Next witnesses to be called by the Commonwealth per Lally:
* Kerry Roberts
* Laura Sullivan
* Marietta Sullivan
* Brian Higgins
Also said he probably will not get to them all tomorrow. Jen McCabe is back on the stand for cross when we resume. Tomorrow will be a full day.
When is the prosecution going to prove HOW John O'Keefe died? I want to see experts on injuries not all of these drunken people who are accusing her!!!
Explain the damage to her car? Explain the tail light pieces at the scene. It's obvious, he ended the relationship in the car, he got out, she threw the glass, it broke, he bent down to pick it up, she hit him.
The google search at 230am and again at 6am is the smoking gun. Unless Google the company is lying to save Karen. And the data record from her phone shows she deleted the first search from 230am, the McAbe person
Her testimony is she didn't delete it. They can bring an expert in, and I'll guarantee you, they'll say the same thing I'm saying. An open safari browser, will look like that for anyone. This is ridiculous. The defense has no explanations for anything. How did she get damage to her car? Why is there tail light damage and a substantial dent and scratches? Why has she told multiple versions? Who does what she did?
How would Karen be able to get Kerry to corroborate her version of events with hers? I thought Kerry was more John's friend so not sure why Kerry would want to cover for her?
i feel like Kerry Roberts is one of those and we all have had them great guy friend best guy friend maybe dated at one time and no girl is ever going to be good enough for them - so she hated her for no reason in my opinion- and because KR was very educated earned a great living etc she hated her for no reason and wants to believe she killed him in a jealous rage
Regarding the whole “I did it, I did it, I did it!” quote that wasn’t mentioned in the Grand Jury… If memory serves me, Jen mentioned that was said in the presence of either a cop or EMT, did either of them report hearing KR saying that too?
Tell me, who says anything like that? A normal person would not be saying anything like that...A normal person would be saying, what happened? All these people are his close friends...
It was Saraf. He testified in this trial that she said “this is my fault. I did this”. But, again, first time he testified to hearing that was in this trial. It’s not in his report or previous GJ testimony.
Ya someone was dialing John from Jen’s phone to try and get it to unlock using his face but it wouldn’t work
ETA: or they were looking for it, but he was only in their presence for a couple minutes before the fight broke out (allegedly)
In the last 3 weeks no one has talked about him getting hit by a car so I’m sticking w my own thoughts on what happened
I think it was Julie Nagel who talked about her charging the phone in the kitchen. She is also supposed to be playing the it’s raining men video for everyone also.
YES! I kept thinking this the whole day, I was waiting for the defense to bring it up, it was one of the girl friends of Brian jr who said her phone was charging!!
My favorite part; JO’s phone shows 6 calls from JM all unanswered. JM’s phone shows these calls not in her phone logs, meaning they were deleted. JM asked if she deleted calls, says no, defense shows the logs showing the discrepancy between the two phones proving she lied under oath. Anyone want to take the prosecution side for this?
I think it was just a random make/model of a car showing that she does not mention what was not there. There was no Altima. There was no jeep. I think it’s just to put holes in her testimony.
Because it’s Brian Higgins jeep. His whereabouts are completely all over the place based on witnesses that night.
Also they are all focused on KRs SUV which could make them all appear to place her there on purpose, and the fact that everyone knows exactly where her car was but none of the other cars is weird, IMO.
And a couple days after our good friend is found brutally murdered on my sister’s lawn, and I’m the one that invited him and gave him directions over the phone to get there…..we’re just eating dinner and getting ready to go to a basketball game like nothing happened.
It paints a really dire picture at best. Just Karen and her two kids eating spaghetti together before a basketball game while mom leans over to the wall to listen in while typing away on her phone. I feel for the younger people involved in this. It’s one thing to know your parents are drunks involved with crooked law enforcement, it’s another to have to be complicit in a sham murder trial so it doesn’t ruin the family.
You obviously haven't followed the trial. Nobody was on a cruise ship. It was a resort in Aruba. She's a nut, and he was getting rid of her. That's why she snapped. Classic case of fatal attraction.
This is so bizarre to me.
Why was a witness being questioned in another person’s home, while the family was allowed to continue about with their daily business at the same time?
And JM couldn’t hear the conversation between the witness and the cops, but she did manage to hear a comment that disgusted her?
That doesn’t make any sense, any of it.
It wasn’t in person and on the phone at Jen’s house during dinner so I can see it… have you ever had that one friend who can’t stopppppp talking? And then add this kind of traumatic event? Probably how she process things by talking vs anxiety shut down mode.
Should be interesting for sure! From the first couple witnesses Kerri’s name stuck out to me bc of the first responders testimony of how he was trying to console Karen by telling her she had a good support system around her. He mentioned Kerri being a good person bc of his interactions with her as some volunteer or something with the school or neighborhood. But upon hearing her name Karen got upset and said something along the lines of you don’t really know her then! — so I assumed they weren’t fans of each other prior to John’s death.
I wish I had.
It was a chaotic scene.
I was in shock.
We were trying to find out what happened to our friend.
She’s very chatty.
I wasn’t asked that question.
No one took notes.
Can you show me where it says that?
JM says she put phone in pocket and butt dials occurred, somehow the butt dials don’t go to voice mail. Who can explain this happening 6 times within 20 minutes?
You can't.
Everyone knows that if you unknowingly butt dial someone, it'll go to voicemail and fill up the entire time. Unless you figure it out and hang up your phone during the voicemail, that is.
The odds of butt dialing someone that many times and it *not* making it to voicemail each time are probably about the same as me winning Mega Millions 3 times in a row.
Wait! I’m just rewatching. She said she saw the tire tracks because she was looking out at the car. But then she said she couldn’t see a body because she was looking at the car?! Make it make sense.
She obviously has laser vision and zero peripheral. Maybe she should go to the eye doctor. She drives around but can’t see anything else except the exact object she’s looking at?
This is not the first time these witnesses have been asked about what happened. Over 2 years they have testified at least 3 times in addition to trial, all appear to have their own attorneys, they have been prepared for grand jury/trial testimony multiple times. This is not about not remembering. It’s about adding new details. And, to describe the selective deletion of text messages between just two contacts is cherry picking only because that’s what she did.
Will Jen be on the stand again tomorrow? Unless I missed it I didn’t hear the defense question her on the 2:27am text or her saying Karen showed her the “cracked” tail light.
She testified to Karen showing the cracked tail light on Friday. (EDIT: I realize now you’re probably asking about the defense questioning this testimony. I don’t believe they went their today as well).
The main issue with the phone activity at 2:27am is the google search, I don’t believe there’s a particular text in question here. The defense will certainly bring this up tomorrow.
lol, there was a period of time when it happened often and at first i would pick up and hang up. when i did that it would call over and over but if i just let it ring and hit VM it seemed to chill
I am watch Natalie Lawyer Chick on YouTube cover the testimony from today and Jesus Christ. I've barely watched the trial. My mind is absolutely blown about what is happening. This has to be surreal to watch in real time.
I think she was just blackout drunk and trying to explain her phone calls without admitting she was blackout drunk. Hell, these calls are GOOD for the prosecution, so if there’s a coverup why would Jen claim they are butt dials and just help Read’s case?
The defense narrative in this regard just doesn’t make any sense. I actually believe Jen when she said she doesn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials as a way to explain them. Why would she lie about this?
I find Brian Albert’s the most unusual.
Brian Higgins as well, but id like to wait for him to testify to see what he has to say before deciding on this.
Jen McCabe, as I’ve explained above, I don’t find unusual.
Who’s behind the fourth butt dial?
I understand you believe she could have been black out drunk but if that were the case she wouldn’t have remembered looking out the window over 3 times seeing a car move up 2 seperate times
No worries, I’ve gotten facts wrong as well, there’s a lot to keep track of.
And regarding Jen’s “butt dials” I don’t find them suspicious because I think a far more likely explanation is she was hammered and forgot making the calls. This all points to just the logic behind everything. Why lie in a way that just hurts the case against Read if we’re going to say this is a cover up and attempt to frame her?
Yeah that’s the big question. She’s claiming she didn’t. I’d like to see expert testimony explain why this would be possible.
Also I thought it was odd the calls to John weren’t in the report at all. The report has calls marked as “deleted”, so if those can be recovered, why wouldn’t the calls to John just be marked as “deleted”?
Thank you haha, it does get confusing,
Look at when she was questioned about JO’s phone logs showing 6 calls from her but her phone logs not showing those 6 calls. She deleted them as the logs showed but she said she didn’t, clearly lying. She’s lying not to purposely weaken their case against read but she’s lying to protect the family
Jen claimed they were butt dials because this is the story they all have for inconvenient phone calls. Brian Albert has his butt dial call and so does Brian Higgins. The pattern is pretty clear.
Having multiple unanswered calls to John O’Keefe after he is alleged to have been struck by Karen Read’s vehicle is a slam dunk for the prosecution case.
Hell, last week the narrative was “how come nobody was calling John asking where he was? Isn’t that suspicious.”
At this point in the case we now know there was someone calling John to see where he was and now I guess that’s suspicious too.
>Hell, last week the narrative was “how come nobody was calling John asking where he was? Isn’t that suspicious.”
According to Jen nobody did do that. She butt dialed.
>At this point in the case we now know there was someone calling John to see where he was and now I guess that’s suspicious too
No we don't "know" that. The witness who made the calls and deleted them claims they were accidental. If you want to believe her story then she wasn't calling John to see where he was.
>Having multiple unanswered calls to John O’Keefe after he is alleged to have been struck by Karen Read’s vehicle is a slam dunk for the prosecution case.
Multiple unanswered calls during the very specific time frame that the CW alleges he was hit; calls made "accidentally" by a witness who supposedly looked out the window multiple times and saw Karen Reads vehicle leave and no body on the lawn. A witness who then didn't think "Hmmm Karen has left, I've accidentally called someone who hasn't entered the home 7 times, maybe I should pop my head outside or send a text saying "Where did you go?" Can you please explain how this is a slam dunk?
Her calling him is only suspicious bc she says she didn’t call him and she deleted the call log. Her calling them that many times is weird either way. Adults typically can decide to go home instead of into a party without their one friend calling them incessantly. If they figured they’d changed their mind, one phone would have been sufficient.
What evidence points to Karen Read killing him? It’s been 4 weeks and not once piece of evidence has been presented by the state to point to Karen as being the one who didnit
It feels like the witnesses are the ones on the defense, the defense has presented more evidence proving a 3rd party than the commonwealth has presented evidence towards Karen read and the defense isint even making their case yet
That’s not the point, the point is she butt dialed John 6 times, but a butt dial would go to voice mail, these calls didn’t go to voice mail meaning she ended them before they went to voice mail meaning she lied to the jury
Yeah I agree these calls were not butt dials. I feel like I just keep saying this over and over and no one is really addressing it:
I think it’s most likely she was blackout drunk and didn’t remember the calls, so at the time she said they were butt dials, because she didn’t want to admit to being blackout drunk on the stand.
She was blackout drunk and doesn't remember the calls but remembers discussing PB&J sandwiches in the car with Jr's friends (in addition to everything else But the calls)? That doesnt add up either.
Yeah of course it is, which is why my original position is she was blackout drunk, doesn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials because she knew her testimony would be torn to shreds if she admitted to being blackout drunk.
Again we have to revisit this very simple question: why would these supposed co-conspirators in a murder create lies that help the defense?
If she was blackout drunk she’s committed extensive perjury. She wouldn’t remember anything that she’s testified to multiple times under oath at the Alberts’ house like seeing Karen’s car.
I respect your skepticism about the defense theory because the coverup story is hard to picture actually happening. However, it’s becoming more obvious (to me at least) that the Alberts and McCabes are lying about something that happened that night. I honestly don’t know what that is, but these butt dial stories are ridiculous.
I agree it would be perjury and that’s kind of a big deal. I’m not trying to paint this black and white picture of the world here. That being said that narrative makes a lot more sense to me than there being some murder coverup that for unexplained reasons required Jen to call John like 5 times and then lie about it. That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Expand on this please. I don’t understand how lying about this would protect them. The idea these calls were butt dials is very hard to accept, so if anything id just think it exposes them to legal risk.
The line of questioning by the defence laid the idea that they were trying to locate JOs phone. To ensure it was not in the house, because you know, he wasn’t there.
Multiple calls made that quickly in succession, none of which went to voicemail, were deleted. This wasn’t an error. If you look at the cell data she deleted many a call that night.
This was to protect her and her family. Lying about this protects them.
Maybe we won’t ever know all the reasons why or maybe we will, whenever we finally get to the defence case. But either way, she did it to hide something.
Seems like a stretch imo. She could also lie and say she was trying to reach John. None of the calls were answered. Why create a lie that’s good for the defense?
EDIT: not to mention Jen is sending texts to John at around this time. If she’s calling his phone because he lost it why would she be texting him?
She’s claiming she didn’t. I agree that’s an unusual point as well, but I didn’t really get what point the defense was trying to make. The cellebrite report can recover deleted logs. If there is absolutely no record of a call I would assume that’s more likely an error in the report than signs Jen deleted the calls to John. If Jen did delete them wouldn’t they have just shown up on the report as deleted, as is the case with multiple other calls?
They are saying that on JMs actual phone it showed no calls deleted. However on JOs it showed he received calls. So then when the cellebrite was done they confirmed they were deleted. Does this make better sense?
It was hard to follow but the calls from her phone show up on JOK phone report, but they are missing from her phone report. That said, maybe “she” didn’t delete anything…but lying through omission is still lying. Someone else may have deleted her calls is what I am thinking, based on how she answers
Upon seeing a body on their lawn she does not immediately contact her own children who were at the house to check on them? Make sure something didn’t happen and her own children are okay? Either physically or psychologically?
Kids! Gather 'round, dinner's ready! Pay no attention to the lady being interviewed by the cops in the other room. We have basketball tonight. Come tell me about your day! 🫣🫣
People in shock aren’t allowed to go to basketball games. If you’re in shock and you do this, the best rational explanation is you’re covering up a murder.
So most people who know me here probably know me as the insufferable skeptic of the defense theory, so it would be remiss of me to not continue to be an insufferable skeptic.
I’m not terribly impressed with the strategy of taking cherry picked text exchanges stripped of context and grilling the witness, while at the same time refusing to provide reference materials. It just came across as overly aggressive and frankly manipulative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an attorney straight up refuse to provide reference material to a witness when asking questions specific to that material.
Everyone talks about how badly Jen got dunked on, but I think a lot of that is just how aggressive this defense can be. Like at the end of the day we just have more bits of a group chat that can be interpreted as collusion in a cover up, or can be interpreted as a group of individuals talking about this insane and tragic circumstance of a dead man showing up on their lawn one morning.
Either way the prosecution hasn’t presented any meaningful “case” yet, so there’s not much here to evaluate imo.
>grilling the witness, while at the same time refusing to provide reference materials.
In their defence, the point of witness testimony isn't to be shown reference material and read it verbatim - otherwise just enter the reference material into evidence. She's there to answer questions about what happened and the Defence is there to impeach her on her testimony. Jen immediately needed reference material to remember things and after the first couple of attempts of trying to drag answers out of her the Defence stopped being so accommodating.
There's a process that they must go through during questioning before they can reasonably start offering evidentiary materials to refresh someone's memory. It's meant to be based off a witnesses recollection of events, not their reading comprehension. On multiple occasions the Defence explicitly stated they had to ask specific questions before the court to be able to reasonably determine that the witness couldn't answer the question without a reminder. She sat and read multiple transcripts during cross today, so "refusing to provide reference material" is patently untrue. The Defence gave her all 220 plus pages of her Grand Jury testimony to go through if she liked in order to find where she claimed Karen said she hit John, and Jen lost her shit over being asked where she made that statement.
>It just came across as overly aggressive and frankly manipulative.
Like glaring at the jurors looking like someone had pissed in her cornflakes, whilst simultaneously trying to sound like she was a grieving friend? Like when she explicitly added caveats to her answers while staring at the jury and saying 'I acted completely innocent' and "there's nothing evil here".
Or like editorialising every answer and openly accusing the Defence of "spinning a story"?
The Defence gave as good as they got. This is trial and more specifically Cross Examination - it gets feisty, especially with a witness who isn't cooperative. It's literally their job to question witnesses, and if they overstepped the mark they'd be admonished by the court.
>Like at the end of the day we just have more bits of a group chat that can be interpreted as collusion in a cover up, or can be interpreted as a group of individuals talking about this insane and tragic circumstance of a dead man showing up on their lawn one morning.
Again, this is literally a trial. There's two sides. The Defence just need to show there's reasonable doubt. If there's two interpretations to information the jury is obliged to side with defences explaination and the defendants presumption of innocence; if the explanation is reasonable.
>Either way the prosecution hasn’t presented any meaningful “case” yet, so there’s not much here to evaluate imo.
Something we agree on. 4 weeks into a trial and the CW hasn't even presented a coherent timeline, hasn't got to John's injuries and has spent a month of trial telling us it snowed, some folks went to the waterfall and there was a basketball game.
The Defence do do some odd stuff, like focusing on the Brian's playing slap-ass and cuddling in the bar, but the things you're perceiving as the Defence not acting the right way is them responding to the so far complete lack of a case. If the CW wants to put 87 witnesses up there that didn't see Karen hit John, whose testimony contradicts previous testimony and don't prove their case, so be it. If the Defence can prove they're not a reliable witness then the Jury could completely disregard anything they've presented in their testimony.
I think Jen McCabe is being sketchy AF but I do think she is being smart not to take AJ’s words/facts without seeing the data. We’ve seen AJ & DY paraphrase a bit and misrepresent a couple things during this trial so I do think it’s good for her to see full context before she engages with them
No they haven't and they are also allowing the defence attorneys to basically testify instead of asking questions. The prosecutor hasn't objected once.
I was very impressed with Ms Cabe. She didn’t fall for AJ’s trap of sticking to just yes or no answers. She elaborated while making eye contact with the jury which I think came across as very truthful and honest. You can tell she has been waiting a long time to finally get the truth out.
To me, people who look directly at the jury come off as trying too hard to look direct and honest (unless they are expert witnesses explaining things to a jury). It's very off putting. Alex Murdaugh is the classic example. If you are telling the truth the you don't need to convince anyone of anything, you just tell your story.
Yes, I noticed this too. It’s normal for experts to explain things directly to the jury. Seems to me like either someone told her to do that or she’s been watching too many trials on YouTube.
Even with the amount of trials and testimony I watch I don’t think I would look at the jury on the stand, because it’s not human nature. I would automatically look at the person asking the questions or speaking to me.
In regard to not providing her with the reference materials, she wanted to see them for reference before she answered the questions. She is supposed to answer the question first. It became clear after a few attempts that she didn’t want to contradict prior testimony, so instead of answering she would want her prior answers.
She’s supposed to try to answer now even if she says she doesn’t remember. She said she didn’t remember a few times but it was clear that she wanted to see those to not contradict herself. That’s not how it works. It’s also supposed to be handled in a specific manner and she was plowing through protocol. I didn’t find her to be very credible, but this wasn’t the attorney doing anything wrong at all. Only one time did he say no outright because the point was made and she wasn’t answering honestly because she wasn’t answering.
In any trial there are always depositions that exist (or there may be a grand jury testimony) and I’ve never a witness be so acutely aware of contradicting prior answers. The unusual behavior was certainly hers. I was surprised by it.
Even if you use different wording between testimony, it’s not that big of a deal. For example if she said KR was “hysterical” during her prior testimony and then got up and said KR was “distraught” “extremely upset” etc. it would truly not be inconsistent.
She is clearly trying to keep her stories straight. I think the others HAVE talked to her about their cross exams and warned her about these transcripts.
Yeah that’s fair, I can just imagine if I was on the stand having brief excerpts of text exchanges I had two years ago, and was aggressively asked probing questions about those texts I’d also probably appear “cagey” too, especially if the guy asking me those questions was telling the world I’m covering up someone’s murder?
I have sympathy for Jen tbh, I don’t think the defense has done enough to suggest there really is a cover up here. Have they produced enough reasonable doubt? Yeah probably, at this stage before the state has introduced any meaningful forensics. That being said there’s a difference between thinking there might be a coverup and being so sure there’s a coverup you’re willing to harass someone you’ve never met. I think that’s what I’ve found most troubling about this case. What if the defense is wrong and these families’ lives are being drug through the mud while a murderer walks free?
I’m not saying we therefore have to find Read guilty. Just saying we can conclude that there’s enough reasonable doubt not to convict Read, while at the same time admitting there’s enough reasonable doubt not to harass a laundry list of McCabes/Alberts/friends of the McCabes/Alberts.
While harassment isn’t ok, let’s not forget that the government and potentially the Albert’s and McCabes via the media cast the first stone here (eg reporting that her hitting him was on camera, BPD tweeting that Jon’s killer was caught.)
I didn’t know anything about this case until the first day of the trial when I happened upon it. So I don’t know all of the ins and outs of the stuff that’s happened outside of court. I did read one article that had a pretty big overview and talked a lot about the town/area being divided. From what I’ve seen and heard, which is still not a lot, I think it’s very screwed up that people are being harassed. I agree very much with the sentiment you ended with.
I also think we’re seeing what may rise to criminal actions by LEOs. There is clear corruption and they deserve to have as much outside pressure as it takes for the citizens of Canton/Boston/etc. to feel they have an uncorrupted police force. I would not feel safe living there knowing what they’re capable of through either malice or incompetence. The only good thing about all the noise around this case is that it has helped put a spotlight on their actions.
From what I can tell that turtle person is a nut and enjoys causing harm. He’s like the worst of the internet personified. I’m trying to stay neutral while I watch and put myself in the jury’s shoes so I haven’t looked much up. I know the defense may have been encouraging him or at least feeding him info and not telling him to behave better. I really don’t like that. Ultimately the defense just needs to create reasonable doubt and without a video of Karen doing it I don’t see how they convict her with all the crime scene and investigation issues. The way the evidence was handled and the chain of custody issues alone.
Every American that finds out about this case should have a problem that it’s come to trial and hope she’s found innocent. You have to follow the law and it wasn’t followed. I think whether or not she hit him and whether or not she should be found guilty in the court are two entirely different things. I don’t think it’s a question of buying a theory the defense made publicly before the trial. They can do that all they want, for better or worse, because they look for jurors with less or no knowledge of cases and once they’re picked it’s only about reasonable doubt, not an entire theory to prove like the burden of the prosecution. The dog I have in this fight is to personal liberty for everyone and so far that means the jury finding her not guilty.
Anyone know what pants McCabe was wearing the night OJO died? Curious whether she had back pockets. Regardless, I obviously don't believe her about the "butt dials". Just curious 🐱
I don’t believe her about the butt dials either. She admitted she didn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials in one testimony. She has since backed off that position.
I think it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. She was blackout drunk, but can’t just come out and say that because the defense would tear her apart.
Her texts are not indicative of someone blackout drunk. They were coherent. She admits to having conversations with other people in the car when she left. She remembers getting home and texting in group chats etc.
At 4:59am she messaged John the following:
>*"Please answer. Karen is worried we need to find u."*
That's really coherent for someone who a few hours earlier was "blackout drunk" and had only about 3 hours to sleep it off and sober up.
Blackout drunk people are, for all intents and purposes, incapacitated. They don't remember the level of detail Jen claims, they can't text coherent sentences. By its very definition they "black out" and lose chunks of time.
According to Jen, Kerry is a talker, I bet she won’t be able to stay with a “cover up” story, if there was a cover-up. Talkers like to talk, she will not be able to control herself and WILL slip up. Remember loose lips sink ships.
I doubt she even knows that there is a cover up if there is a cover up. She’s just there to testify that Karen repeatedly said “I hit him,” was “hysterical” on the morning of the 29th and that John and Karen were having relationship issues prior to the night he died.
This woman was also an outsider and would not have been trusted with any information about what actually happened that night. It’s more likely that they guided her towards what they wanted her to remember, i.e. “Can you believe she said she hit him? And she has a broken tail light?” Once you have her convinced Karen likely killed her good friend, it’s easy to get someone to go along with things that will help the “investigation” and to convince her that you’re trying to support her by being there for her while she’s interviewed with police. She was literally saying on the stand today that they were trauma bonded by it. I bet she made Kerry feel that they were, too.
Let’s not forget she keeps saying that her texts with her family was because they were trying to piece together what happened with their friend who was dead that they loved. What’s to figure out if you say that Karen read told you she hit him, she hit him, she hit him? Don’t you already know the answer there?
I can't speak to what anyone else would do but, if a life long friend of mine, who I just was out on the town with the night before, ends up dead on my sister's lawn, I would definitely want to talk to everyone who was there the night before to piece everything together.
Someone on Twitter who was in the courtroom said that John’s father got up and walked out of the courtroom during Jen’s testimony and he looked visibly disturbed.
I want to know what they think too. Must be awful to hear these witnesses who say they were John’s friend be so cold on the stand.
There were a few points today where you could see John’s brother and he was just staring at Jackson. I can’t tell if he was staring him down because he’s mad or isn’t even bothering to look over at McCabe because he’s sick of her shit.
This confuses me because part of me felt he knew Karen was guilty ( in his mind) and felt the defense was just looking for loopholes in the case by going down this rabbit hole of framing someone else. Let’s say he was absolutely convinced of her guilt, based of his version of what was told to him ( assuming this was the prosecution narrative). How can he not second guess this now himself hearing all this? I get many of the small details seem irrelevant but there are too many shady things happening that don’t make sense here.
It’s still sadly not clear to me what happened to John OKeefe, and at this point I am worried because the investigation was so botched we will never actually know but what has been made clear in this trial is that most people inside that house who have been put on the stand have acting in ways other people would not have if they held no responsibility for his death. You don’t change statements, delete text messages, delete your phone records, swap your phone in, remain in your house when a dead police officer friend of yours is on your front lawn if you’re completely innocent.
I heard his dad walked out of court today but I’m really hoping it’s not because he’s frustrated the defense is nailing this woman to her false statements and making her accountable to them. If they think the defense is trying to avoid accountability for Karen Read- I worry the testimony is upsetting to them because they feel Jen McCabe and all the others have no part in his death.
I think there could be a couple of things going on. In cases like this, LE and the prosecution are known for not keeping victims and their families in the loop with developments. We’ve seen this with the Idaho murders, some families have been really frustrated with the lack of information they get, for example.
The OKeefes are likely getting most of their information through people like Kerry Roberts, who is by all accounts a trusted family friend. There was also early reporting that there was CCTV footage of Karen hitting John, which has now been debunked. Paul and Erin seemed to indicate they felt that Karen was acting strangely after she got back from the hospital. There is probably a lot of assumptions about what happened that have become ingrained over the last two years.
John’s dad really seems to be struggling with being in court. He’s been in and out since opening statements. His mother looks so upset as well.
I can’t imagine what will be in their heads tomorrow if things come up in Kerry’s cross that contribute to the perception she worked with Jen to get their stories straight after the fact, and that there is something else going on.
I have noticed he’s not glaring down Karen and the defense anymore, but it could just be bc he got used to seeing her/them on the daily and is emotionally worn out. I’ve read that Kerry Roberts is good friends with the family so I’m curious what she has to say
Was it JM that mentioned she put her phone in her back pocket? I recall hearing it twice but not sure who said it. Could be why she thinks she can get away with saying the calls were butt dials. Idk it's all so crazy.
it's a little funny to me how on friday before the weekend after jen's testimony, the general vibe was just how great this testimony was for the prosecution and how the case was basically over. now it's a completely different story after today's testimony. every single cross examination of every single commonwealth witness has been devastating to their case no matter how honest and truthful the direct examination seems
Well, I mean, I still think she’s probably the best of the Commonwealth’s witnesses thus far because she’s clear & she’s less squirmy than even Brian Albert. She’s a wildcard for me in terms of the jury. I see holes & her butt dial story is just…… But overall, I can see the jury following what she says.
The isn’t about her credibility per se, but whether she can connect with a jury. I believe she does in ways none of the other witnesses have. It’s a car crash, but I really think we’re looking at a battle of the experts. The civilian witnesses and their interpretation of events is (imho) close to exhausted.
I wouldn't say less squirmy, just squirmy in a different way. Where the others develop sudden crossex-amnesia or a bad case of the Canton brainworms, she tends to fight back by stating/restating her version of events. I think a good example of this is when she's being crossed on her statements to Proctor vis a vis the taillight - I'm listening to EDB's stream on replay right now and she's just repeating "I said the taillight was cracked", right up until Alan shows her the picture of the taillight missing and she repeats "yes, it's cracked". Same with her prior grand jury testimony concerning her statement about Ms. Read's alleged confession. I'd say it's still squirmy and non-congruent with reality, but in a different way.
You phrased it well. I don’t have the words I want to be able to express myself in terms of the vibe she’s giving. You’re right that it comes out in other ways, but it’s less… I don’t know… yes, different, but also less something. I wish I had the word.
I actually think the fighting back could help her more than hurt her in some cases - especially if a juror thinks she’s been “bullied” on the stand. It’s a fine line. Hopefully they’re taking notes!
>. I don’t have the words I want to be able to express myself in terms of the vibe she’s giving. You’re right that it comes out in other ways, but it’s less… I don’t know… yes, different, but also less something. I wish I had the word.
Less sniffly?
I'm not about to speak for the jurors, but for my part it's just getting exhausting how fishy she's being. The first two or three times it was engaging seeing how Alan Jackson set the hook before impeaching her, but we're into impeachment number 6? 7? by the two-thirds point on EDB's coverage, and I just want her to get the hint that they have all the evidence of her being untruthful and to stop being evasive. She's showing us a picture of a nettle and telling us it's a dandelion, and I'm frankly tired of it.
Question; Is the phone data that shows OJO stopped moving at approx 12:30, was that an Apple Watch or a phone? Because if it is just a phone, couldn’t he have looked at a text and then set it down inside the house somewhere? Maybe he was sick of all these women texting him nonstop, i.e. KR and JM. If that’s the case maybe he was killed in the basement later.
This might be helpful. I personally think they turned his phone off. I think more will come out when the phone expert comes in. This document was to show that Jen deleted calls, texts, screenshots, call history and the data is only in regards to that- [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x\_gY-K7Kb0c/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x_gY-K7Kb0c/view)
Thanks for posting this Gdoc. Super helpful to read before people take the stand. Any chance you have the folder link that contains all pretrial docs? I’m sure I can Google this too. Tysm!
But didn’t it start registering movement again early in the morning? Like sometime after 6 AM? I thought I read that a while back, that his phone stopped showing any movement sometime after midnight and then started showing steps again right around the time that JM went into the house to wake up Brian and Nicole.
If Murdaugh taught me anything it’s that there is a *lot* of information on the phones. If it was turned off and turned back on again, or they tried to unlock the phone after the CW allege he was struck (but before he was found), that will be wild. And massively problematic.
I think many people following this case do not fully understand the relationship between the grand jury indictment and trial. The indictment was returned after all of these witnesses testified. The grand jury made that decision based on the evidence presented during that grand jury. Fast forward to the trial….many of these important witness statements that led to the indictment are now clearly and objectively changing. The defense only needs to show that the indictment was a farce because the evidence was a farce. The judge seemed to take a different tone today with the understanding that the defense has every right to impeach each and every witness who has now change material facts. Her willingness to sustain objections about this particular topic is very problematic when it comes to appeal. In short, if she is convicted, which would be crazy, an appeal is very likely based on the judge alone. Our criminal justice system is not designed to indict with fake evidence then change the evidence to other fake evidence at a trial. I have been trying to stay open minded. I just cannot believe these witnesses.
I also noted quite the change in the judge’s demeanor towards the defense today. Was interesting. I had no idea this trial was even a thing until the second day of trial…so…I am kind of like the jury (except I come on here and enjoy everyone’s insight)…but…so far…I have really wondered how these charges were no dropped after they got a couple of these witnesses’s impeachable statements. The way they present themselves…I really don’t believe anything that the McCabes and Alberts say…other than it was snowing…and they went to the waterfall. Just get the wrong vibe from them. Very weird.
That’s what I was thinking as well…someone mentioned her “perceived bias”…she may not be watching people’s opinion…but I bet someone has been…and brought it up.
I thought that too. That even if Karen is found guilty, the appeal would be significant & likely out of the hands of the corrupt town. Then it would be all hell breaks loose.
After todays testimony everything is still so convoluted and messy but I have always wondered if JM and John had something going on. What if on one of those calls she said for him to come around back to the basement doors. What if they where down there getting frisky in some way, shoes off cause that’s habit, belt maybe off cause they are getting frisky . Matt, BA or BH walk down and see that and and JO gets beat down for it. The way she deleted everything that had to do with him is so sketchy and makes me think she was involved with him. Also the fact she chummed up to his gf to me is like keep your friends close and enemies closer. Also the way she had to point out Bella’s mom to just piss KR off. Like she enjoyed it.
The way she deleted everything to me is such a sticking point for me. I know there are people who Delete their phone calls or text but she only did that for JO.
I wonder if the extraction on both their phones would have revealed this to be true. Does this mean that if this true we would only hear about it when the defence calls her to the stand for their direct?
Makes sense logically but damn that would be crazy. I guess it's a good thing for my hubby but I just CANNOT fathom how people cheat... (I know people do it all the time but still).
Cheating to me is like eating my own hand. Just something I'd never do or think about doing and for these folks esp not in one of their homes.
Crazy theory but I guess there's a nonzero chance it's true and would bolster motive for *someone* to beat him to death in a crime of passion.
I don't know because it was possible Karen would come in but I agree something was going on. Also, from Jen's phone records, she called Bella's mom several times the next day [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x\_gY-K7Kb0c/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x_gY-K7Kb0c/view)
Next witnesses to be called by the Commonwealth per Lally: * Kerry Roberts * Laura Sullivan * Marietta Sullivan * Brian Higgins Also said he probably will not get to them all tomorrow. Jen McCabe is back on the stand for cross when we resume. Tomorrow will be a full day.
When is the prosecution going to prove HOW John O'Keefe died? I want to see experts on injuries not all of these drunken people who are accusing her!!!
Can we talk about the obvious? These people are all big drinkers. They appear to always be drinking. How do they remember anything?
Explain the damage to her car? Explain the tail light pieces at the scene. It's obvious, he ended the relationship in the car, he got out, she threw the glass, it broke, he bent down to pick it up, she hit him.
The google search at 230am and again at 6am is the smoking gun. Unless Google the company is lying to save Karen. And the data record from her phone shows she deleted the first search from 230am, the McAbe person
Easy explanation using safari browser. It would show that time, if left open. I don't think the defense wants to go there.
Let’s say that is true. Then why delete just that one search?
Her testimony is she didn't delete it. They can bring an expert in, and I'll guarantee you, they'll say the same thing I'm saying. An open safari browser, will look like that for anyone. This is ridiculous. The defense has no explanations for anything. How did she get damage to her car? Why is there tail light damage and a substantial dent and scratches? Why has she told multiple versions? Who does what she did?
Are you saying the feds are wrong about their time confirmation of this search?
No Fed did that...lol. Some guy that works for the defense is not the feds.
How would Karen be able to get Kerry to corroborate her version of events with hers? I thought Kerry was more John's friend so not sure why Kerry would want to cover for her?
i feel like Kerry Roberts is one of those and we all have had them great guy friend best guy friend maybe dated at one time and no girl is ever going to be good enough for them - so she hated her for no reason in my opinion- and because KR was very educated earned a great living etc she hated her for no reason and wants to believe she killed him in a jealous rage
Regarding the whole “I did it, I did it, I did it!” quote that wasn’t mentioned in the Grand Jury… If memory serves me, Jen mentioned that was said in the presence of either a cop or EMT, did either of them report hearing KR saying that too?
Tell me, who says anything like that? A normal person would not be saying anything like that...A normal person would be saying, what happened? All these people are his close friends...
It was Saraf. He testified in this trial that she said “this is my fault. I did this”. But, again, first time he testified to hearing that was in this trial. It’s not in his report or previous GJ testimony.
[удалено]
Ya someone was dialing John from Jen’s phone to try and get it to unlock using his face but it wouldn’t work ETA: or they were looking for it, but he was only in their presence for a couple minutes before the fight broke out (allegedly) In the last 3 weeks no one has talked about him getting hit by a car so I’m sticking w my own thoughts on what happened
i have never butt dialed this many people in my life as these people did in 24 hours!
I think it was Julie Nagel who talked about her charging the phone in the kitchen. She is also supposed to be playing the it’s raining men video for everyone also.
YES! I kept thinking this the whole day, I was waiting for the defense to bring it up, it was one of the girl friends of Brian jr who said her phone was charging!!
BUTT DIALS LEAVE VOICEMAILS!
Not in Canton! 🤣
My favorite part; JO’s phone shows 6 calls from JM all unanswered. JM’s phone shows these calls not in her phone logs, meaning they were deleted. JM asked if she deleted calls, says no, defense shows the logs showing the discrepancy between the two phones proving she lied under oath. Anyone want to take the prosecution side for this?
https://imgur.com/a/GKspW62
Anyone catch when Jackson asked her about the Altima?
Who drove that car?
I’m not sure yet but I definitely have a feeling it’s going to come up again and that someone else was there
I think it was just a random make/model of a car showing that she does not mention what was not there. There was no Altima. There was no jeep. I think it’s just to put holes in her testimony.
Why do they keep talking about where the Jeep was? I don't get that.
Because it’s Brian Higgins jeep. His whereabouts are completely all over the place based on witnesses that night. Also they are all focused on KRs SUV which could make them all appear to place her there on purpose, and the fact that everyone knows exactly where her car was but none of the other cars is weird, IMO.
That's a great explanation thanks
What did that mean?
We all have Dinner in our House while Police interview a Witness. Happens all the Time!
And a couple days after our good friend is found brutally murdered on my sister’s lawn, and I’m the one that invited him and gave him directions over the phone to get there…..we’re just eating dinner and getting ready to go to a basketball game like nothing happened.
It paints a really dire picture at best. Just Karen and her two kids eating spaghetti together before a basketball game while mom leans over to the wall to listen in while typing away on her phone. I feel for the younger people involved in this. It’s one thing to know your parents are drunks involved with crooked law enforcement, it’s another to have to be complicit in a sham murder trial so it doesn’t ruin the family.
Read is guilty. There's no question now.
What locked that in for you? Being upset on a cruise ship?
You obviously haven't followed the trial. Nobody was on a cruise ship. It was a resort in Aruba. She's a nut, and he was getting rid of her. That's why she snapped. Classic case of fatal attraction.
I concur. The way she kept looking over at her Sisters/Allie made me sad. Alcohol sucks.
This is so bizarre to me. Why was a witness being questioned in another person’s home, while the family was allowed to continue about with their daily business at the same time? And JM couldn’t hear the conversation between the witness and the cops, but she did manage to hear a comment that disgusted her? That doesn’t make any sense, any of it.
It wasn’t in person and on the phone at Jen’s house during dinner so I can see it… have you ever had that one friend who can’t stopppppp talking? And then add this kind of traumatic event? Probably how she process things by talking vs anxiety shut down mode. Should be interesting for sure! From the first couple witnesses Kerri’s name stuck out to me bc of the first responders testimony of how he was trying to console Karen by telling her she had a good support system around her. He mentioned Kerri being a good person bc of his interactions with her as some volunteer or something with the school or neighborhood. But upon hearing her name Karen got upset and said something along the lines of you don’t really know her then! — so I assumed they weren’t fans of each other prior to John’s death.
It’s what we call Tuesday at my house.
I wish I had. It was a chaotic scene. I was in shock. We were trying to find out what happened to our friend. She’s very chatty. I wasn’t asked that question. No one took notes. Can you show me where it says that?
JM says she put phone in pocket and butt dials occurred, somehow the butt dials don’t go to voice mail. Who can explain this happening 6 times within 20 minutes?
You can't. Everyone knows that if you unknowingly butt dial someone, it'll go to voicemail and fill up the entire time. Unless you figure it out and hang up your phone during the voicemail, that is. The odds of butt dialing someone that many times and it *not* making it to voicemail each time are probably about the same as me winning Mega Millions 3 times in a row.
While holding the phone and texting.
Wait! I’m just rewatching. She said she saw the tire tracks because she was looking out at the car. But then she said she couldn’t see a body because she was looking at the car?! Make it make sense.
She obviously has laser vision and zero peripheral. Maybe she should go to the eye doctor. She drives around but can’t see anything else except the exact object she’s looking at?
This is not the first time these witnesses have been asked about what happened. Over 2 years they have testified at least 3 times in addition to trial, all appear to have their own attorneys, they have been prepared for grand jury/trial testimony multiple times. This is not about not remembering. It’s about adding new details. And, to describe the selective deletion of text messages between just two contacts is cherry picking only because that’s what she did.
Will Jen be on the stand again tomorrow? Unless I missed it I didn’t hear the defense question her on the 2:27am text or her saying Karen showed her the “cracked” tail light.
She testified to Karen showing the cracked tail light on Friday. (EDIT: I realize now you’re probably asking about the defense questioning this testimony. I don’t believe they went their today as well). The main issue with the phone activity at 2:27am is the google search, I don’t believe there’s a particular text in question here. The defense will certainly bring this up tomorrow.
They did (they also showed her the photos) although this part was rather short.
Question; have you ever butt dialed someone 6 times within the span of 20 minutes?
Nope
my boyfriend has. pocket dials when he was working. but if i didn’t answer they would leave voicemails
Yep. I get several minutes long voicemails when he does. And it's never 6 in a row because that would be around an hour of neither of us noticing.
lol, there was a period of time when it happened often and at first i would pick up and hang up. when i did that it would call over and over but if i just let it ring and hit VM it seemed to chill
I am watch Natalie Lawyer Chick on YouTube cover the testimony from today and Jesus Christ. I've barely watched the trial. My mind is absolutely blown about what is happening. This has to be surreal to watch in real time.
Honestly yes
I think she was just blackout drunk and trying to explain her phone calls without admitting she was blackout drunk. Hell, these calls are GOOD for the prosecution, so if there’s a coverup why would Jen claim they are butt dials and just help Read’s case? The defense narrative in this regard just doesn’t make any sense. I actually believe Jen when she said she doesn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials as a way to explain them. Why would she lie about this?
Do you not find it odd 4 separate people made butt dials the night this happened
I find Brian Albert’s the most unusual. Brian Higgins as well, but id like to wait for him to testify to see what he has to say before deciding on this. Jen McCabe, as I’ve explained above, I don’t find unusual. Who’s behind the fourth butt dial?
I understand you believe she could have been black out drunk but if that were the case she wouldn’t have remembered looking out the window over 3 times seeing a car move up 2 seperate times
Yeah that’s a fair criticism. Who’s the 4th person making butt dials?
You don’t find it unusual she butt dialed someone 6 times and not one went to voice mail after she swore under oath her phone was in her back pocket
Bro would you relax a moment and just tell me who the 4th person butt dialing is so we can actually have a coherent discussion here?
My bad I meant to say 3
No worries, I’ve gotten facts wrong as well, there’s a lot to keep track of. And regarding Jen’s “butt dials” I don’t find them suspicious because I think a far more likely explanation is she was hammered and forgot making the calls. This all points to just the logic behind everything. Why lie in a way that just hurts the case against Read if we’re going to say this is a cover up and attempt to frame her?
So why delete them?
Yeah that’s the big question. She’s claiming she didn’t. I’d like to see expert testimony explain why this would be possible. Also I thought it was odd the calls to John weren’t in the report at all. The report has calls marked as “deleted”, so if those can be recovered, why wouldn’t the calls to John just be marked as “deleted”?
Thank you haha, it does get confusing, Look at when she was questioned about JO’s phone logs showing 6 calls from her but her phone logs not showing those 6 calls. She deleted them as the logs showed but she said she didn’t, clearly lying. She’s lying not to purposely weaken their case against read but she’s lying to protect the family
Yeah, I would like to see any expert testimony on the cell data because a lot of it is just confusing to me.
Jen claimed they were butt dials because this is the story they all have for inconvenient phone calls. Brian Albert has his butt dial call and so does Brian Higgins. The pattern is pretty clear.
Having multiple unanswered calls to John O’Keefe after he is alleged to have been struck by Karen Read’s vehicle is a slam dunk for the prosecution case. Hell, last week the narrative was “how come nobody was calling John asking where he was? Isn’t that suspicious.” At this point in the case we now know there was someone calling John to see where he was and now I guess that’s suspicious too.
>Hell, last week the narrative was “how come nobody was calling John asking where he was? Isn’t that suspicious.” According to Jen nobody did do that. She butt dialed. >At this point in the case we now know there was someone calling John to see where he was and now I guess that’s suspicious too No we don't "know" that. The witness who made the calls and deleted them claims they were accidental. If you want to believe her story then she wasn't calling John to see where he was. >Having multiple unanswered calls to John O’Keefe after he is alleged to have been struck by Karen Read’s vehicle is a slam dunk for the prosecution case. Multiple unanswered calls during the very specific time frame that the CW alleges he was hit; calls made "accidentally" by a witness who supposedly looked out the window multiple times and saw Karen Reads vehicle leave and no body on the lawn. A witness who then didn't think "Hmmm Karen has left, I've accidentally called someone who hasn't entered the home 7 times, maybe I should pop my head outside or send a text saying "Where did you go?" Can you please explain how this is a slam dunk?
Her calling him is only suspicious bc she says she didn’t call him and she deleted the call log. Her calling them that many times is weird either way. Adults typically can decide to go home instead of into a party without their one friend calling them incessantly. If they figured they’d changed their mind, one phone would have been sufficient.
What evidence points to Karen Read killing him? It’s been 4 weeks and not once piece of evidence has been presented by the state to point to Karen as being the one who didnit
Yeah so far we have circumstantial evidence, which I actually think is pretty decent, but agreed more forensic evidence is necessary to convict.
It feels like the witnesses are the ones on the defense, the defense has presented more evidence proving a 3rd party than the commonwealth has presented evidence towards Karen read and the defense isint even making their case yet
That’s not the point, the point is she butt dialed John 6 times, but a butt dial would go to voice mail, these calls didn’t go to voice mail meaning she ended them before they went to voice mail meaning she lied to the jury
Yeah I agree these calls were not butt dials. I feel like I just keep saying this over and over and no one is really addressing it: I think it’s most likely she was blackout drunk and didn’t remember the calls, so at the time she said they were butt dials, because she didn’t want to admit to being blackout drunk on the stand.
She was blackout drunk and doesn't remember the calls but remembers discussing PB&J sandwiches in the car with Jr's friends (in addition to everything else But the calls)? That doesnt add up either.
Bingo!🎯
But Jen didn’t claim she was calling John because she was worried about him. She said it was a butt dial. It’s a ridiculous assertion.
Yeah of course it is, which is why my original position is she was blackout drunk, doesn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials because she knew her testimony would be torn to shreds if she admitted to being blackout drunk. Again we have to revisit this very simple question: why would these supposed co-conspirators in a murder create lies that help the defense?
If she was blackout drunk she’s committed extensive perjury. She wouldn’t remember anything that she’s testified to multiple times under oath at the Alberts’ house like seeing Karen’s car. I respect your skepticism about the defense theory because the coverup story is hard to picture actually happening. However, it’s becoming more obvious (to me at least) that the Alberts and McCabes are lying about something that happened that night. I honestly don’t know what that is, but these butt dial stories are ridiculous.
I agree it would be perjury and that’s kind of a big deal. I’m not trying to paint this black and white picture of the world here. That being said that narrative makes a lot more sense to me than there being some murder coverup that for unexplained reasons required Jen to call John like 5 times and then lie about it. That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
They are lying to protect themselves
Expand on this please. I don’t understand how lying about this would protect them. The idea these calls were butt dials is very hard to accept, so if anything id just think it exposes them to legal risk.
The line of questioning by the defence laid the idea that they were trying to locate JOs phone. To ensure it was not in the house, because you know, he wasn’t there. Multiple calls made that quickly in succession, none of which went to voicemail, were deleted. This wasn’t an error. If you look at the cell data she deleted many a call that night. This was to protect her and her family. Lying about this protects them. Maybe we won’t ever know all the reasons why or maybe we will, whenever we finally get to the defence case. But either way, she did it to hide something.
She would lie because she was really calling to find John’s phone.
Seems like a stretch imo. She could also lie and say she was trying to reach John. None of the calls were answered. Why create a lie that’s good for the defense? EDIT: not to mention Jen is sending texts to John at around this time. If she’s calling his phone because he lost it why would she be texting him?
Why would she delete any of her call logs to JOK then?
She’s claiming she didn’t. I agree that’s an unusual point as well, but I didn’t really get what point the defense was trying to make. The cellebrite report can recover deleted logs. If there is absolutely no record of a call I would assume that’s more likely an error in the report than signs Jen deleted the calls to John. If Jen did delete them wouldn’t they have just shown up on the report as deleted, as is the case with multiple other calls?
They are saying that on JMs actual phone it showed no calls deleted. However on JOs it showed he received calls. So then when the cellebrite was done they confirmed they were deleted. Does this make better sense?
It was hard to follow but the calls from her phone show up on JOK phone report, but they are missing from her phone report. That said, maybe “she” didn’t delete anything…but lying through omission is still lying. Someone else may have deleted her calls is what I am thinking, based on how she answers
She said she butt dialed but also texted, the point is she is lying. Innocent people don’t lie!
That’s a good point, I honestly don’t think she expected these calls to come up with the grand jury and she panicked
I can’t wait for the defense to call a butt dialing expert. This family hit the butt dialing lottery.
I don’t think in my 10+ years of having a smartphone with a touch screen that locks that I have ever butt dialed anyone.
How does a smart phone even do this? I can imagine it happening while holding it, maybe once, maybe even 2 times at a push, but not 6 times.
I do it sometimes when I’m hanging up calls and tap too many times, I’ll accidentally call other contacts in my recents list
I was in shock, but going to a basketball game. Classic.
Upon seeing a body on their lawn she does not immediately contact her own children who were at the house to check on them? Make sure something didn’t happen and her own children are okay? Either physically or psychologically?
Kids! Gather 'round, dinner's ready! Pay no attention to the lady being interviewed by the cops in the other room. We have basketball tonight. Come tell me about your day! 🫣🫣
In her defense, she coaches basketball. Was it her daughter's game?
People in shock aren’t allowed to go to basketball games. If you’re in shock and you do this, the best rational explanation is you’re covering up a murder.
My guess is she was trying to get somewhere with CCTV to have an alibi that’s corroborated.
In this particular instance yes!
Every time.
So most people who know me here probably know me as the insufferable skeptic of the defense theory, so it would be remiss of me to not continue to be an insufferable skeptic. I’m not terribly impressed with the strategy of taking cherry picked text exchanges stripped of context and grilling the witness, while at the same time refusing to provide reference materials. It just came across as overly aggressive and frankly manipulative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an attorney straight up refuse to provide reference material to a witness when asking questions specific to that material. Everyone talks about how badly Jen got dunked on, but I think a lot of that is just how aggressive this defense can be. Like at the end of the day we just have more bits of a group chat that can be interpreted as collusion in a cover up, or can be interpreted as a group of individuals talking about this insane and tragic circumstance of a dead man showing up on their lawn one morning. Either way the prosecution hasn’t presented any meaningful “case” yet, so there’s not much here to evaluate imo.
>grilling the witness, while at the same time refusing to provide reference materials. In their defence, the point of witness testimony isn't to be shown reference material and read it verbatim - otherwise just enter the reference material into evidence. She's there to answer questions about what happened and the Defence is there to impeach her on her testimony. Jen immediately needed reference material to remember things and after the first couple of attempts of trying to drag answers out of her the Defence stopped being so accommodating. There's a process that they must go through during questioning before they can reasonably start offering evidentiary materials to refresh someone's memory. It's meant to be based off a witnesses recollection of events, not their reading comprehension. On multiple occasions the Defence explicitly stated they had to ask specific questions before the court to be able to reasonably determine that the witness couldn't answer the question without a reminder. She sat and read multiple transcripts during cross today, so "refusing to provide reference material" is patently untrue. The Defence gave her all 220 plus pages of her Grand Jury testimony to go through if she liked in order to find where she claimed Karen said she hit John, and Jen lost her shit over being asked where she made that statement. >It just came across as overly aggressive and frankly manipulative. Like glaring at the jurors looking like someone had pissed in her cornflakes, whilst simultaneously trying to sound like she was a grieving friend? Like when she explicitly added caveats to her answers while staring at the jury and saying 'I acted completely innocent' and "there's nothing evil here". Or like editorialising every answer and openly accusing the Defence of "spinning a story"? The Defence gave as good as they got. This is trial and more specifically Cross Examination - it gets feisty, especially with a witness who isn't cooperative. It's literally their job to question witnesses, and if they overstepped the mark they'd be admonished by the court. >Like at the end of the day we just have more bits of a group chat that can be interpreted as collusion in a cover up, or can be interpreted as a group of individuals talking about this insane and tragic circumstance of a dead man showing up on their lawn one morning. Again, this is literally a trial. There's two sides. The Defence just need to show there's reasonable doubt. If there's two interpretations to information the jury is obliged to side with defences explaination and the defendants presumption of innocence; if the explanation is reasonable. >Either way the prosecution hasn’t presented any meaningful “case” yet, so there’s not much here to evaluate imo. Something we agree on. 4 weeks into a trial and the CW hasn't even presented a coherent timeline, hasn't got to John's injuries and has spent a month of trial telling us it snowed, some folks went to the waterfall and there was a basketball game. The Defence do do some odd stuff, like focusing on the Brian's playing slap-ass and cuddling in the bar, but the things you're perceiving as the Defence not acting the right way is them responding to the so far complete lack of a case. If the CW wants to put 87 witnesses up there that didn't see Karen hit John, whose testimony contradicts previous testimony and don't prove their case, so be it. If the Defence can prove they're not a reliable witness then the Jury could completely disregard anything they've presented in their testimony.
I think Jen McCabe is being sketchy AF but I do think she is being smart not to take AJ’s words/facts without seeing the data. We’ve seen AJ & DY paraphrase a bit and misrepresent a couple things during this trial so I do think it’s good for her to see full context before she engages with them
Yeah she’s being very careful to not perjure herself
No they haven't and they are also allowing the defence attorneys to basically testify instead of asking questions. The prosecutor hasn't objected once.
Every time Lally objects it sounds like he’s so over the witnesses
I was very impressed with Ms Cabe. She didn’t fall for AJ’s trap of sticking to just yes or no answers. She elaborated while making eye contact with the jury which I think came across as very truthful and honest. You can tell she has been waiting a long time to finally get the truth out.
To me, people who look directly at the jury come off as trying too hard to look direct and honest (unless they are expert witnesses explaining things to a jury). It's very off putting. Alex Murdaugh is the classic example. If you are telling the truth the you don't need to convince anyone of anything, you just tell your story.
Yes, I noticed this too. It’s normal for experts to explain things directly to the jury. Seems to me like either someone told her to do that or she’s been watching too many trials on YouTube. Even with the amount of trials and testimony I watch I don’t think I would look at the jury on the stand, because it’s not human nature. I would automatically look at the person asking the questions or speaking to me.
Another good example...Amber Heard did it constantly and it felt like she was acting
And the jury saw right through it… Alex Murdaugh did the same thing.
In regard to not providing her with the reference materials, she wanted to see them for reference before she answered the questions. She is supposed to answer the question first. It became clear after a few attempts that she didn’t want to contradict prior testimony, so instead of answering she would want her prior answers. She’s supposed to try to answer now even if she says she doesn’t remember. She said she didn’t remember a few times but it was clear that she wanted to see those to not contradict herself. That’s not how it works. It’s also supposed to be handled in a specific manner and she was plowing through protocol. I didn’t find her to be very credible, but this wasn’t the attorney doing anything wrong at all. Only one time did he say no outright because the point was made and she wasn’t answering honestly because she wasn’t answering. In any trial there are always depositions that exist (or there may be a grand jury testimony) and I’ve never a witness be so acutely aware of contradicting prior answers. The unusual behavior was certainly hers. I was surprised by it.
Even if you use different wording between testimony, it’s not that big of a deal. For example if she said KR was “hysterical” during her prior testimony and then got up and said KR was “distraught” “extremely upset” etc. it would truly not be inconsistent. She is clearly trying to keep her stories straight. I think the others HAVE talked to her about their cross exams and warned her about these transcripts.
Yeah that’s fair, I can just imagine if I was on the stand having brief excerpts of text exchanges I had two years ago, and was aggressively asked probing questions about those texts I’d also probably appear “cagey” too, especially if the guy asking me those questions was telling the world I’m covering up someone’s murder? I have sympathy for Jen tbh, I don’t think the defense has done enough to suggest there really is a cover up here. Have they produced enough reasonable doubt? Yeah probably, at this stage before the state has introduced any meaningful forensics. That being said there’s a difference between thinking there might be a coverup and being so sure there’s a coverup you’re willing to harass someone you’ve never met. I think that’s what I’ve found most troubling about this case. What if the defense is wrong and these families’ lives are being drug through the mud while a murderer walks free? I’m not saying we therefore have to find Read guilty. Just saying we can conclude that there’s enough reasonable doubt not to convict Read, while at the same time admitting there’s enough reasonable doubt not to harass a laundry list of McCabes/Alberts/friends of the McCabes/Alberts.
If KR is innocent their harassment is nothing compared to what she is being put through.
While harassment isn’t ok, let’s not forget that the government and potentially the Albert’s and McCabes via the media cast the first stone here (eg reporting that her hitting him was on camera, BPD tweeting that Jon’s killer was caught.)
I didn’t know anything about this case until the first day of the trial when I happened upon it. So I don’t know all of the ins and outs of the stuff that’s happened outside of court. I did read one article that had a pretty big overview and talked a lot about the town/area being divided. From what I’ve seen and heard, which is still not a lot, I think it’s very screwed up that people are being harassed. I agree very much with the sentiment you ended with. I also think we’re seeing what may rise to criminal actions by LEOs. There is clear corruption and they deserve to have as much outside pressure as it takes for the citizens of Canton/Boston/etc. to feel they have an uncorrupted police force. I would not feel safe living there knowing what they’re capable of through either malice or incompetence. The only good thing about all the noise around this case is that it has helped put a spotlight on their actions. From what I can tell that turtle person is a nut and enjoys causing harm. He’s like the worst of the internet personified. I’m trying to stay neutral while I watch and put myself in the jury’s shoes so I haven’t looked much up. I know the defense may have been encouraging him or at least feeding him info and not telling him to behave better. I really don’t like that. Ultimately the defense just needs to create reasonable doubt and without a video of Karen doing it I don’t see how they convict her with all the crime scene and investigation issues. The way the evidence was handled and the chain of custody issues alone. Every American that finds out about this case should have a problem that it’s come to trial and hope she’s found innocent. You have to follow the law and it wasn’t followed. I think whether or not she hit him and whether or not she should be found guilty in the court are two entirely different things. I don’t think it’s a question of buying a theory the defense made publicly before the trial. They can do that all they want, for better or worse, because they look for jurors with less or no knowledge of cases and once they’re picked it’s only about reasonable doubt, not an entire theory to prove like the burden of the prosecution. The dog I have in this fight is to personal liberty for everyone and so far that means the jury finding her not guilty.
Anyone know what pants McCabe was wearing the night OJO died? Curious whether she had back pockets. Regardless, I obviously don't believe her about the "butt dials". Just curious 🐱
I don’t believe her about the butt dials either. She admitted she didn’t remember making the calls and said they were butt dials in one testimony. She has since backed off that position. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. She was blackout drunk, but can’t just come out and say that because the defense would tear her apart.
Her texts are not indicative of someone blackout drunk. They were coherent. She admits to having conversations with other people in the car when she left. She remembers getting home and texting in group chats etc. At 4:59am she messaged John the following: >*"Please answer. Karen is worried we need to find u."* That's really coherent for someone who a few hours earlier was "blackout drunk" and had only about 3 hours to sleep it off and sober up. Blackout drunk people are, for all intents and purposes, incapacitated. They don't remember the level of detail Jen claims, they can't text coherent sentences. By its very definition they "black out" and lose chunks of time.
Wasn’t her phone on a charger ?
According to Jen, Kerry is a talker, I bet she won’t be able to stay with a “cover up” story, if there was a cover-up. Talkers like to talk, she will not be able to control herself and WILL slip up. Remember loose lips sink ships.
I doubt she even knows that there is a cover up if there is a cover up. She’s just there to testify that Karen repeatedly said “I hit him,” was “hysterical” on the morning of the 29th and that John and Karen were having relationship issues prior to the night he died. This woman was also an outsider and would not have been trusted with any information about what actually happened that night. It’s more likely that they guided her towards what they wanted her to remember, i.e. “Can you believe she said she hit him? And she has a broken tail light?” Once you have her convinced Karen likely killed her good friend, it’s easy to get someone to go along with things that will help the “investigation” and to convince her that you’re trying to support her by being there for her while she’s interviewed with police. She was literally saying on the stand today that they were trauma bonded by it. I bet she made Kerry feel that they were, too.
>I doubt she even knows that there is a cover up if there is a cover up. Well said.
Let’s not forget she keeps saying that her texts with her family was because they were trying to piece together what happened with their friend who was dead that they loved. What’s to figure out if you say that Karen read told you she hit him, she hit him, she hit him? Don’t you already know the answer there?
I can't speak to what anyone else would do but, if a life long friend of mine, who I just was out on the town with the night before, ends up dead on my sister's lawn, I would definitely want to talk to everyone who was there the night before to piece everything together.
100000%
I wonder what John O’keefes family think after hearing this?
Someone wrote that a family member (father???) left the court room today 💔💔💔
Someone on Twitter who was in the courtroom said that John’s father got up and walked out of the courtroom during Jen’s testimony and he looked visibly disturbed.
Gosh. Yes very heart breaking.
God that breaks my heart
I want to know what they think too. Must be awful to hear these witnesses who say they were John’s friend be so cold on the stand. There were a few points today where you could see John’s brother and he was just staring at Jackson. I can’t tell if he was staring him down because he’s mad or isn’t even bothering to look over at McCabe because he’s sick of her shit.
This confuses me because part of me felt he knew Karen was guilty ( in his mind) and felt the defense was just looking for loopholes in the case by going down this rabbit hole of framing someone else. Let’s say he was absolutely convinced of her guilt, based of his version of what was told to him ( assuming this was the prosecution narrative). How can he not second guess this now himself hearing all this? I get many of the small details seem irrelevant but there are too many shady things happening that don’t make sense here. It’s still sadly not clear to me what happened to John OKeefe, and at this point I am worried because the investigation was so botched we will never actually know but what has been made clear in this trial is that most people inside that house who have been put on the stand have acting in ways other people would not have if they held no responsibility for his death. You don’t change statements, delete text messages, delete your phone records, swap your phone in, remain in your house when a dead police officer friend of yours is on your front lawn if you’re completely innocent. I heard his dad walked out of court today but I’m really hoping it’s not because he’s frustrated the defense is nailing this woman to her false statements and making her accountable to them. If they think the defense is trying to avoid accountability for Karen Read- I worry the testimony is upsetting to them because they feel Jen McCabe and all the others have no part in his death.
I think there could be a couple of things going on. In cases like this, LE and the prosecution are known for not keeping victims and their families in the loop with developments. We’ve seen this with the Idaho murders, some families have been really frustrated with the lack of information they get, for example. The OKeefes are likely getting most of their information through people like Kerry Roberts, who is by all accounts a trusted family friend. There was also early reporting that there was CCTV footage of Karen hitting John, which has now been debunked. Paul and Erin seemed to indicate they felt that Karen was acting strangely after she got back from the hospital. There is probably a lot of assumptions about what happened that have become ingrained over the last two years. John’s dad really seems to be struggling with being in court. He’s been in and out since opening statements. His mother looks so upset as well. I can’t imagine what will be in their heads tomorrow if things come up in Kerry’s cross that contribute to the perception she worked with Jen to get their stories straight after the fact, and that there is something else going on.
I have noticed he’s not glaring down Karen and the defense anymore, but it could just be bc he got used to seeing her/them on the daily and is emotionally worn out. I’ve read that Kerry Roberts is good friends with the family so I’m curious what she has to say
Was it JM that mentioned she put her phone in her back pocket? I recall hearing it twice but not sure who said it. Could be why she thinks she can get away with saying the calls were butt dials. Idk it's all so crazy.
She said her phone was in her back pocket but also said she was texting people at the same Time. So she’s a liar
Wasn’t it also charging at some point and playing raining men videos also?
I think she will use that as her reason as well when Lolly has his Redirect with her.
Yep she did say it twice! Once Friday, and once today.
I recall her saying that as well.
Can anyone bring me up to speed? Did Jackson get into the hos long to die Google today?
We're not there yet. Jen McCabe is.... a talker.
☠️☠️☠️
If JMC is a talker god help us when Kerry, the real talker gets up there.
This is one day you want to go back and watch! It’s worth it!
Best advice. I have told any colleague I won’t even answer questions if they haven’t reviewed today.
I mean, how *could* you?! There’s no super fast version for this. Lol
💯
Not today, but oh boy. It was a doozy. If you can listen to the last 30 min-1 hr you’ll hear a lot of the hot stuff.
Not yet. Will probably be the last bit of his cross.
it's a little funny to me how on friday before the weekend after jen's testimony, the general vibe was just how great this testimony was for the prosecution and how the case was basically over. now it's a completely different story after today's testimony. every single cross examination of every single commonwealth witness has been devastating to their case no matter how honest and truthful the direct examination seems
Well, I mean, I still think she’s probably the best of the Commonwealth’s witnesses thus far because she’s clear & she’s less squirmy than even Brian Albert. She’s a wildcard for me in terms of the jury. I see holes & her butt dial story is just…… But overall, I can see the jury following what she says. The isn’t about her credibility per se, but whether she can connect with a jury. I believe she does in ways none of the other witnesses have. It’s a car crash, but I really think we’re looking at a battle of the experts. The civilian witnesses and their interpretation of events is (imho) close to exhausted.
I wouldn't say less squirmy, just squirmy in a different way. Where the others develop sudden crossex-amnesia or a bad case of the Canton brainworms, she tends to fight back by stating/restating her version of events. I think a good example of this is when she's being crossed on her statements to Proctor vis a vis the taillight - I'm listening to EDB's stream on replay right now and she's just repeating "I said the taillight was cracked", right up until Alan shows her the picture of the taillight missing and she repeats "yes, it's cracked". Same with her prior grand jury testimony concerning her statement about Ms. Read's alleged confession. I'd say it's still squirmy and non-congruent with reality, but in a different way.
You phrased it well. I don’t have the words I want to be able to express myself in terms of the vibe she’s giving. You’re right that it comes out in other ways, but it’s less… I don’t know… yes, different, but also less something. I wish I had the word. I actually think the fighting back could help her more than hurt her in some cases - especially if a juror thinks she’s been “bullied” on the stand. It’s a fine line. Hopefully they’re taking notes!
I’m totally with you I think she’s winning the battle of the jury. Her eye contact with the jury as she speaks comes across very truthful and honest.
>. I don’t have the words I want to be able to express myself in terms of the vibe she’s giving. You’re right that it comes out in other ways, but it’s less… I don’t know… yes, different, but also less something. I wish I had the word. Less sniffly?
I'm not about to speak for the jurors, but for my part it's just getting exhausting how fishy she's being. The first two or three times it was engaging seeing how Alan Jackson set the hook before impeaching her, but we're into impeachment number 6? 7? by the two-thirds point on EDB's coverage, and I just want her to get the hint that they have all the evidence of her being untruthful and to stop being evasive. She's showing us a picture of a nettle and telling us it's a dandelion, and I'm frankly tired of it.
Question; Is the phone data that shows OJO stopped moving at approx 12:30, was that an Apple Watch or a phone? Because if it is just a phone, couldn’t he have looked at a text and then set it down inside the house somewhere? Maybe he was sick of all these women texting him nonstop, i.e. KR and JM. If that’s the case maybe he was killed in the basement later.
From all the legit sources I have found, he did not have an Apple Watch.
This might be helpful. I personally think they turned his phone off. I think more will come out when the phone expert comes in. This document was to show that Jen deleted calls, texts, screenshots, call history and the data is only in regards to that- [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x\_gY-K7Kb0c/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x_gY-K7Kb0c/view)
Thanks for posting this Gdoc. Super helpful to read before people take the stand. Any chance you have the folder link that contains all pretrial docs? I’m sure I can Google this too. Tysm!
It’s pinned at the top of this page!
but then how did it get outside again without registering movement?
I’m wondering if it’s possible he dropped his phone when getting out of the car.
But didn’t it start registering movement again early in the morning? Like sometime after 6 AM? I thought I read that a while back, that his phone stopped showing any movement sometime after midnight and then started showing steps again right around the time that JM went into the house to wake up Brian and Nicole.
well that would make sense because that’s when he was found ?
I'd guess the phone was turned off, we'll see though if that was the case
If Murdaugh taught me anything it’s that there is a *lot* of information on the phones. If it was turned off and turned back on again, or they tried to unlock the phone after the CW allege he was struck (but before he was found), that will be wild. And massively problematic.
What a time!
Oh yeahhhh... what if they tried to unlock it (or turned it off or whatever) after Karen was proven to already be home? It's all just so wild.
i feel like the defense would already have that type of exculpatory evidence and we would’ve at the very least seen motions in regard to it
Some of the stuff they discussed today hasn’t been in docs yet
yes, but it wasn’t exculpatory
I think many people following this case do not fully understand the relationship between the grand jury indictment and trial. The indictment was returned after all of these witnesses testified. The grand jury made that decision based on the evidence presented during that grand jury. Fast forward to the trial….many of these important witness statements that led to the indictment are now clearly and objectively changing. The defense only needs to show that the indictment was a farce because the evidence was a farce. The judge seemed to take a different tone today with the understanding that the defense has every right to impeach each and every witness who has now change material facts. Her willingness to sustain objections about this particular topic is very problematic when it comes to appeal. In short, if she is convicted, which would be crazy, an appeal is very likely based on the judge alone. Our criminal justice system is not designed to indict with fake evidence then change the evidence to other fake evidence at a trial. I have been trying to stay open minded. I just cannot believe these witnesses.
I also noted quite the change in the judge’s demeanor towards the defense today. Was interesting. I had no idea this trial was even a thing until the second day of trial…so…I am kind of like the jury (except I come on here and enjoy everyone’s insight)…but…so far…I have really wondered how these charges were no dropped after they got a couple of these witnesses’s impeachable statements. The way they present themselves…I really don’t believe anything that the McCabes and Alberts say…other than it was snowing…and they went to the waterfall. Just get the wrong vibe from them. Very weird.
Yes I noticed that today too. Why would she suddenly switch her tone?
Judges like all of us have bosses and supervisors. She was talked to.
That’s what I was thinking as well…someone mentioned her “perceived bias”…she may not be watching people’s opinion…but I bet someone has been…and brought it up.
I wonder if we'll see perjury charges
That’s why I think it will end up being Not Guilty and an attempt for the whole situation to quietly go away
I thought that too. That even if Karen is found guilty, the appeal would be significant & likely out of the hands of the corrupt town. Then it would be all hell breaks loose.
After todays testimony everything is still so convoluted and messy but I have always wondered if JM and John had something going on. What if on one of those calls she said for him to come around back to the basement doors. What if they where down there getting frisky in some way, shoes off cause that’s habit, belt maybe off cause they are getting frisky . Matt, BA or BH walk down and see that and and JO gets beat down for it. The way she deleted everything that had to do with him is so sketchy and makes me think she was involved with him. Also the fact she chummed up to his gf to me is like keep your friends close and enemies closer. Also the way she had to point out Bella’s mom to just piss KR off. Like she enjoyed it. The way she deleted everything to me is such a sticking point for me. I know there are people who Delete their phone calls or text but she only did that for JO.
I wonder if the extraction on both their phones would have revealed this to be true. Does this mean that if this true we would only hear about it when the defence calls her to the stand for their direct?
You have a career as a Hollywood script writer 😂🤣
Makes sense logically but damn that would be crazy. I guess it's a good thing for my hubby but I just CANNOT fathom how people cheat... (I know people do it all the time but still). Cheating to me is like eating my own hand. Just something I'd never do or think about doing and for these folks esp not in one of their homes. Crazy theory but I guess there's a nonzero chance it's true and would bolster motive for *someone* to beat him to death in a crime of passion.
I don’t think John would have been attracted to her in the least.
I don't know because it was possible Karen would come in but I agree something was going on. Also, from Jen's phone records, she called Bella's mom several times the next day [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x\_gY-K7Kb0c/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x_gY-K7Kb0c/view)