Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

What Yannetti explained tonight on Defense Diaries was basically a masterclass in trial strategy. Everyone wanted Proctor on that stand but the how matters. If the defense calls him, Brennan gets a free second closing argument disguised as cross-examination, walking Proctor through every “helpful” point with the witness nodding...

DixieNormu95224's profile picture

Dixie Normus

6,342 subscribers

51,712 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

JUST IN: Here is the video of Karen Read leaving court after the first day of defense testimony in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial. Karen lost her motion for a directed verdict and Hank Brennan shined on cross. Karen won't be calling Michael Proctor, although she may not be able to get his text messages into evidence unless he takes the stand during the defense's case. Judge Cannone is expected to issue a ruling on Monday as to whether the defense must call Proctor to the stand in order to introduce his text messages. The defense wants to call Proctor's friends to get the text messages into evidence, but that ran into a hearsay objection from Hank Brennan (and an end-of-day motion hearing on that issue). The defense is unlikely, if they are forced to call Proctor in order to get the texts into evidence, to do so, as Read's lawyers would be forced to ask open-ended questions of Proctor on direct (and Hank Brennan could then ask Proctor leading questions on cross).
3:04

JUST IN: Here is the video of Karen Read leaving court after the first day of defense testimony in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial. Karen lost her motion for a directed verdict and Hank Brennan shined on cross. Karen won't be calling Michael Proctor, although she may not be able to get his text messages into evidence unless he takes the stand during the defense's case. Judge Cannone is expected to issue a ruling on Monday as to whether the defense must call Proctor to the stand in order to introduce his text messages. The defense wants to call Proctor's friends to get the text messages into evidence, but that ran into a hearsay objection from Hank Brennan (and an end-of-day motion hearing on that issue). The defense is unlikely, if they are forced to call Proctor in order to get the texts into evidence, to do so, as Read's lawyers would be forced to ask open-ended questions of Proctor on direct (and Hank Brennan could then ask Proctor leading questions on cross).

Grant Smith Ellis

14,237 просмотров • 1 год назад

Prince Harry doesn’t seem to have a good grasp or concept of what justice is and how it plays out in the judicial system. He seems to believe that the defense has no right to defend itself and that no matter the case the defense should just roll over so “justice” as Harry believes can take place. Maybe that’s how it should play out in Harry’s fantasy but it’s simply not reality. Those parents should expect the defense, in this case Meta and Google, to dig through their lives to try and find every crack in the plaintiff’s case to exploit. That’s what attorneys do, and Harry should know as his lawyers allegedly threatened to harm a witness in his case. It’s, to use Harry’s phrase, “bonkers” to say that essentially the defense is evil for defending itself as it’s the very foundation of our judicial system. A fair and just trial means that each side gets to share the facts as they see them, regardless of how damaging it is to the families.
1:03

Prince Harry doesn’t seem to have a good grasp or concept of what justice is and how it plays out in the judicial system. He seems to believe that the defense has no right to defend itself and that no matter the case the defense should just roll over so “justice” as Harry believes can take place. Maybe that’s how it should play out in Harry’s fantasy but it’s simply not reality. Those parents should expect the defense, in this case Meta and Google, to dig through their lives to try and find every crack in the plaintiff’s case to exploit. That’s what attorneys do, and Harry should know as his lawyers allegedly threatened to harm a witness in his case. It’s, to use Harry’s phrase, “bonkers” to say that essentially the defense is evil for defending itself as it’s the very foundation of our judicial system. A fair and just trial means that each side gets to share the facts as they see them, regardless of how damaging it is to the families.

Royal News Network

60,314 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

So you mean to tell me, the one "gotcha" Michael Proctor used on the stand to try and persuade the jury in Karen Read Trial 1, that he "was already scheduled to be on call" so he wasn't chosen to take the John O'Keefe case, was all a LIE?? Why did Bukake call Proctor to take the case if he WASN'T EVEN ON CALL THAT MORNING?? And how did he know that Lank was already on scene? It is so obvious to anyone with a brain that this was a setup. I would be willing to bet my life that Kevin Albert was informed about what happened and asked Bukake to call Proctor and make him lead investigator so that the cover up for his brother, Brian Albert, could be set in motion. Proctor is a FUCKING FOOL and a POS for doing what he did. He was, in fact, NOT ON CALL that morning, but Buhkenik wants everyone to believe the schedule is made the month prior, "well in advance" of the day Proctor was "on call". Except THIS SCHEDULE SAYS OTHERWISE. Liars, all liars. #KarenReadWasFramed #MichaelProctor #Buhkenik #Bukake #FKR #FreeTurtleboy #NCDAO #Corruption
2:50

So you mean to tell me, the one "gotcha" Michael Proctor used on the stand to try and persuade the jury in Karen Read Trial 1, that he "was already scheduled to be on call" so he wasn't chosen to take the John O'Keefe case, was all a LIE?? Why did Bukake call Proctor to take the case if he WASN'T EVEN ON CALL THAT MORNING?? And how did he know that Lank was already on scene? It is so obvious to anyone with a brain that this was a setup. I would be willing to bet my life that Kevin Albert was informed about what happened and asked Bukake to call Proctor and make him lead investigator so that the cover up for his brother, Brian Albert, could be set in motion. Proctor is a FUCKING FOOL and a POS for doing what he did. He was, in fact, NOT ON CALL that morning, but Buhkenik wants everyone to believe the schedule is made the month prior, "well in advance" of the day Proctor was "on call". Except THIS SCHEDULE SAYS OTHERWISE. Liars, all liars. #KarenReadWasFramed #MichaelProctor #Buhkenik #Bukake #FKR #FreeTurtleboy #NCDAO #Corruption

That Girl T

26,008 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Watching Brother Counsel interview Mr. Yannetti and Mr. Alessi - I thought this was a fascinating question/analysis of the Defense’ strategy for Trial 2. As a laymen (haven’t even graduated from Twitter Law School yet) it highlighted the gamesmanship that goes into not only trial preparation but opening statements, and well into the trial. We constantly observed the Defense have to pivot or react in real time depending on rulings or witness statements. Obviously - we have heard zero from the Commonwealth regarding their thoughts on the trial other than Brennan’s comments; I’d refer you to the “Bederow Clips” for clarity. What BC opined, is that Alan Jackson purposely mentioned 2:27 and the Google search as a red herring for Brennan in his opening statement. Perhaps leading Brennan to believe that the trial was going to be a repeat of Trial 1 and the focus would be on the McAlberts and not reasonable doubt? Which, if you haven’t noticed - the freshman (AKR) class of Twitter Law School have been up in arms about lately; somehow qualifying the lack of Defense strategy engagement on the 2:27 Google search, the butt dials, etc. as somehow proving that all of that was debunked. Anyways - just proved again that the Defense Team was playing Chess and Brennan was playing Badminton.
2:08

Watching Brother Counsel interview Mr. Yannetti and Mr. Alessi - I thought this was a fascinating question/analysis of the Defense’ strategy for Trial 2. As a laymen (haven’t even graduated from Twitter Law School yet) it highlighted the gamesmanship that goes into not only trial preparation but opening statements, and well into the trial. We constantly observed the Defense have to pivot or react in real time depending on rulings or witness statements. Obviously - we have heard zero from the Commonwealth regarding their thoughts on the trial other than Brennan’s comments; I’d refer you to the “Bederow Clips” for clarity. What BC opined, is that Alan Jackson purposely mentioned 2:27 and the Google search as a red herring for Brennan in his opening statement. Perhaps leading Brennan to believe that the trial was going to be a repeat of Trial 1 and the focus would be on the McAlberts and not reasonable doubt? Which, if you haven’t noticed - the freshman (AKR) class of Twitter Law School have been up in arms about lately; somehow qualifying the lack of Defense strategy engagement on the 2:27 Google search, the butt dials, etc. as somehow proving that all of that was debunked. Anyways - just proved again that the Defense Team was playing Chess and Brennan was playing Badminton.

RG | LarryLegend

31,416 просмотров • 1 год назад

#KarenReadRetrial Imagine being Aidan Kearney and being so "invested" in Karen Read being acquitted that you are willing to spread absolute fabrications for the defense even though there are documented emails in the case exhibits from Read's own attorney, Elizabeth Little, which confirm Karen Read and David Yanetti have lied and twisted the incident. In the first trial, Michael Proctor testified that when he began going through Read's phone he was forced to stop as he came across attorney client privileged communication. This is 100% absolute fact. Proctor saw two text messages between Read and DUI attorney Jack Diamond which the defense later claimed as privileged per the below email. After the trial in the Vanity Fair article both Read and Yanetti claimed Proctor lied on the stand about this and Read had not communicated with Yanetti. A calculated and dishonest twisting of facts since Proctor never named the attorney in his testimony. So in conclusion, yes Proctor saw privileged texts and yes Aidan Kearney, Karen Read, and David Yanetti are flat out lying. Why are they so afraid of the truth?
0:59

#KarenReadRetrial Imagine being Aidan Kearney and being so "invested" in Karen Read being acquitted that you are willing to spread absolute fabrications for the defense even though there are documented emails in the case exhibits from Read's own attorney, Elizabeth Little, which confirm Karen Read and David Yanetti have lied and twisted the incident. In the first trial, Michael Proctor testified that when he began going through Read's phone he was forced to stop as he came across attorney client privileged communication. This is 100% absolute fact. Proctor saw two text messages between Read and DUI attorney Jack Diamond which the defense later claimed as privileged per the below email. After the trial in the Vanity Fair article both Read and Yanetti claimed Proctor lied on the stand about this and Read had not communicated with Yanetti. A calculated and dishonest twisting of facts since Proctor never named the attorney in his testimony. So in conclusion, yes Proctor saw privileged texts and yes Aidan Kearney, Karen Read, and David Yanetti are flat out lying. Why are they so afraid of the truth?

Julie Carpenter

19,383 просмотров • 1 год назад

Remember that looooong back-and-forth at trial about Karen’s SUV which way it was facing, where it was parked, every possible angle of the vehicle? Cool. Now let’s talk about what wasn’t in Jen’s statement to Proctor on January 29th. According to Sgt. Goode’s narrative, she said she saw Karen pull up, the passenger door open, and the car drive away. But when she spoke to Proctor that same day no mention of Higgins’ Jeep. None...or the car door open The Jeep only shows up later… at trial. Weird how key scene details seem to sharpen years later under oath. In court, they call that “clarifying.” The defense calls it “evolving.” You decide.
4:30

Remember that looooong back-and-forth at trial about Karen’s SUV which way it was facing, where it was parked, every possible angle of the vehicle? Cool. Now let’s talk about what wasn’t in Jen’s statement to Proctor on January 29th. According to Sgt. Goode’s narrative, she said she saw Karen pull up, the passenger door open, and the car drive away. But when she spoke to Proctor that same day no mention of Higgins’ Jeep. None...or the car door open The Jeep only shows up later… at trial. Weird how key scene details seem to sharpen years later under oath. In court, they call that “clarifying.” The defense calls it “evolving.” You decide.

Dixie Normus

16,656 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Mark Bederow’s very first footnote in this week’s filing is putting everyone on notice that despite all the noise about Michael Proctor as of late, we still have not forgotten about Yuri Bukhenik. We have not forgotten about the Rubber Duck scandal of Canton. We have not forgotten that Bukhenik showed up at the homes of multiple women to threaten them with arrest and criminal charges for their speech on social media. Bukhenik’s abuse of power deserves the same amount of scrutiny as Proctor’s does, especially when looking at his actions through the lens of the First Amendment. Putting aside the Karen Read case entirely, Bukhenik had just as much of a part as Proctor did in the specific targeting against Aidan Kearney, who currently faces every indictment for which the Norfolk County DA’s office can attempt to justify. Despite anyone’s claims, Bukhenik and Proctor are the left and right hand of the same body. Bukhenik played an active role in a portion of the damning texts that have been uncovered from Proctor’s cell phone. He also said anything he needed to (whether true or otherwise) to protect Proctor on the witness stand. Was Bukhenik’s sworn statement that Proctor operated with “honor and integrity” purely motivated by the protection of Michael Proctor, or was it, in part, to shield himself? To repeat some of Mr. Bederow’s “free legal advice” toward anyone associated with Proctor’s abysmal conduct (from Justice Served): GET AHEAD OF IT, DO THE RIGHT THING, AND COME CLEAN. ☀️ The public should not feel that the biggest threat to their communities comes from the same people who have sworn to serve & protect them. It is well past time to find out just how deep the scandal of the Norfolk County DA’s office goes.
1:37

Mark Bederow’s very first footnote in this week’s filing is putting everyone on notice that despite all the noise about Michael Proctor as of late, we still have not forgotten about Yuri Bukhenik. We have not forgotten about the Rubber Duck scandal of Canton. We have not forgotten that Bukhenik showed up at the homes of multiple women to threaten them with arrest and criminal charges for their speech on social media. Bukhenik’s abuse of power deserves the same amount of scrutiny as Proctor’s does, especially when looking at his actions through the lens of the First Amendment. Putting aside the Karen Read case entirely, Bukhenik had just as much of a part as Proctor did in the specific targeting against Aidan Kearney, who currently faces every indictment for which the Norfolk County DA’s office can attempt to justify. Despite anyone’s claims, Bukhenik and Proctor are the left and right hand of the same body. Bukhenik played an active role in a portion of the damning texts that have been uncovered from Proctor’s cell phone. He also said anything he needed to (whether true or otherwise) to protect Proctor on the witness stand. Was Bukhenik’s sworn statement that Proctor operated with “honor and integrity” purely motivated by the protection of Michael Proctor, or was it, in part, to shield himself? To repeat some of Mr. Bederow’s “free legal advice” toward anyone associated with Proctor’s abysmal conduct (from Justice Served): GET AHEAD OF IT, DO THE RIGHT THING, AND COME CLEAN. ☀️ The public should not feel that the biggest threat to their communities comes from the same people who have sworn to serve & protect them. It is well past time to find out just how deep the scandal of the Norfolk County DA’s office goes.

Britt Happens

35,332 просмотров • 18 дней назад

It was very interesting to listen to Defense Diaries, in particular when David Yannetti was talking about the Louise Woodward case (and how the Judge set aside the jury verdict in the criminal case). The Aaron Spencer fundraiser, still ongoing, has raised over $10,000 in just 3 hours. Robert J. Alessi and Mr. Yannetti also announced their podcast is "close" to coming on their air. Of note; my father, Fredric Ellis, represented the Eappen Family in their civil lawsuit against the agency that employed Woodward as a nanny.
4:28

It was very interesting to listen to Defense Diaries, in particular when David Yannetti was talking about the Louise Woodward case (and how the Judge set aside the jury verdict in the criminal case). The Aaron Spencer fundraiser, still ongoing, has raised over $10,000 in just 3 hours. Robert J. Alessi and Mr. Yannetti also announced their podcast is "close" to coming on their air. Of note; my father, Fredric Ellis, represented the Eappen Family in their civil lawsuit against the agency that employed Woodward as a nanny.

Grant Smith Ellis

15,234 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

BREAKING: #KarenRead defense reveals that just 5 days ago, they were provided a new report from Yuri Bukhenik dated 2/28/25 where he reveals that in May of 2024 (during trial), he was provided with a thumb drive & a CD containing video of the CPD exterior Sallyport—never turned over to the defense, despite Bukhenik’s report stating that not only was he aware of & had seen it, but he was also told to review it prior to his testimony. The Commonwealth intentionally withheld this Brady evidence from the defense at the first trial, and still didn’t even produce it until several months after the fact. So you’re telling me that the Commonwealth is so easily able to produce this Sallyport video on thumb drives and CD to its own investigators to review at trial, but they still can’t provide an answer to this day of where exactly it all came from? And Yuri Bukhenik knew of this information presumably alongside ADAs Laura McLaughlin and Adam Lally, but still chose neither to turn it over despite the law requiring them to, nor did they choose to reveal its existence at trial? Why would they hide and withhold that evidence? If Karen Read were truly guilty, wouldn’t it just help their case? #KarenReadTrial #FreeKarenRead
3:29

BREAKING: #KarenRead defense reveals that just 5 days ago, they were provided a new report from Yuri Bukhenik dated 2/28/25 where he reveals that in May of 2024 (during trial), he was provided with a thumb drive & a CD containing video of the CPD exterior Sallyport—never turned over to the defense, despite Bukhenik’s report stating that not only was he aware of & had seen it, but he was also told to review it prior to his testimony. The Commonwealth intentionally withheld this Brady evidence from the defense at the first trial, and still didn’t even produce it until several months after the fact. So you’re telling me that the Commonwealth is so easily able to produce this Sallyport video on thumb drives and CD to its own investigators to review at trial, but they still can’t provide an answer to this day of where exactly it all came from? And Yuri Bukhenik knew of this information presumably alongside ADAs Laura McLaughlin and Adam Lally, but still chose neither to turn it over despite the law requiring them to, nor did they choose to reveal its existence at trial? Why would they hide and withhold that evidence? If Karen Read were truly guilty, wouldn’t it just help their case? #KarenReadTrial #FreeKarenRead

Olivia

117,233 просмотров • 1 год назад

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.
2:27

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.

Turtle (𝔦, 𝔦)

10,753 просмотров • 4 дней назад

20/20 Proctor Interview. 20/20 how do you not know basics. McAlberts entered the picture well before Jackson - 4 months prior Karen said it as recorded on a MSP body cam “Strikingly absent from his funeral was Karen Read” - yeah there was a court order to stay away. She would have been arrested …. but I digress…. *** SPOILER ALERT *** Proctor pretends not to know the McAlberts still. Forgot to mention Kevin Albert. Colin. Having Julie as nanny No mention of the bribe Proctor’s bad feelings toward Karen progressed as the case went on… apparently that’s 10pm same day “No evidence” of planted taillight. Absolutely none. Probably bc people didn’t read the weather report he wrote Loud minority are against the corrupt 🤣 they “boo us” crazy ex gf thinking it was them not McAlberts Witness after said John never came in the house - no mention no one (+4 others) saw him on the lawn Solo cups and Stop & Shop - “unusual way” of collecting evidence and may have done “the best they could” Prosecution thinks the sucky investigation (my words) doesn’t impact the integrity of the investigation He’s not biased Proctor says - apparent only the world & MSP said he was “They don’t care what the evidence is” - Proctor (ironically and ridiculously) Texts were regrettable and he was sad bc it was a police office - but imo not sad enough to do a proper investigation “Wouldn’t change a thing” about the investigation Cried handing his uniform over but not performing a piss poor investigation or pinning on the girl It’s the internet’s fault
0:22

20/20 Proctor Interview. 20/20 how do you not know basics. McAlberts entered the picture well before Jackson - 4 months prior Karen said it as recorded on a MSP body cam “Strikingly absent from his funeral was Karen Read” - yeah there was a court order to stay away. She would have been arrested …. but I digress…. *** SPOILER ALERT *** Proctor pretends not to know the McAlberts still. Forgot to mention Kevin Albert. Colin. Having Julie as nanny No mention of the bribe Proctor’s bad feelings toward Karen progressed as the case went on… apparently that’s 10pm same day “No evidence” of planted taillight. Absolutely none. Probably bc people didn’t read the weather report he wrote Loud minority are against the corrupt 🤣 they “boo us” crazy ex gf thinking it was them not McAlberts Witness after said John never came in the house - no mention no one (+4 others) saw him on the lawn Solo cups and Stop & Shop - “unusual way” of collecting evidence and may have done “the best they could” Prosecution thinks the sucky investigation (my words) doesn’t impact the integrity of the investigation He’s not biased Proctor says - apparent only the world & MSP said he was “They don’t care what the evidence is” - Proctor (ironically and ridiculously) Texts were regrettable and he was sad bc it was a police office - but imo not sad enough to do a proper investigation “Wouldn’t change a thing” about the investigation Cried handing his uniform over but not performing a piss poor investigation or pinning on the girl It’s the internet’s fault

Brooklyn James

40,121 просмотров • 1 год назад

Adam Lally was grilled by defense attorney Rosemary Scapicchio on why he didn't demand that Michael Proctor hand over outstanding discovery in a murder case. He had no answer. He said he followed up with Proctor several times but never got it. He said he would normally go to Proctor's boss Brian Tully and ask him for it, but he says he doesn't "recall" if he ever did that with Tully. Despite having several discovery hearing he never once notified the court that the police were stonewalling him on discovery requests. He is blaming the State Police, while also admitting that when the State Police violate the law he doesn't do anything about it. Judge Cannone did not allow this sort of hearing to take place prior to Karen Read's trial.
2:19

Adam Lally was grilled by defense attorney Rosemary Scapicchio on why he didn't demand that Michael Proctor hand over outstanding discovery in a murder case. He had no answer. He said he followed up with Proctor several times but never got it. He said he would normally go to Proctor's boss Brian Tully and ask him for it, but he says he doesn't "recall" if he ever did that with Tully. Despite having several discovery hearing he never once notified the court that the police were stonewalling him on discovery requests. He is blaming the State Police, while also admitting that when the State Police violate the law he doesn't do anything about it. Judge Cannone did not allow this sort of hearing to take place prior to Karen Read's trial.

Aidan Kearney

218,255 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

#KarenReadRetrial RENTSCHLER'S CONFOUNDING ADMISSION During a contentious line of questioning yesterday with Hank Brennan, Dr. Andrew Rentschler admitted that he knew the Commonwealth's theory of the case BEFORE he testified during trial Read's initial trial. For any other defense expert witness in any other trial it would be expected for the expert to have an understanding of the prosecution's theory, but not so in this one. Due to the circumstances in which ARCCA's initial involvement began through a separate investigation by the federal government, the parameters of what ARCCA could discuss with the defense were limited. So too were the materials ARCCA received from the federal investigators which did NOT include the theory of the case: Trooper Paul's reconstruction. Prior to the retrial we learned of the murky relationship ARCCA had with the defense including that they were not "independent", they had received compensation, and they had deleted their communications. We also learned that both Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler were receiving information from federal investigators in violation of a sequestration order during the first trial. Rentschler characterized the information they received during the trial as "evidence" under oath yesterday and stated it didn't change his opinion or analysis because he already knew the theory of the case. This leads to some serious questions: 1. WHO gave Rentschler the prosecution's theory? As per the materials listed in ARCCA's initial report he did not receive it from federal investigators. 2. WHEN did Rentschler receive the theory of the case? Based on his testimony under oath yesterday it was prior to the inception of trial one. 3. WHAT theory were they given? Was it generalized as a pedestrian collision or detailed as a sideswipe event? 4. HOW especially if only a generalized theory was given did additional information and evidence not have an effect on analysis or opinion? 5. WHY if he had the theory of the case would he choose to engage in and testify about testing two hypotheses that had nothing to the theory of the case? ARCCA tested whether or not throwing a glass could break the taillight and whether the head injury came from contact with the taillight, neither of which were even suggested in the prosecution's theory of a sideswipe and fall backwards. Add to this Rentschler's ludicrous statements yesterday about the insignificance of the DNA, the debris field and the taillight fragments embedded in John's clothes, and ARCCA's involvement in this case becomes even shadier. Time for US Attorneys office to shed some light on what really happened here.
0:42

#KarenReadRetrial RENTSCHLER'S CONFOUNDING ADMISSION During a contentious line of questioning yesterday with Hank Brennan, Dr. Andrew Rentschler admitted that he knew the Commonwealth's theory of the case BEFORE he testified during trial Read's initial trial. For any other defense expert witness in any other trial it would be expected for the expert to have an understanding of the prosecution's theory, but not so in this one. Due to the circumstances in which ARCCA's initial involvement began through a separate investigation by the federal government, the parameters of what ARCCA could discuss with the defense were limited. So too were the materials ARCCA received from the federal investigators which did NOT include the theory of the case: Trooper Paul's reconstruction. Prior to the retrial we learned of the murky relationship ARCCA had with the defense including that they were not "independent", they had received compensation, and they had deleted their communications. We also learned that both Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler were receiving information from federal investigators in violation of a sequestration order during the first trial. Rentschler characterized the information they received during the trial as "evidence" under oath yesterday and stated it didn't change his opinion or analysis because he already knew the theory of the case. This leads to some serious questions: 1. WHO gave Rentschler the prosecution's theory? As per the materials listed in ARCCA's initial report he did not receive it from federal investigators. 2. WHEN did Rentschler receive the theory of the case? Based on his testimony under oath yesterday it was prior to the inception of trial one. 3. WHAT theory were they given? Was it generalized as a pedestrian collision or detailed as a sideswipe event? 4. HOW especially if only a generalized theory was given did additional information and evidence not have an effect on analysis or opinion? 5. WHY if he had the theory of the case would he choose to engage in and testify about testing two hypotheses that had nothing to the theory of the case? ARCCA tested whether or not throwing a glass could break the taillight and whether the head injury came from contact with the taillight, neither of which were even suggested in the prosecution's theory of a sideswipe and fall backwards. Add to this Rentschler's ludicrous statements yesterday about the insignificance of the DNA, the debris field and the taillight fragments embedded in John's clothes, and ARCCA's involvement in this case becomes even shadier. Time for US Attorneys office to shed some light on what really happened here.

Julie Carpenter

15,224 просмотров • 1 год назад

In the first trial Officer Barros was called by the Commonwealth But in this trial? Suddenly he’s a defense witness, Why? Because he testified the damage to the Lexus looked minor just “a dollar bill-sized hole.” Now ask yourself If your entire case hinges on a car backing into a man so hard it kills him why would you drop the officer who says the damage looks like nothing more than a scratch? Because the photo (Exhibit 13) doesn’t match his testimony If Barros is telling the truth, then The taillight damage was minimal when he saw it. But the photo shows extensive destruction. So… what happened in between? Did someone else further damage the taillight? Or did the prosecution realize Barros was going to undermine their whole theory and quietly push him aside? Barros isn’t a fringe witness he’s a Dighton PD officer who originally backed the Commonwealth. But once he gave honest testimony that didn’t fit the script, he became inconvenient. So now the CW Pretended his testimony doesn’t exist, and are letting Joe Krowski spin a fantasy about "15% damage" hoping no one remembers what Barros actually said or the fact that they didn’t call him. Joe: “ 15% to 20% was missing.” Barros: “It looked like a dollar bill.” Photo: “I’ve been through a woodchipper.” Jury: 👀
1:02

In the first trial Officer Barros was called by the Commonwealth But in this trial? Suddenly he’s a defense witness, Why? Because he testified the damage to the Lexus looked minor just “a dollar bill-sized hole.” Now ask yourself If your entire case hinges on a car backing into a man so hard it kills him why would you drop the officer who says the damage looks like nothing more than a scratch? Because the photo (Exhibit 13) doesn’t match his testimony If Barros is telling the truth, then The taillight damage was minimal when he saw it. But the photo shows extensive destruction. So… what happened in between? Did someone else further damage the taillight? Or did the prosecution realize Barros was going to undermine their whole theory and quietly push him aside? Barros isn’t a fringe witness he’s a Dighton PD officer who originally backed the Commonwealth. But once he gave honest testimony that didn’t fit the script, he became inconvenient. So now the CW Pretended his testimony doesn’t exist, and are letting Joe Krowski spin a fantasy about "15% damage" hoping no one remembers what Barros actually said or the fact that they didn’t call him. Joe: “ 15% to 20% was missing.” Barros: “It looked like a dollar bill.” Photo: “I’ve been through a woodchipper.” Jury: 👀

Dixie Normus

24,456 просмотров • 1 год назад

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 просмотров • 2 лет назад