs, which were not secret? That’s the whole point. The Biden admin, along with their lapdogs in the media, just blatantly lied about the existence of these labs, despite the fact that we had incontrovertible evidence that these labs existed. It was even codified into US law via the Nunn-Lugar Act. The Biden admin and the media just lied about reality, hoping this problem would go away. That’s why this is such a big deal. Because we caught them in a massive lie, which clearly means they have something to hide. Flashback to March 10, 2022, when then Senator Rubio admitted that the “fact-checkers” straight up said that the labs didn’t exist, and they should have acknowledged it. Well then the question becomes, who told them to lie, and why? The answer is, because they are an arm of the Democrat party, and they are attempting to cover their tracks. They admitted their guilt in the process of the coverup.

I see the Leftist/Ukrainian bots got a new talking point. They say “these labs weren’t even a secret”. Yeah, no shit, they were officially on the books via the DTRA. But if these labs were not a secret, then why did the Biden admin and MSM claim that these labs didn’t exist? Why did they censor and ban anyone who talked about these labs, which were not secret? That’s the whole point. The Biden admin, along with their lapdogs in the media, just blatantly lied about the existence of these labs, despite the fact that we had incontrovertible evidence that these labs existed. It was even codified into US law via the Nunn-Lugar Act. The Biden admin and the media just lied about reality, hoping this problem would go away. That’s why this is such a big deal. Because we caught them in a massive lie, which clearly means they have something to hide. Flashback to March 10, 2022, when then Senator Rubio admitted that the “fact-checkers” straight up said that the labs didn’t exist, and they should have acknowledged it. Well then the question becomes, who told them to lie, and why? The answer is, because they are an arm of the Democrat party, and they are attempting to cover their tracks. They admitted their guilt in the process of the coverup.

Clandestine

107,468 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten