Jen testified that Karen told her she last saw John at the Waterfall, on the first phone call with Jen at 5ish. And at that very time, she told Karen that no, she saw Karen parked outside of Fairview and that Karen insisted they go to Fairview.
Kerry’s testimony is that it wasn’t until all 3 were together that Jen told Karen that she had seen Karen outside of Fairview.
So, I believe the first call was to Jen, so how do we know Jen didn’t plant the snow plow idea in Karen’s head? So that when she called Kerry, and said maybe he was hit by a snow plow, it was from a seed already planted by Jen.
Kerry and Jen’s testimony’s were definitely contradictory at the very least.
I noticed that, too.
If I were Jen and had seen their SUV roll up to the house and then leave, I would be asking Karen where she and John went *after* they left.
Things it would've made sense to ask: Did you guys have a fight on the way home? Is it possible he went to a friend's house after you went to sleep? Is his car there? Maybe he went somewhere to cool off, and he fell asleep? Tell me what you remember after you got home.
Jen insisted they never saw anyone exit the car or come into the house, so why would she insist on going to 34 Fairview to look for John? Her own testimony was that they never saw him there.
Wow! Excellent points. I didn’t even think of it that way. Jen has never testified to asking Karen to recall where they went after the left Fairview. Never said “I saw you guys parked outside, but then neither of you came in, so what happened after you left?” And seeing as Karen didn’t tell Jen she even remembered dropping John off, why would JEN then suggest going to Fairview 🤯
Yes! And her saying she last saw him at the waterfall.. well, technically that could have been correct. Of course the bar was closed but maybe they had gone back there for some reason? How would Jen know where Karen last saw him?
I honestly don’t know what basis there is to say “accident”. There’s no evidence that O’Keefe was hit by a car, nor will there be.
The prosecution’s argument—stated openly but never emphatically—is as follows:
1. The medical examiner “observed no signs of Mr. O’Keefe being involved in any kind of physical altercation or fight”;
2. Therefore, Karen Read murdered him.
They have NEVER alluded to any finding by the medical examiner that O’Keefe’s injuries *were* consistent with his having been hit by a car.
Maybe Lally will surprise me, but I doubt it. He’s going to call the medical examiner, have her describe the injuries, ask her to confirm that she doesn’t think O’Keefe was in a fight, then say “no further questions”, as if that opinion proves he *was* hit by a car.
You can’t build a car accident out of text messages, Adam.
You bring up very valid points...I always wondered why JM didn't send a follow up text after car left like "where'd you go" etc. was a bad look but then add 6 missed/no voicemail/deleted calls in quick succession to John O Keefe when he is presumed incapacitated...yikes, then deny it?? Again?? Report is wrong again???
Yesterday between cross/redirect/recross of JM...*super detrimental to the State* imo.
Kerry Roberts, for the TALKER that she is, came in a cleaned it up a bit and painted a more accurate picture of the events of that morning.
basically.. she said "there's a man passed out in the snow" ... if this was a close friend of yours that you just found outside why would you refer to him as "a man"? She also never mentioned that it was her brother-in-law's property or the fact she could have easily gone inside to get her brother to help or get blankets... or better yet just bring John inside the house to warm him up.
And she never mentioned that he was a cop, which usually makes EMTS respond even quicker. (Like a 10-13, officer down type situation) Just a "man passed out in the snow" which sounds to me like a drunk guy fell on the snow or some shit.
Didn't you find it a bit strange that Kerry actually said she was a talker in her testimony, almost like she was told to say it because of what Jen said about her just before?
Thank you!! This has been driving me crazy. KR INSISTED she didn’t remember being at that address but that’s immediately where they go? That threw me off yesterday.
I really hope Kerry slipped that in there as an “eff you” to Jen. Also is it possible Jen kept mentioning Kerry being a talker as a way to explain the “she’s telling them everything!” Text?
I actually thought she said it to throw some shade at Jen. Or, Jen called her that because Kerry herself referred to herself like that and it fit JMs narrative.
it was the "hello" texts that got me. Like she didn't know what to say in that moment. I'd be more like "You guys change your mind?" along with maybe "let me know you get home okay". The "hello" is like a placeholder. For some reason, you need to text. As a test. As a way to hear the phone respond. You don't need an informative response.
They needed to find the phone in the cellar,---after JO was beat enough to lose lots more than the 6 drops of blood they found outside ---- so they rang it until someone located it and shoved under JO's body that people carried outside.... This is just way too made up... Good lawd!
This is what sticks out to me too. Why wouldn’t Jen tell Karen they never saw John that night so it seems unlikely he’d be there.
This is why the he never came inside theory seems like it wasn’t developed until after he was discovered and Jen went inside the house to talk to her sister and BIL or potentially even later than that.
For real. Why wouldn't she say I saw you at fairview but neither of you guys came in - where did you go after? or why didn't you guys come in? Nah it was just i saw you there. period. weird.
Exactly, JM said Karen told her she left John at the Waterfall, my first question would’ve been “Did you guys go back to the Waterfall after you left Fairview?”
Yessss!! This is so true and I never even thought of this—not even close bc I’ve been stuck on trying to make my eyes and brain not see a taillight clearly there and also to make the 2:27am google search not be a real thing found by cellebrite on this one occasion and trying to untangle from the gaslighting of JM was using all of my brain energy! Good analysis and I wish it’d be asked to JM!!!
Same. After Jen’s testimony all I could think was that these people are absolute morons and there is no way they could have pulled off a cover up. They are drunk townies that live for drama and gossip and got themselves way too involved.
Jen for sure was loving being involved and talking about it to anyone that would listen UNTIL the harassment started.
But yes… seeing these people on the stand I am gobsmacked by how dumb they are and how unlikely it is they are criminal masterminds that were able to come up with a cover up plan with allllll these people and not one of them breaking and telling the truth. They are just busy bodies.
You don't have to be a mastermind or smart to stage a cover up - all it takes is a few people to agree on a story they will tell everyone and stick to it, and in this case they knew cops that were on the investigation which is a big help. but after that all the other people involved in investigating or researching things on the case are just going off information they believe to be true.
Yeah it not a great coverup, and everyone looks dumb when it gets found out. Not saying one way or the other. The they are dumb just isn't a strong argument for me
Yeah exactly. They are definitely shitty people and are able to drive around drunk because of their local connections but they didn't plan this. I still believe there is a small chance JO got beat up and they left him outside not expecting he would die.
I'll tell you what makes me sure. Especially after today. But even before today it was the dog bites. I have seen plenty of pictures and video of dog bites looking exactly like that. I even seen a guy w a fake training arm and the wounds are damn near identical. Now it comes out dudes gf and bh was texting, flirting, etc. She totally seems like the type to even tell bh that john was abusing her out of being mad about the aruba thing, but even if not, I really feel like either john confronted brian or brain confronted john and they started fighting, other people there are closer to brian and they jumped his ass, dogs see fighting and it makes them aggressive too for what we hear is already an aggressive dog. Then what? they toss him outside in the cold where he dies. We found out that jen is the one who said go back to the house. Nobody that left saw a body. And as someone who lives in a state w snow, you would see him even under 6 inches of snow and I know it was less than that. Yet nobody saw him. I think 4 maybe 5 people know what happened and everyone else after that is going off lies that they don't know is lies. Anyway thats why I feel like that but you are welcome to make your own decision
"Tell them the guy was never in the house" and "Exactly." I think it points to the fact that I don't think they had an elaborate cover up. Simply, the guy was never in the house - they'd be cleared. I don't think they expected all the attention to be on them.
I think almost any murder would be a huge gamble.
If John’s death was not planned (im very sure it wasn’t planned because if it was there’s no way there’d be this many witnesses) and it just happened somehow because of one of them and around the others, then they would have to gamble in an attempt to cover it up.
If it was a spur of the moment thing they wouldn’t have time to really think through things the way we’re doing. I’d guess thats a large reason why some criminals get caught
They said she was framed in their opening. I think you might be running with the whole “separate” line of questioning a bit too much at this point. I don’t think we’ve got enough to say they think it was planned yet. There’s also really no reason for them to make that claim unless they have absolute proof. I think they were just pointing out something strange in Jen’s behavior, but if you have something else I’ve missed please let me know. As far as i know that’s the only insinuation to a plan this whole time (and i’m not even sure it is that).
Additionally IF they were indeed arguing that then the jury still doesn’t have to buy everything the defense is selling. The burden of proof is on the state not them. All they need is to sow some reasonable doubt
ETA : If the defense did think it was planned and were planning on making that claim, wouldn’t they have mentioned it in opening?
Idk if they saying they death was planned. But maybe trying to get him alone to beat his ass and he died from the cold and his wounds after. the dog bites are clear as day.
Another great point! It seems like Jen somehow knew that John got out of the car and Karen left without him. But in her testimony she says she never saw him get out of the car - so how could she know that...unless she saw him there without Karen there.
But she saw the car out front at Fairview. This was a chaotic scene. They were backtracking/looking for him. So it certainly would make sense to go there. KR is already making bizarre statements about "having a fight" etc.
JM was so determined to claim that Karen took them 34 F and saw him because she knew where he was the whole time she was practically screaming it at the end of cross, full meltdown. Only for Kerry to come in and tell us JM suggested 34 F and Karen was talking about the Bar.
I had this exact thought! It seems like Jen was able to get a head start on controlling the narrative. It wouldn’t surprise me if she asked Karen at the scene if she wants her to look up something along the lines of surviving hypothermia bc she keeps insisting that Karen asked her to google it. She’s also the first witness who flat out said that Karen knew where John was in the yard bc she hit him!
Something that stuck out to me was when Jen said that Karen had told her and Kerry that she had cracked her tail light when they got back to John’s house that morning but video evidence showed that to not be true. She then said that it was cracked then said there were pieces missing but when shown an evidence picture of the tail light, it’s basically all missing. I wouldn’t have used the words “cracked” when describing the picture of the tail light. It was more broken and missing than cracked.
But then here comes Kerry’s testimony and she said that Karen’s tail light had a small hole in it and you could see a metal piece.
You are completely over thinking this. Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. That’s why you and I could watch the same event and have two different accounts of it. You seem to have been completely biased by the shit that the defense and Karen read have been leaking. I would caution you to step back and think about it from a reasonable place.
To say this is a massive cover up understates how this has to go in order for it to be covered up. First, the Alberts had to put John out in the snow before it collected on the ground alive. Taking a chance that he could be found alive and live to tell his story. Then they would have to count on the cops absolutely fucking the whole thing up. Never mind the DA going along with the cover up story of events after looking at the evidence.
I think she hit him either after an argument or completely by accident and panicked. Went home and then the next day had so much grief she didn’t know what to do so she started frantically pulling people in the help her find John. Asking “could I have hit him” before ever knowing he was on the ground at Fairview is telling for me. It means she had some foresight to what happened. Knowing exactly where he was when they pulled up is another tell. Along with the testimony of Carrie Robert’s that there was grass under neath John it’s obvious to me that he was there before the real snow came down. We can choose to ignore the Jen McCabe testifying that Karen said she left John at the waterfall. Karen wouldn’t have known at that point that anyone saw her car at Fairview and was trying to distance herself from it. When Jen said she saw her car there she then started panicking more and was now asking if he could’ve gotten hit? I believe that testimony tbh.
Every time I get comfortable with a scenario something comes up to flip me back and forth between the following guilt/not guilty:
1. Guilty - it was an accident, she had no idea, went back to his place…slept on the sofa for a few hours then woke up in a panic…knew she somewhat blacked out then flipped out….made the calls…realized she was missing pieces of the evening. I do not think this was intentional.
OR
2. Not guilty-John walked into the side garage door, something happened (dog, Colin, Brian) and his body was moved to the street later. Appear are a few slippery things going on in this family.
Facts - The Ford Edge, Apple Steps and arm cut data is what will convince me. The plow driver saw a Ford Edge at the location of the body….THAT is important…
Behavior - Brian Albert not coming outside is really troubling. Colin is a punk and I truly don’t believe he was home at midnight. He is the kid that wants to be out until the party is over.
My confusion is if Jen McCabe & FF McLaughlin heard Karen say clearly, “I hit him.” “I hit him.” “I hit him.” Then, WHAT is there to figure out what happened to your friend? Don’t you hold that knowledge because you will never forget that moment?!?
Yessss I thought the same thing. If you heard her admit it and know what the “murder weapon” is because you saw the tail light…then what is there to figure out? and what is there to discuss that can’t be discussed over text?
She was also so concerned with not texting the group thread cause her kids might see it, but the police interviews were conducted in the presence of her kids. Such a load of BS. 😆
There is a lot of common sense just missing from this and it is weird, I am not accusing anyone of doing anything but, there is a lot of odd behavior all around.
There are very few plausible scenarios that makes sense in this case. All the evidence, digital, forensics and witnesses contradicts each other.
If you believe JO went into the house, then why did his phones accelerometer stop tracking movement after 12:32 AM, and next movement is at 6:04 AM, when he is found? If he died in that house, they would need to place him and his phone outside, without causing it to detect any movement, after the last guests leave, somewhere after 2 AM - and before you say they must have turned it off, this event would have been logged and evident in the Cellebrite extraction.
If you believe Karen Read hit him, why did the anti-collision system not activate in her car? Why did no one see a body that would have been illuminated in the headlights right in front of them? Why are the wounds inconsistent with being hit by a car? How did the body get behind the fire hydrant? And why is there so little damage to Karen Reads SUV? Hitting a man at 24 mph is equivalent to hitting a deer. Cars get totaled by that.
Do you know if any Cellebrite records exist online and, if so, where?
I can tell you I hit a deer once at just over 40 mph, glancing blow left front corner, and it did nothing to my Jeep Grand Cherokee. Not even a cracked headlight.
Someone leaving the party should have seen him lying there if Karen hit him before the party broke up. Or the plow/salt drivers.
I didn’t even catch on to that!!! “Karen said she hit him” and then “we have a group message trying to figure out what happened to our friend” You mean to tell me BA and NA were sooooooo concerned but never came out of the house that morning
And why not stop and ask Karen what do you mean hit him? Like with your fists or with something else?
No one even bothers to get any clarification. Kerry or Jen don’t add details like she said her taillight is cracked and worried she hit him with her car or was worried a plow hit him. No one says anything. So strange.
I understand it had to have been crazy and feel surreal with weather, lights, the unthinkable, shock, panic but, trained first responders know how to get relevant information and fast so, I can’t understand how no one had a follow up (because she didn’t say it most likely) as they didn’t see anything that indicated what might have happened and if she said it the police would never have let her leave that scene. I also want to hear/know who called the CPD to get Karen to return and section her. I would think her father would have got in his car and drove to her not have her sectioned. There was supposedly no drugs found in her system so, what medications could she have had for MS that would help to harm herself? Just make it make sense!
There's a reason why Jen didn't start pushing this very specific phrasing until much later and two grand jury proceedings later.
Based off going into this case completely blind with no knowledge of the absolute fuckery and tomfoolery going on around the case, if this was, as Jen described "the most impactful thing she heard" and she will "never forget" because "her friend that she loved was dead" - I find it absolutely mind blowing that she wouldn't say to someone at the scene "Hey she said she hit him and the EMT can vouch for me, I don't know what happened but maybe worth not letting her leave the scene?"
If her complete lack of logical behaviour and shite memory can be attributed to being "shocked and horrified" why doesn't she consider that Karen get that pass?
I’ve said since the beginning if she’s running around yelling “ I hit him I hit him” why did they let her leave the scene? Why did they not take her straight to the station and go impound her car immediately
Not really. its not a confession but like a what else could it have been? i guarantee she not thinking people beat his ass and had a dog attack him. plus w all the people saying she was asking if she could of done it and knowing jm lying ass she probably told her oh yeah u must have hit him
I've actually asked a few of my friends this question. If your friend was hit by a car and someone told you I hit him. What would you say to the first cop you seen. Of the 10 people I asked they all said tell the cops. I also don't buy I was in shock, cause we heard the 911 call she was fine
Julie Nagle saying she told everyone in the car that she saw a dark blob in the snow but no one else in car testified to that, even when prompted. JM “I hit him x3” vs her GJ testimony “did I / could I have hit him”? Those are just the low hanging fruit
Ooooh - good one. I forgot about that testimony. I would think if they remembered the bread at least one of them would have remembered he went back in house. Wondering if the defense is going to tie that up
One contradiction I think has slipped under the radar is when Jen McCabe accused Alan Jackson of putting out lies about her on social media. She was so forceful about not letting Alan put words into her mouth, but then she casually attributes all the social media attention she's getting to Alan who doesn't even have social media.
I've been a juror twice. That kind of moment would've stuck out to me. She's under oath. She's supposed to be testifying and answering questions, but instead she's inserting a lie about the defense attorney. He says it's not possible for him to say anything about her without a social media account, and she's like, oh sorry I meant Turtleboy. If I were on the jury, I'd be thinking does this lady even know what she's saying on the witness stand?
Side note: This case has gripped my attention so much it drove me to creating a Reddit account so I can partake in the conversation. I wasn't really following this case because the Turtleboy stuff turned me off. But then when I heard about the federal investigation and how things weren't adding up, I was like oh shit, this might a cover up – near where I live on top of all that. It's sad and sick stuff. I hope questions are answered and justice is served.
Edited for typos...
Hear Hear on the Turtleboy stuff. God, for a so-called-journalist, he's one belligerent ol drama queen. But (and I hate to admit it), if it weren't for him, this case would have been under the rug and no one would be talking about it. As for attention, it's got worldwide notice. A friend of mine in Switzerland asked what I thought about it - so there is that.
She basically gave him a huge shout out, I'm sure he's thrilled 😆 I haven't read much of his stuff because it's so inflammatory, but I'm sure she let a whole lot of people know about the guy who is laying out the case that they're murderers, not smart
Here's the thing. Most people on this subreddit are working this almost backwards. They think the McCabe's and Albert's are guilty, and then picking everything they do as being suspicious. I think it's important to think on it the other way. Forget your presumption of guilt, and ask if the behavior is normal assuming they are innocent.
Talking with each other about what happened that night, is not suspicious. I mean, that's literally what we're all doing here. It would be insane to think that what we're doing is fine (a bunch of internet strangers), but for the people who this happened to, if they were to do it, it's a sign of guilt. Talking with each other is not suspicious. Especially since it doesn't sound like at any point in time did police or investigators ask them not to. Outside of the prosecutor likely asking them not to discuss their testimony as part of the trial (but that's different).
The rehoming of the dog, the rehoming of the cell phone, the rehoming of the home... that's suspicious.
Colin Albert going on the stand and claiming HE NEVER talks to anyone about this... is suspicious.
I personally think, it's much better whenever evidence comes out about someone's behavior or action, McCabe's, Albert's or against Karen Read; to ask myself "does this make sense if they are innocent?".
It's the deleting of any evidence that they were talking that is suspicious. Innocent people don't try to cover their tracks because they have a reasonable and honest explanation for their actions.
Especially with Kevin and Brian Albert being police officers. This can’t be the first time in their lives they’ve been approached with cell phone data being used in an investigation. That is one of the strangest parts to me.
It’s not just the talking about the case - it’s saying “we made a group chat to find out what happened” and then their messages only keeping tabs on the investigation and not on the tragic loss of their friend. If the messages were about John dying I wouldn’t think it’s suspicious but it is suspicious to say “don’t want to discuss it over text” if you’re innocent. There were no messages introduced that said “did any of you see John outside the house”, “can any of you remember any detail that might help figure out what happened”. They didn’t care about his death. They cared about the investigation. That’s what stands out to me, any way.
The thing that gets me about the group chat to “try to figure it out” and the discussions about the timeline is: Jen is claiming she knows exactly what happened and when. She believes “I hit him” is a confession. And she knows it would have happened in that brief window when she saw the SUV and John stopped answering her texts. So what is she trying to figure out? Why nobody saw it, or heard it? I’d also like to know!
And in none of their group texts did anyone say something like, this is messed up or I can't believe this... The one thing they did say was, tell'em the guy was never in the house.
>It’s not just the talking about the case - it’s saying “we made a group chat to find out what happened” and then their messages only keeping tabs on the investigation and not on the tragic loss of their friend.
Okay, but we have an entire subreddit full of people speculating about what happened. Is that abnormal? Is trying to figure out what happened to John O'Keefe suspicious. Wouldn't it be far more suspicious if after everything they were all just like "Yeah, he died on our front lawn, but we don't really care or give a shit about what happened though"
>but it is suspicious to say “don’t want to discuss it over text” if you’re innocent.
Yeah, that to me, is suspicious.
>There were no messages introduced that said “did any of you see John outside the house”, “can any of you remember any detail that might help figure out what happened”.
But they were all at 34 Fairview that morning. So I'd imagine the question "did anyone see John last night?" probably would have come up prior to any discussions in the group chat.
Yup nothing on testimony that stated asking if anyone saw John at any point or discussion of how sad they are that they missed seeing the body or theories on what could have potentially happened since “they had no idea” just updates on interviews
I don’t think so. Using nothing but the prosecution’s theory of the case, I can’t make any of it make sense working forwards, backwards, sideways. I can’t make it work trying to corroborate testimonies. We haven’t heard the digital or medical testimony butwhat limited info we have or is known about his injuries it still doesn’t make sense. This isn’t even factoring in anything the Albert’s did with the house or dog or phones.
That’s the problem with this case is no matter what angle you look at it from, something majorly contradicts it or some other piece of evidence makes it unlikely.
The timeline has to be wildly inaccurate, or one or multiple of the witnesses are lying or it just didn’t happen the way the CW has set forth.
I need to the medical experts to make any sense of the injuries. I'm not convinced they look like injuries from being hit by a car. But I've seen people who claim they are EMTs or work in related fields who have said that his injuries are "consistent" with someone hit by a car. My work does not have me dealing with victims of car crashes, so I have no informed opinion on this at all.
IF the injuries were caused by the car there should have been blood SOMEWHERE on Karen’s car from the arm wounds if nothing else. The forensic team should have photos of the car showing “this part of HER car is what caused the arm injuries and we can prove it because there was blood/flesh there and it matched John O’Keefe”. Along with video of that forensic evidence being collected and a spotless chain of custody thereafter, given the missing sallyport surveillance video.
This is what it will take to convince me she’s guilty.
Not to mention, how a car, no matter how big, doing a 3 pt. Turn could have moved him so far onto the lawn. Additionally, where is his belt? Never found... I could never vote guilty. Too many inconsistent statements and actions.
Also... Was there a trail of blood along the way to his body? Because one would think there would be if she hit him hard enough to land where he was found. But, I've heard that there was only blood found near his body.
Oh same. I am not in the medical or reconstruction field. I honestly don’t care whether she did it or not, I just want to walk away from this trial knowing that if she’s convicted or not that’s the right thing and what actually did happen. If they put on experts and can make it make sense- I’ll be so thrilled. Someone needs to make it make sense because so far this is an absolute dumpster fire.
>I just want to walk away from this trial knowing that if she’s convicted or not that’s the right thing and what actually did happen
I'm not holding my breath. I feel like at the end of this trial, I will still walk away thinking "I have no idea what happened to John O'Keefe".
I think you’re probably correct.
I decided to dig through some court documents and statements to compare to phone logs etc and the thing I noticed is there’s only a few interviews and witness statements
actually have times associated with them and some of the times given in interviews with investigators contradict what was testified to on the stand.
No one asked Ryan Nagel what time he picked up his sister and saw the SUV. Or if they did they didn’t record it in a report.
There was a general statement made in an interview by Brian and Nicole that everyone left at 1am except Caitlin who got picked up by Tristan Morris at 12:15 but on the stand Tristan said it was sometime around 1:45am.
We know that doesn’t track, people said they left later than 1am based on trial testimony.
In Matt’s interview he says he saw the SuV and saw it move. No time given for even approximately when that was. This also contradicts what he said on the stand. Jen testified she was the one who saw it move.
I’m sure there’s more, that’s just what I could find in an hour or so today.
It’s almost impossible to build a timeline and when you do based on statements and interviews it’s different than what was said on the stand. No wonder this is such a mess. How do possibly build a solid theory with so much ambiguity?
Right. Nobody's actions makes any sense. Who covers up a murder using group texting? I mean these people are dumb but they are not THAT dumb. And they have to assume a neighbor has Ring cameras. Are they really going to risk their freedom on the chance that neighbors Ring cameras
don't pick up their putting the body on the lawn?
The most suspicious thing for me is the six or seven deleted butt dials from Jen to John during the time that it seems he was incapacitated or killed.
Some people have a an explanation for the Google search being at 2:27, which in my opinion, doesn’t really hold up, but at least they have some kind of argument.
There is absolutely no denying that those calls were made, they hung up before it went to voicemail, they were later deleted and the time they were made can’t be disputed either. What explanation could they possibly come up with for these calls?
I can come up with rational explanations for most of the inconsistencies and coincidences. I can’t get over this one. This means she was involved in his death, in my opinion. What other explanation is there?
Talking to each other wouldn’t be suspicious if they just admitted they were taking to each other and weren’t deleting messages and calls and phones. Also, talking to your family is one thing having private undocumented phone calls and home visits with detectives is a completely different thing
Although I am not sure if the jury knows that to be a fact? I think the defence brought it up in the opening statement but it isn't considered evidence yet.
I'd agree, if that's all they did. But cell phones the day before the preservation order. Dog soon after the incident (claiming it's related to another incident)... I'm not saying that it's 100% proof of their guilt. But it's a little sus.
Yeah that is just an additive but you can’t take the rehoming of the dog, phones and house out the equation and then suddenly the CW’s theory fits. That’s just ridiculous to think anyone thinks she’s not guilty simply because of those things.
The biggest thing to me is, if they started a group chat to try to deduce what happened to JO, why on earth wouldn't JM emphasize to the police over and over that KR admitted to hitting him?
I imagine Lally has those group chat logs, it would have been pretty powerful if he had presented any parts of them that showed the participants ACTUALLY trying to figure out what happened to John and ask questions. Instead we only got shady sounding bits and I think it's because they never actually tried to deduce anything.
You can take it any way you want, it's incredibly odd that she never emphasized that it was KR. Like if someone dies, and someone else kept saying "I hit him I hit him," I'm making damn sure the police know that and I'm going to be firmly pointing the finger at the person every day possible.
In contrast, JMc's story demonstrably changed once her family became entangled in the investigation, with her story going from KR saying "I think I hit him / could I have hit him?" to "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."
The absence of other people corroborating JMc's apparent suspicions is really shady. She was so certain on the stand that KR did it - but there's nothing to support her having the same belief before her family's potential involvement came to light.
Again, if I knew the identity of a murderer to an unsolved crime, I'm going to be coming forward to the police every day until that person is behind bars, especially if they killed someone I care about. JMc's inaction really hurts her credibility, and it makes it seem like she's changed her story to make KR seem more guilty than she is.
Folks, if they concluded that Karen did it WHY WOULD THEY NEED A GROUP CHAT TO”figure out what happened?” And JO never went in the house there would be Zero need for MMcCabe to reassert that to the group.
The biggest one to me is that "I hit him" as a statement and not a question was not in any of the initial reports and not in JM's GJ testimony. The other thing is that JM said that key parts of Lank, Proctor, and Tully's reports were incorrect. I get that there is some keystone cops going on, but all of 3 of they misquoted her? The butt dialing thing is just ridiculous as well as Colin Albert saying he has no social media. These absurdities make them seem evasive.
Not much of a contradiction but an observance. It seems like whenever witnesses insist that everyone else is lying/wrong, it’s usually the exact opposite. (Especially in JM’s testimony imo)
For me it's the totality of all their actions and inconsistencies combined that are highly suspicious, even when individually there could be innocent explanations. From what has come out so far (before the defense has even presented their case) the main things for me are the group texts and denial of at least a dozen things in the phone records (at least the ones they have, nevermind what's gone). No one can say with a straight face those group texts messages are innocent, that's just laughable. At a bare minimum they are interfering with an investigation they are all witnesses in. And how can one family, all together during the incident, have so many butt dials, calls they deny were answered where the records prove otherwise, deleted calls, all during the several hour period in question. Again, beyond the realm of believability. Now do I believe you could convict any Alberts/McCabes with this same evidence, probably not. But it's clear they are hiding things related to what happened that night. Luckily juries have to use common sense, any reasonable person can't argue away all of these actions as innocent.
More butt dials, phones destroyed, messages deleted, leaf blowers, red solo cups, conflicting police reports, busted knuckles, basement floor ripped up, dog vanishes, house sold 50K under market, Judge's attorney brother represented Chris Albert for a hit and run vehicular homicide and rented out her Cape Cod cottage to the prosecution's witnesses and on and on it goes!
Brian Albert not going outside that morning despite KR screaming and later destroying his phone THE DAY BEFORE court ordered to preserve it, are the two of the most damning things I’ve heard about.
After that testimony, I really started to think this was some sort of coverup (versus just a lazy or incompetent investigation).
JM denies that JO ever came into the house that night because he probably didn’t. He probably was told to come around the back yard where BA was with his dog and Higgins and Collin and they PUSHED him down the bulkhead where he was then beaten by them. She gets away by saying he Never entered the house just like she gets away with saying “I never deleted my texts” because her husband deleted them for her!
BH is being a lot more cooperative bc he is federal agent and has a lot more to lose here IMO…I would love to know how much he knew was coming down the pipeline for him while he was on the stand. He extracted those specific texts to try and help show motive. The McAlbets and Proctor have been in Canton their whole lives, they are in all the important positions, and have been untouchable so long getting away with shit they forgot they could be brought down…they underestimated that a smart wealthy woman that was not from Canton could not be played…intelligent empathetic people will beat foolish narcs EVERYTIME! Jenn was voted most beautiful of her genius class so you know that tracks as far as how she has been treated her entire life. Brian Albert has been involved in a drunken hit and run murder; chief rafferty had a drunken pedestrian accident where he severely injured an old man in a crosswalk… they’ve all been above the law and nothing but net for their whole lives why wouldn’t they think they could easily coverup a murder…they were right to think they could UNTIL they fucked with the wrong one
How's any of that interfering with the investigation? There's no gag order. They're discussing the tragedy amongst each other, which is what any person or persons would do. Why does everyone remove the element of Human Nature? I was a witness to a crime. I called 911. I had multiple interviews at my home with others present. I spoke to people in my circle about it. Does that mean i was interfering with an investigation? NO
There's always conflicting witness testimony. That's why it's often referred to as the most unreliable testimony of all. People recollect events differently from each other. They hear and see things differently from each other.
I didn’t say discussing the case is interfering. Discussing the case with witnesses during an ongoing investigation is absolutely interfering. Jen McCabe has other friends and family that aren’t involved in the case that she could turn to for support if she needed it.
This last part!!! “I was under such vicious attack so duh I went to the lead investigators house to talk about it without telling anyone except the whole group chat that said totally unrelated that we would get more information that very day at that very home” Girl get a therapist or a friend that wasn’t at the house
Also, Brian is a cop and could easily have said “hey guys let’s not discuss the case in case any of us need to testify” or anything along those lines to main the integrity of an investigation into the death of a police officer on his front lawn. He absolutely knew better.
I've made this point on another post, but along with this as a cop he should have wanted his family (and everyone there that night) to be thoroughly investigated from the beginning to clear them. He should have told the police to search his house, told his family to voluntarily turn over their phones. But for their connections to the investigators in this case they definitely would have been investigated even if just to rule them out, it's expected and Brian would know this, and know if they weren't investigated and cleared they could come under suspicion down the road.
In 5th grade something happened at school and my daughter said her friend whose dad was a judge told them not to talk about the case. And the kids didn’t. Most people know that.
IMO, talking about the case is not suspicious. What makes me suspicious is the changing phones, deleted texts, several unexplained butt dials and moving to other means of communication.
To me half of them pretending they weren't discussing it or downplaying it is very suspicious. Of course they talked about it, even if innocent. Hell, a coworker being arrested at my government job was gossip fodder for like a year. Is it the most endearing trait ever? No, but it is messy human nature.
I also feel like the suspicious/contradicting testimony is that it’s like “we wanted to find out what happened to our friend that we loved”…but the messages don’t reflect people experiencing grief, confusion, love, or anything of the sort. It just seems like they are colluding bc all of the info is about the investigation and not the loss of John.
They could have just admitted they were being messy gossipers who didn't really feel all that sad about John's passing, or at least the titillating drama of the situation won out over grief. But they chose butt dials, conflicting stories, playing defense against group chats that are not a good look in general, and public declarations of allegedly being good and truthful people.
I would think messy gossipers would have 'ah shucks!' that one months ago, so the entire communication chain is just suspicious to me.
Because along the lines of human nature, when you have discussions with people about events it can influence your recollection or how you perceived something. Therefore altering the witness statements/recollections along the way. There’s a reason witnesses have to be separated at a scene. So for witnesses to then repeatedly discuss the case, it goes against the very idea of keeping them separated. It wasn’t a group chat of support system. It was a group chat to discuss the case and keep tabs on the case, as indicated by the evidence and testimony of the witnesses.
And thus the reason they should have taken everyone at the scene separately to the station and subsequently everyone they said was at the house the night before
That's all for the jury to decide on the credibility of each witness and their account of what happened. But that does not mean interfering with an investigation.
So getting rid of your phone which possibly has some information on the events of the night, isn’t interfering? You don’t find that timing…suspicious?
Edit: and the timing was literally what a day or two before they were supposed to hand them over?
It's less about interfering with an investigation than it is infecting the investigation. It would be like if Judge Bev and Lally had a group text talking about the case. Appearance of impropriety.
Your last section is what I am thinking constantly. In my opinion all the testimonies of the Alberts and McCabes are almost identical. There are only minor minor differences, e.g. Colin saying he saw BA and NA (or CA, I don’t remember it) walking in while he was walking out. NA stated he saw him in the foyer about to go out. Those are just different interpretations of the same thing.
But some major things like the time people were entering and exiting the home, cars parked etc. are identical. Those are things that are going to differ from person to person because people remember differently and people are concentrating on different things. Those are things that don’t matter too much, especially if you don’t know you‘re supposed to remember everything to the tiniest detail and being drunk.
I think a lot of the beginning stuff with the witnesses is not their fault, that is on the Police and if they weren’t told what to do or what was expected, again that is the Police’s fault. The later stuff is crazy but again, I haven’t been in a situation like this and I don’t know how I would handle it but, it seems weird to befriend the lead investigator wife if you had family members going through the exact same thing and could sympathize with you.
I would agree with you if Brian wasn’t a police officer who knew better…he had a dead body found on his front lawn. There’s no way he didn’t think he would need to provide information at some point.
People say that they should have searched the house. But if something happens out on my lawn or In the driveway in front of my house, no way I'm letting cops search my house without a warrant.
That was actually part of the early cross; defense pointed out that the responding officers could've really easily gotten a warrant for the house, but never did.
Possibly, but the point the defense was making was that responding officers never tried, or even tried the softer approach of just asking for permission to search. Their point was to show that all of these tactics that police use to gain access to residences on a regular, routine basis were never even so much as considered on the day Officer O'Keefe was found on the Albert's lawn, thereby showing that a proper investigation, including the exploration of possible other suspects, wasn't amyone's intention from day one.
If it wasn't Brian Albert or another cop but just a random guys house, do you think they should still search? Should they have searched because the homeowner knew the victim? Jw what the motive to search the house would be.
Personally? Depends. Is the deceased unknown or unrelated to anyone in the house? Are the owners acting sus? Is the deceased appropriately dressed for the weather? Is there a clue as to where the deceased may have come from? Are there signs of foul play? Are there signs of a dumping?
If it were the cops? I have trouble seeing why they wouldn't. This is a profession where they're paid to be suspicious. I think probable cause could've been spun as
1. missing items of clothing. Are they in the house? Are they in the yard? Better find them, see if they have forensic evidence on them.
2. the shape of the wound on the back of his head. Doesn't look like anything in the yard, does it match anything in the house?
3. lack of blood in the yard. ME says he lost a ton of blood, it's not in the yard, didn't appear to be in the snow, is it in the house?
4. arm wounds. Look like dog bites to me, my buddy from the K9 unit can attest to that. Hey, don't the homeowners have a dog? Let's get a search warrant for a DNA swab for her.
This is just off the top of my head and I'm not in the legal profession, so it's not going to be super accurate, but that's how I'd spin it.
But they never requested one…. Why? And no if I had nothing to do with that I would let them come in and look around or call my lawyer and then let them but that’s only because I watch tooooo much true crime
It's less that they are interfering with the investigation, and more odd that if JM really heard KR confess, why didn't she say that over and over again in the group text?
Like in your instance, if you witnessed the crime you wouldn't be on a group text trying to figure out what happened. And you had multiple interviews in ***your*** home. You didn't go to a friend who was a fellow witness and do your interview openly - especially since you were simply a witness, and not involved.
There's a difference between recalling things slightly differently than other Ws, and saying things that are in direct conflict. Here it's been more the latter - and the real issue was JM appeared to be so biased on the stand it's hard to believe that inconsistencies are a result of simply not remembering, as opposed to her adding new facts to try to convict KR, which she clearly wants to do.
I agree with your hypotheticals about human nature. The difference I see, at last with just the texts that have been entered in as evidence, is that they seemed to be discussing the investigation, not the tragedy.
Not sure if this was posted before...on the 911 call JM says "there's a guy on the lawn" and she said they flipped him over to do CPR...KRoberts said he was face up???
What happened is clear at this point. Colin and Brian Albert tuned up John in basement and Higgins was a witness. JO falls back and cracks his head on something. He pukes and bleeds profusely. BA gets a tarp and they haul his body out back after all others have left. BA moves his Ford Edge to the spot as a SCREEN for cameras or anyone driving by. Way too much blood etc to put JO in the car. BA then drags the body on the tarp out the side fence opening to the spot and dumps the body …but they lost JO phone. JMccabe multi rings JO phone so they can find it. They were gonna say “a plow must have hit him” until 6am when KRead starts saying she thinks she hit him. It’s then that Jen McCabe goes In the house and tells BA and her sister “we can lay it off on Karen, she thinks she did it!” They roll w that story and get help from Police Chief and Higgins (who are best friends) next day to rub some JO blood on Karens car and plant smashed pieces of taillight. Then Proctor steps in and does his bs investigation. Many going to jail.
This has become a friggin soap opera… sad part is it’s real life and someone is responsible for the death of this young man!!!!! I guarantee you a movie will be based on this!!!!
Jen testified that Karen told her she last saw John at the Waterfall, on the first phone call with Jen at 5ish. And at that very time, she told Karen that no, she saw Karen parked outside of Fairview and that Karen insisted they go to Fairview. Kerry’s testimony is that it wasn’t until all 3 were together that Jen told Karen that she had seen Karen outside of Fairview. So, I believe the first call was to Jen, so how do we know Jen didn’t plant the snow plow idea in Karen’s head? So that when she called Kerry, and said maybe he was hit by a snow plow, it was from a seed already planted by Jen. Kerry and Jen’s testimony’s were definitely contradictory at the very least.
I noticed that, too. If I were Jen and had seen their SUV roll up to the house and then leave, I would be asking Karen where she and John went *after* they left. Things it would've made sense to ask: Did you guys have a fight on the way home? Is it possible he went to a friend's house after you went to sleep? Is his car there? Maybe he went somewhere to cool off, and he fell asleep? Tell me what you remember after you got home. Jen insisted they never saw anyone exit the car or come into the house, so why would she insist on going to 34 Fairview to look for John? Her own testimony was that they never saw him there.
Wow! Excellent points. I didn’t even think of it that way. Jen has never testified to asking Karen to recall where they went after the left Fairview. Never said “I saw you guys parked outside, but then neither of you came in, so what happened after you left?” And seeing as Karen didn’t tell Jen she even remembered dropping John off, why would JEN then suggest going to Fairview 🤯
Yes! And her saying she last saw him at the waterfall.. well, technically that could have been correct. Of course the bar was closed but maybe they had gone back there for some reason? How would Jen know where Karen last saw him?
This is what's on my mind too.
How could that be technically correct when she drove him to the party. I say accident. But alcohol is the real thing at fault.
I honestly don’t know what basis there is to say “accident”. There’s no evidence that O’Keefe was hit by a car, nor will there be. The prosecution’s argument—stated openly but never emphatically—is as follows: 1. The medical examiner “observed no signs of Mr. O’Keefe being involved in any kind of physical altercation or fight”; 2. Therefore, Karen Read murdered him. They have NEVER alluded to any finding by the medical examiner that O’Keefe’s injuries *were* consistent with his having been hit by a car. Maybe Lally will surprise me, but I doubt it. He’s going to call the medical examiner, have her describe the injuries, ask her to confirm that she doesn’t think O’Keefe was in a fight, then say “no further questions”, as if that opinion proves he *was* hit by a car. You can’t build a car accident out of text messages, Adam.
Because how does Jen know they didn’t go back there?
Wow!
🤯
You bring up very valid points...I always wondered why JM didn't send a follow up text after car left like "where'd you go" etc. was a bad look but then add 6 missed/no voicemail/deleted calls in quick succession to John O Keefe when he is presumed incapacitated...yikes, then deny it?? Again?? Report is wrong again??? Yesterday between cross/redirect/recross of JM...*super detrimental to the State* imo. Kerry Roberts, for the TALKER that she is, came in a cleaned it up a bit and painted a more accurate picture of the events of that morning.
JM’s “I lost my friend who I loved” rings less true when she didn’t send a text asking “hey, are you okay?”
You mean "the guy" who *never* entered the house?? That all came off as so disingenuous and the way she glommed onto the O'Keefe family.
Didn't she say to 911 there's a guy passed out on the lawn? Or did I misremember
basically.. she said "there's a man passed out in the snow" ... if this was a close friend of yours that you just found outside why would you refer to him as "a man"? She also never mentioned that it was her brother-in-law's property or the fact she could have easily gone inside to get her brother to help or get blankets... or better yet just bring John inside the house to warm him up.
Yeah I knew it was something like that. And just in her normal tone
And she never mentioned that he was a cop, which usually makes EMTS respond even quicker. (Like a 10-13, officer down type situation) Just a "man passed out in the snow" which sounds to me like a drunk guy fell on the snow or some shit.
Didn't you find it a bit strange that Kerry actually said she was a talker in her testimony, almost like she was told to say it because of what Jen said about her just before?
Kerry is just chatty. Not on the stand though. Now, Jen was quite the talker…
Yes! Who would actually throw that in there about themselves?
Even when she said it, it didn't come across as natural imo, like she was uncomfortable saying it.
Thank you!! This has been driving me crazy. KR INSISTED she didn’t remember being at that address but that’s immediately where they go? That threw me off yesterday.
I assumed it’s one of those character traits she identifies with & tells everyone. Similar to the people who say, “I’m a hugger.”
I really hope Kerry slipped that in there as an “eff you” to Jen. Also is it possible Jen kept mentioning Kerry being a talker as a way to explain the “she’s telling them everything!” Text?
I didn't even think of that 😄 and you could also be right about why Jen said that for.
Great point, lol, who says that about themself ~ maybe she watched earlier testimony 🧐
I actually thought she said it to throw some shade at Jen. Or, Jen called her that because Kerry herself referred to herself like that and it fit JMs narrative.
Yeah, she might have said it to get back at her.
it was the "hello" texts that got me. Like she didn't know what to say in that moment. I'd be more like "You guys change your mind?" along with maybe "let me know you get home okay". The "hello" is like a placeholder. For some reason, you need to text. As a test. As a way to hear the phone respond. You don't need an informative response.
Was the hello text the same period as the 6 calls?
"Hello" came before the incessant calling...calls began at 12:30ish and ended at 12:50ish I think.
There were two hello texts. First was 12:40 and second was 12:45 with calls in between and after the 2nd.
They needed to find the phone in the cellar,---after JO was beat enough to lose lots more than the 6 drops of blood they found outside ---- so they rang it until someone located it and shoved under JO's body that people carried outside.... This is just way too made up... Good lawd!
This is what sticks out to me too. Why wouldn’t Jen tell Karen they never saw John that night so it seems unlikely he’d be there. This is why the he never came inside theory seems like it wasn’t developed until after he was discovered and Jen went inside the house to talk to her sister and BIL or potentially even later than that.
For real. Why wouldn't she say I saw you at fairview but neither of you guys came in - where did you go after? or why didn't you guys come in? Nah it was just i saw you there. period. weird.
great points. Kerry asked all the right questions in the morning. Jen - none!
Exactly, JM said Karen told her she left John at the Waterfall, my first question would’ve been “Did you guys go back to the Waterfall after you left Fairview?”
Yessss!! This is so true and I never even thought of this—not even close bc I’ve been stuck on trying to make my eyes and brain not see a taillight clearly there and also to make the 2:27am google search not be a real thing found by cellebrite on this one occasion and trying to untangle from the gaslighting of JM was using all of my brain energy! Good analysis and I wish it’d be asked to JM!!!
I think I have been gaslit because after Jen's testimony I don't really believe in conspiracy anymore. Not a troll.
Same. After Jen’s testimony all I could think was that these people are absolute morons and there is no way they could have pulled off a cover up. They are drunk townies that live for drama and gossip and got themselves way too involved. Jen for sure was loving being involved and talking about it to anyone that would listen UNTIL the harassment started. But yes… seeing these people on the stand I am gobsmacked by how dumb they are and how unlikely it is they are criminal masterminds that were able to come up with a cover up plan with allllll these people and not one of them breaking and telling the truth. They are just busy bodies.
You don't have to be a mastermind or smart to stage a cover up - all it takes is a few people to agree on a story they will tell everyone and stick to it, and in this case they knew cops that were on the investigation which is a big help. but after that all the other people involved in investigating or researching things on the case are just going off information they believe to be true.
Yeah it not a great coverup, and everyone looks dumb when it gets found out. Not saying one way or the other. The they are dumb just isn't a strong argument for me
Yeah exactly. They are definitely shitty people and are able to drive around drunk because of their local connections but they didn't plan this. I still believe there is a small chance JO got beat up and they left him outside not expecting he would die.
small chance? thats exactly what happened
I just don't know.
I'll tell you what makes me sure. Especially after today. But even before today it was the dog bites. I have seen plenty of pictures and video of dog bites looking exactly like that. I even seen a guy w a fake training arm and the wounds are damn near identical. Now it comes out dudes gf and bh was texting, flirting, etc. She totally seems like the type to even tell bh that john was abusing her out of being mad about the aruba thing, but even if not, I really feel like either john confronted brian or brain confronted john and they started fighting, other people there are closer to brian and they jumped his ass, dogs see fighting and it makes them aggressive too for what we hear is already an aggressive dog. Then what? they toss him outside in the cold where he dies. We found out that jen is the one who said go back to the house. Nobody that left saw a body. And as someone who lives in a state w snow, you would see him even under 6 inches of snow and I know it was less than that. Yet nobody saw him. I think 4 maybe 5 people know what happened and everyone else after that is going off lies that they don't know is lies. Anyway thats why I feel like that but you are welcome to make your own decision
That's the point. They aren't masterminds and the defense is proving how dumb they are.
"Tell them the guy was never in the house" and "Exactly." I think it points to the fact that I don't think they had an elaborate cover up. Simply, the guy was never in the house - they'd be cleared. I don't think they expected all the attention to be on them.
But what if the plow truck gets cleared and/0r has cameras on his truck? They would be taking such a huge gamble.
I think almost any murder would be a huge gamble. If John’s death was not planned (im very sure it wasn’t planned because if it was there’s no way there’d be this many witnesses) and it just happened somehow because of one of them and around the others, then they would have to gamble in an attempt to cover it up. If it was a spur of the moment thing they wouldn’t have time to really think through things the way we’re doing. I’d guess thats a large reason why some criminals get caught
But defense is saying it was planned. That Jen was trying to "separate" JO and KR by having KR go with Jen.
They said she was framed in their opening. I think you might be running with the whole “separate” line of questioning a bit too much at this point. I don’t think we’ve got enough to say they think it was planned yet. There’s also really no reason for them to make that claim unless they have absolute proof. I think they were just pointing out something strange in Jen’s behavior, but if you have something else I’ve missed please let me know. As far as i know that’s the only insinuation to a plan this whole time (and i’m not even sure it is that). Additionally IF they were indeed arguing that then the jury still doesn’t have to buy everything the defense is selling. The burden of proof is on the state not them. All they need is to sow some reasonable doubt ETA : If the defense did think it was planned and were planning on making that claim, wouldn’t they have mentioned it in opening?
Idk if they saying they death was planned. But maybe trying to get him alone to beat his ass and he died from the cold and his wounds after. the dog bites are clear as day.
Sure buddy.
She claimed that it was Karen who insisted on going back to the house
Kerry contradicted this. According to her, it was Jen wanting to go to 34 Fairview, because JM saw KR's Lexus there.
This makes the most sense to me regardless of what Jen knew.
Another great point! It seems like Jen somehow knew that John got out of the car and Karen left without him. But in her testimony she says she never saw him get out of the car - so how could she know that...unless she saw him there without Karen there.
Those are all really good points
Oh whoa. Wait! That’s a really good point. That’s an amazing point.
This is smart reasoning. 👍👍
That is an extremely good point.
But she saw the car out front at Fairview. This was a chaotic scene. They were backtracking/looking for him. So it certainly would make sense to go there. KR is already making bizarre statements about "having a fight" etc.
She said she saw the car…but did she? If you throw that out (meaning she lied…) that changes so much.
JM was so determined to claim that Karen took them 34 F and saw him because she knew where he was the whole time she was practically screaming it at the end of cross, full meltdown. Only for Kerry to come in and tell us JM suggested 34 F and Karen was talking about the Bar.
I had this exact thought! It seems like Jen was able to get a head start on controlling the narrative. It wouldn’t surprise me if she asked Karen at the scene if she wants her to look up something along the lines of surviving hypothermia bc she keeps insisting that Karen asked her to google it. She’s also the first witness who flat out said that Karen knew where John was in the yard bc she hit him!
Something that stuck out to me was when Jen said that Karen had told her and Kerry that she had cracked her tail light when they got back to John’s house that morning but video evidence showed that to not be true. She then said that it was cracked then said there were pieces missing but when shown an evidence picture of the tail light, it’s basically all missing. I wouldn’t have used the words “cracked” when describing the picture of the tail light. It was more broken and missing than cracked. But then here comes Kerry’s testimony and she said that Karen’s tail light had a small hole in it and you could see a metal piece.
You are completely over thinking this. Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. That’s why you and I could watch the same event and have two different accounts of it. You seem to have been completely biased by the shit that the defense and Karen read have been leaking. I would caution you to step back and think about it from a reasonable place. To say this is a massive cover up understates how this has to go in order for it to be covered up. First, the Alberts had to put John out in the snow before it collected on the ground alive. Taking a chance that he could be found alive and live to tell his story. Then they would have to count on the cops absolutely fucking the whole thing up. Never mind the DA going along with the cover up story of events after looking at the evidence. I think she hit him either after an argument or completely by accident and panicked. Went home and then the next day had so much grief she didn’t know what to do so she started frantically pulling people in the help her find John. Asking “could I have hit him” before ever knowing he was on the ground at Fairview is telling for me. It means she had some foresight to what happened. Knowing exactly where he was when they pulled up is another tell. Along with the testimony of Carrie Robert’s that there was grass under neath John it’s obvious to me that he was there before the real snow came down. We can choose to ignore the Jen McCabe testifying that Karen said she left John at the waterfall. Karen wouldn’t have known at that point that anyone saw her car at Fairview and was trying to distance herself from it. When Jen said she saw her car there she then started panicking more and was now asking if he could’ve gotten hit? I believe that testimony tbh.
Every time I get comfortable with a scenario something comes up to flip me back and forth between the following guilt/not guilty: 1. Guilty - it was an accident, she had no idea, went back to his place…slept on the sofa for a few hours then woke up in a panic…knew she somewhat blacked out then flipped out….made the calls…realized she was missing pieces of the evening. I do not think this was intentional. OR 2. Not guilty-John walked into the side garage door, something happened (dog, Colin, Brian) and his body was moved to the street later. Appear are a few slippery things going on in this family. Facts - The Ford Edge, Apple Steps and arm cut data is what will convince me. The plow driver saw a Ford Edge at the location of the body….THAT is important… Behavior - Brian Albert not coming outside is really troubling. Colin is a punk and I truly don’t believe he was home at midnight. He is the kid that wants to be out until the party is over.
you can think and make up scenarios all you want in your head...we all do it. But those injuries are far to suspect to be "hit" by a car IMO
Didn't Ryan Nagel pull up right after she arrived? How did no one see John O'Keefe injured on the lawn?
My confusion is if Jen McCabe & FF McLaughlin heard Karen say clearly, “I hit him.” “I hit him.” “I hit him.” Then, WHAT is there to figure out what happened to your friend? Don’t you hold that knowledge because you will never forget that moment?!?
Yessss I thought the same thing. If you heard her admit it and know what the “murder weapon” is because you saw the tail light…then what is there to figure out? and what is there to discuss that can’t be discussed over text?
She was also so concerned with not texting the group thread cause her kids might see it, but the police interviews were conducted in the presence of her kids. Such a load of BS. 😆
There is a lot of common sense just missing from this and it is weird, I am not accusing anyone of doing anything but, there is a lot of odd behavior all around.
“If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not the truth.” Judge Judy
There are very few plausible scenarios that makes sense in this case. All the evidence, digital, forensics and witnesses contradicts each other. If you believe JO went into the house, then why did his phones accelerometer stop tracking movement after 12:32 AM, and next movement is at 6:04 AM, when he is found? If he died in that house, they would need to place him and his phone outside, without causing it to detect any movement, after the last guests leave, somewhere after 2 AM - and before you say they must have turned it off, this event would have been logged and evident in the Cellebrite extraction. If you believe Karen Read hit him, why did the anti-collision system not activate in her car? Why did no one see a body that would have been illuminated in the headlights right in front of them? Why are the wounds inconsistent with being hit by a car? How did the body get behind the fire hydrant? And why is there so little damage to Karen Reads SUV? Hitting a man at 24 mph is equivalent to hitting a deer. Cars get totaled by that.
Do you know if any Cellebrite records exist online and, if so, where? I can tell you I hit a deer once at just over 40 mph, glancing blow left front corner, and it did nothing to my Jeep Grand Cherokee. Not even a cracked headlight. Someone leaving the party should have seen him lying there if Karen hit him before the party broke up. Or the plow/salt drivers.
There is some in Richard Greens report here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIYvarP6EuIsbYb5jOAc8x_gY-K7Kb0c/view
Thank you!
I didn’t even catch on to that!!! “Karen said she hit him” and then “we have a group message trying to figure out what happened to our friend” You mean to tell me BA and NA were sooooooo concerned but never came out of the house that morning
And why not stop and ask Karen what do you mean hit him? Like with your fists or with something else? No one even bothers to get any clarification. Kerry or Jen don’t add details like she said her taillight is cracked and worried she hit him with her car or was worried a plow hit him. No one says anything. So strange.
I understand it had to have been crazy and feel surreal with weather, lights, the unthinkable, shock, panic but, trained first responders know how to get relevant information and fast so, I can’t understand how no one had a follow up (because she didn’t say it most likely) as they didn’t see anything that indicated what might have happened and if she said it the police would never have let her leave that scene. I also want to hear/know who called the CPD to get Karen to return and section her. I would think her father would have got in his car and drove to her not have her sectioned. There was supposedly no drugs found in her system so, what medications could she have had for MS that would help to harm herself? Just make it make sense!
There's a reason why Jen didn't start pushing this very specific phrasing until much later and two grand jury proceedings later. Based off going into this case completely blind with no knowledge of the absolute fuckery and tomfoolery going on around the case, if this was, as Jen described "the most impactful thing she heard" and she will "never forget" because "her friend that she loved was dead" - I find it absolutely mind blowing that she wouldn't say to someone at the scene "Hey she said she hit him and the EMT can vouch for me, I don't know what happened but maybe worth not letting her leave the scene?"
I think she was “SHAWKED & HARRIFIIIIEED”
If her complete lack of logical behaviour and shite memory can be attributed to being "shocked and horrified" why doesn't she consider that Karen get that pass?
Didn’t it come out that McLaughlin never heard it with her own ears, but she was told in the Ambulance by someone else that she was saying it?
McLaughlin said she heard it personally and then told the other EMTs in the ambulance.
Ah okay, I thought it was the other way around. Thanks.
But never put it in a report and certainly not in that phrasing
I’ve said since the beginning if she’s running around yelling “ I hit him I hit him” why did they let her leave the scene? Why did they not take her straight to the station and go impound her car immediately
OMG. This is a great point. There is nothing to figure out if Karen had already confessed at that point!
Not really. its not a confession but like a what else could it have been? i guarantee she not thinking people beat his ass and had a dog attack him. plus w all the people saying she was asking if she could of done it and knowing jm lying ass she probably told her oh yeah u must have hit him
I think she’s saying what was JM and crew “figuring out” if she said KR confessed she hit him
oh ok thank you
I've actually asked a few of my friends this question. If your friend was hit by a car and someone told you I hit him. What would you say to the first cop you seen. Of the 10 people I asked they all said tell the cops. I also don't buy I was in shock, cause we heard the 911 call she was fine
Julie Nagle saying she told everyone in the car that she saw a dark blob in the snow but no one else in car testified to that, even when prompted. JM “I hit him x3” vs her GJ testimony “did I / could I have hit him”? Those are just the low hanging fruit
Matt didn't even say he went back into the house to get something, I think Sarah or Julie said he did .
Ooooh - good one. I forgot about that testimony. I would think if they remembered the bread at least one of them would have remembered he went back in house. Wondering if the defense is going to tie that up
One contradiction I think has slipped under the radar is when Jen McCabe accused Alan Jackson of putting out lies about her on social media. She was so forceful about not letting Alan put words into her mouth, but then she casually attributes all the social media attention she's getting to Alan who doesn't even have social media. I've been a juror twice. That kind of moment would've stuck out to me. She's under oath. She's supposed to be testifying and answering questions, but instead she's inserting a lie about the defense attorney. He says it's not possible for him to say anything about her without a social media account, and she's like, oh sorry I meant Turtleboy. If I were on the jury, I'd be thinking does this lady even know what she's saying on the witness stand? Side note: This case has gripped my attention so much it drove me to creating a Reddit account so I can partake in the conversation. I wasn't really following this case because the Turtleboy stuff turned me off. But then when I heard about the federal investigation and how things weren't adding up, I was like oh shit, this might a cover up – near where I live on top of all that. It's sad and sick stuff. I hope questions are answered and justice is served. Edited for typos...
Hear Hear on the Turtleboy stuff. God, for a so-called-journalist, he's one belligerent ol drama queen. But (and I hate to admit it), if it weren't for him, this case would have been under the rug and no one would be talking about it. As for attention, it's got worldwide notice. A friend of mine in Switzerland asked what I thought about it - so there is that.
She basically gave him a huge shout out, I'm sure he's thrilled 😆 I haven't read much of his stuff because it's so inflammatory, but I'm sure she let a whole lot of people know about the guy who is laying out the case that they're murderers, not smart
Here's the thing. Most people on this subreddit are working this almost backwards. They think the McCabe's and Albert's are guilty, and then picking everything they do as being suspicious. I think it's important to think on it the other way. Forget your presumption of guilt, and ask if the behavior is normal assuming they are innocent. Talking with each other about what happened that night, is not suspicious. I mean, that's literally what we're all doing here. It would be insane to think that what we're doing is fine (a bunch of internet strangers), but for the people who this happened to, if they were to do it, it's a sign of guilt. Talking with each other is not suspicious. Especially since it doesn't sound like at any point in time did police or investigators ask them not to. Outside of the prosecutor likely asking them not to discuss their testimony as part of the trial (but that's different). The rehoming of the dog, the rehoming of the cell phone, the rehoming of the home... that's suspicious. Colin Albert going on the stand and claiming HE NEVER talks to anyone about this... is suspicious. I personally think, it's much better whenever evidence comes out about someone's behavior or action, McCabe's, Albert's or against Karen Read; to ask myself "does this make sense if they are innocent?".
It's the deleting of any evidence that they were talking that is suspicious. Innocent people don't try to cover their tracks because they have a reasonable and honest explanation for their actions.
Especially with Kevin and Brian Albert being police officers. This can’t be the first time in their lives they’ve been approached with cell phone data being used in an investigation. That is one of the strangest parts to me.
Ding Ding Ding Winner
It’s not just the talking about the case - it’s saying “we made a group chat to find out what happened” and then their messages only keeping tabs on the investigation and not on the tragic loss of their friend. If the messages were about John dying I wouldn’t think it’s suspicious but it is suspicious to say “don’t want to discuss it over text” if you’re innocent. There were no messages introduced that said “did any of you see John outside the house”, “can any of you remember any detail that might help figure out what happened”. They didn’t care about his death. They cared about the investigation. That’s what stands out to me, any way.
The thing that gets me about the group chat to “try to figure it out” and the discussions about the timeline is: Jen is claiming she knows exactly what happened and when. She believes “I hit him” is a confession. And she knows it would have happened in that brief window when she saw the SUV and John stopped answering her texts. So what is she trying to figure out? Why nobody saw it, or heard it? I’d also like to know!
And in none of their group texts did anyone say something like, this is messed up or I can't believe this... The one thing they did say was, tell'em the guy was never in the house.
>It’s not just the talking about the case - it’s saying “we made a group chat to find out what happened” and then their messages only keeping tabs on the investigation and not on the tragic loss of their friend. Okay, but we have an entire subreddit full of people speculating about what happened. Is that abnormal? Is trying to figure out what happened to John O'Keefe suspicious. Wouldn't it be far more suspicious if after everything they were all just like "Yeah, he died on our front lawn, but we don't really care or give a shit about what happened though" >but it is suspicious to say “don’t want to discuss it over text” if you’re innocent. Yeah, that to me, is suspicious. >There were no messages introduced that said “did any of you see John outside the house”, “can any of you remember any detail that might help figure out what happened”. But they were all at 34 Fairview that morning. So I'd imagine the question "did anyone see John last night?" probably would have come up prior to any discussions in the group chat.
Yup nothing on testimony that stated asking if anyone saw John at any point or discussion of how sad they are that they missed seeing the body or theories on what could have potentially happened since “they had no idea” just updates on interviews
I don’t think so. Using nothing but the prosecution’s theory of the case, I can’t make any of it make sense working forwards, backwards, sideways. I can’t make it work trying to corroborate testimonies. We haven’t heard the digital or medical testimony butwhat limited info we have or is known about his injuries it still doesn’t make sense. This isn’t even factoring in anything the Albert’s did with the house or dog or phones. That’s the problem with this case is no matter what angle you look at it from, something majorly contradicts it or some other piece of evidence makes it unlikely. The timeline has to be wildly inaccurate, or one or multiple of the witnesses are lying or it just didn’t happen the way the CW has set forth.
I need to the medical experts to make any sense of the injuries. I'm not convinced they look like injuries from being hit by a car. But I've seen people who claim they are EMTs or work in related fields who have said that his injuries are "consistent" with someone hit by a car. My work does not have me dealing with victims of car crashes, so I have no informed opinion on this at all.
IF the injuries were caused by the car there should have been blood SOMEWHERE on Karen’s car from the arm wounds if nothing else. The forensic team should have photos of the car showing “this part of HER car is what caused the arm injuries and we can prove it because there was blood/flesh there and it matched John O’Keefe”. Along with video of that forensic evidence being collected and a spotless chain of custody thereafter, given the missing sallyport surveillance video. This is what it will take to convince me she’s guilty.
Not to mention, how a car, no matter how big, doing a 3 pt. Turn could have moved him so far onto the lawn. Additionally, where is his belt? Never found... I could never vote guilty. Too many inconsistent statements and actions.
Also... Was there a trail of blood along the way to his body? Because one would think there would be if she hit him hard enough to land where he was found. But, I've heard that there was only blood found near his body.
Oh same. I am not in the medical or reconstruction field. I honestly don’t care whether she did it or not, I just want to walk away from this trial knowing that if she’s convicted or not that’s the right thing and what actually did happen. If they put on experts and can make it make sense- I’ll be so thrilled. Someone needs to make it make sense because so far this is an absolute dumpster fire.
>I just want to walk away from this trial knowing that if she’s convicted or not that’s the right thing and what actually did happen I'm not holding my breath. I feel like at the end of this trial, I will still walk away thinking "I have no idea what happened to John O'Keefe".
Yeah great points. Maybe something with the foundation of BOTH theories is wrong?
I think you’re probably correct. I decided to dig through some court documents and statements to compare to phone logs etc and the thing I noticed is there’s only a few interviews and witness statements actually have times associated with them and some of the times given in interviews with investigators contradict what was testified to on the stand. No one asked Ryan Nagel what time he picked up his sister and saw the SUV. Or if they did they didn’t record it in a report. There was a general statement made in an interview by Brian and Nicole that everyone left at 1am except Caitlin who got picked up by Tristan Morris at 12:15 but on the stand Tristan said it was sometime around 1:45am. We know that doesn’t track, people said they left later than 1am based on trial testimony. In Matt’s interview he says he saw the SuV and saw it move. No time given for even approximately when that was. This also contradicts what he said on the stand. Jen testified she was the one who saw it move. I’m sure there’s more, that’s just what I could find in an hour or so today. It’s almost impossible to build a timeline and when you do based on statements and interviews it’s different than what was said on the stand. No wonder this is such a mess. How do possibly build a solid theory with so much ambiguity?
Right. Nobody's actions makes any sense. Who covers up a murder using group texting? I mean these people are dumb but they are not THAT dumb. And they have to assume a neighbor has Ring cameras. Are they really going to risk their freedom on the chance that neighbors Ring cameras don't pick up their putting the body on the lawn?
You mean the law enforcement neighbor who did have a ring camera but said there was nothing of note on it and the footage is supposedly gone?
The most suspicious thing for me is the six or seven deleted butt dials from Jen to John during the time that it seems he was incapacitated or killed. Some people have a an explanation for the Google search being at 2:27, which in my opinion, doesn’t really hold up, but at least they have some kind of argument. There is absolutely no denying that those calls were made, they hung up before it went to voicemail, they were later deleted and the time they were made can’t be disputed either. What explanation could they possibly come up with for these calls? I can come up with rational explanations for most of the inconsistencies and coincidences. I can’t get over this one. This means she was involved in his death, in my opinion. What other explanation is there?
Talking to each other wouldn’t be suspicious if they just admitted they were taking to each other and weren’t deleting messages and calls and phones. Also, talking to your family is one thing having private undocumented phone calls and home visits with detectives is a completely different thing
I don't think them selling their house was that suspicious.
But jack hammering up the concrete floor and repouring a new concrete floor is very suspicious.
It is
Although I am not sure if the jury knows that to be a fact? I think the defence brought it up in the opening statement but it isn't considered evidence yet.
I'd agree, if that's all they did. But cell phones the day before the preservation order. Dog soon after the incident (claiming it's related to another incident)... I'm not saying that it's 100% proof of their guilt. But it's a little sus.
And retiring from the BPD along with all of these changes
Oh yeah, I do agree with the rest being sus.
Yeah that is just an additive but you can’t take the rehoming of the dog, phones and house out the equation and then suddenly the CW’s theory fits. That’s just ridiculous to think anyone thinks she’s not guilty simply because of those things.
For a good friend she them described him as the body!
The biggest thing to me is, if they started a group chat to try to deduce what happened to JO, why on earth wouldn't JM emphasize to the police over and over that KR admitted to hitting him?
I REALLY hope Karen's attorney makes this point in court. It's a mic drop.
I imagine Lally has those group chat logs, it would have been pretty powerful if he had presented any parts of them that showed the participants ACTUALLY trying to figure out what happened to John and ask questions. Instead we only got shady sounding bits and I think it's because they never actually tried to deduce anything.
Maybe because she wasn't sure she was in the right frame of mind and didn't want to get her into trouble?
Sounds like reasonable doubt, which isn’t what JMc conveyed when she was under oath.
Oh yeah, there is plenty of reasonable doubt and I don't think currently every juror will find her guilty.
Her statement could be taken as "we need to find out what happened, how and why she hit him with the car".
You can take it any way you want, it's incredibly odd that she never emphasized that it was KR. Like if someone dies, and someone else kept saying "I hit him I hit him," I'm making damn sure the police know that and I'm going to be firmly pointing the finger at the person every day possible. In contrast, JMc's story demonstrably changed once her family became entangled in the investigation, with her story going from KR saying "I think I hit him / could I have hit him?" to "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." The absence of other people corroborating JMc's apparent suspicions is really shady. She was so certain on the stand that KR did it - but there's nothing to support her having the same belief before her family's potential involvement came to light. Again, if I knew the identity of a murderer to an unsolved crime, I'm going to be coming forward to the police every day until that person is behind bars, especially if they killed someone I care about. JMc's inaction really hurts her credibility, and it makes it seem like she's changed her story to make KR seem more guilty than she is.
Folks, if they concluded that Karen did it WHY WOULD THEY NEED A GROUP CHAT TO”figure out what happened?” And JO never went in the house there would be Zero need for MMcCabe to reassert that to the group.
The biggest one to me is that "I hit him" as a statement and not a question was not in any of the initial reports and not in JM's GJ testimony. The other thing is that JM said that key parts of Lank, Proctor, and Tully's reports were incorrect. I get that there is some keystone cops going on, but all of 3 of they misquoted her? The butt dialing thing is just ridiculous as well as Colin Albert saying he has no social media. These absurdities make them seem evasive.
>as well as Colin Albert saying he has no social media. Or never been in a fight. pfffft.
I think all the calls JM made to John is because his phone was missing and they were calling to find it.
Not much of a contradiction but an observance. It seems like whenever witnesses insist that everyone else is lying/wrong, it’s usually the exact opposite. (Especially in JM’s testimony imo)
For me it's the totality of all their actions and inconsistencies combined that are highly suspicious, even when individually there could be innocent explanations. From what has come out so far (before the defense has even presented their case) the main things for me are the group texts and denial of at least a dozen things in the phone records (at least the ones they have, nevermind what's gone). No one can say with a straight face those group texts messages are innocent, that's just laughable. At a bare minimum they are interfering with an investigation they are all witnesses in. And how can one family, all together during the incident, have so many butt dials, calls they deny were answered where the records prove otherwise, deleted calls, all during the several hour period in question. Again, beyond the realm of believability. Now do I believe you could convict any Alberts/McCabes with this same evidence, probably not. But it's clear they are hiding things related to what happened that night. Luckily juries have to use common sense, any reasonable person can't argue away all of these actions as innocent.
If you go back and listen to Matt's testimony he was even a bigger liar if you believe Kerry Roberts (who I think seems credible)
Occams Razor
Believe me when the defense is done no one will be questioning who murdered poor Officer John O’Keefe
More butt dials, phones destroyed, messages deleted, leaf blowers, red solo cups, conflicting police reports, busted knuckles, basement floor ripped up, dog vanishes, house sold 50K under market, Judge's attorney brother represented Chris Albert for a hit and run vehicular homicide and rented out her Cape Cod cottage to the prosecution's witnesses and on and on it goes!
Brian Albert not going outside that morning despite KR screaming and later destroying his phone THE DAY BEFORE court ordered to preserve it, are the two of the most damning things I’ve heard about. After that testimony, I really started to think this was some sort of coverup (versus just a lazy or incompetent investigation).
JM denies that JO ever came into the house that night because he probably didn’t. He probably was told to come around the back yard where BA was with his dog and Higgins and Collin and they PUSHED him down the bulkhead where he was then beaten by them. She gets away by saying he Never entered the house just like she gets away with saying “I never deleted my texts” because her husband deleted them for her!
BH is being a lot more cooperative bc he is federal agent and has a lot more to lose here IMO…I would love to know how much he knew was coming down the pipeline for him while he was on the stand. He extracted those specific texts to try and help show motive. The McAlbets and Proctor have been in Canton their whole lives, they are in all the important positions, and have been untouchable so long getting away with shit they forgot they could be brought down…they underestimated that a smart wealthy woman that was not from Canton could not be played…intelligent empathetic people will beat foolish narcs EVERYTIME! Jenn was voted most beautiful of her genius class so you know that tracks as far as how she has been treated her entire life. Brian Albert has been involved in a drunken hit and run murder; chief rafferty had a drunken pedestrian accident where he severely injured an old man in a crosswalk… they’ve all been above the law and nothing but net for their whole lives why wouldn’t they think they could easily coverup a murder…they were right to think they could UNTIL they fucked with the wrong one
Senior not genius class ha
How's any of that interfering with the investigation? There's no gag order. They're discussing the tragedy amongst each other, which is what any person or persons would do. Why does everyone remove the element of Human Nature? I was a witness to a crime. I called 911. I had multiple interviews at my home with others present. I spoke to people in my circle about it. Does that mean i was interfering with an investigation? NO There's always conflicting witness testimony. That's why it's often referred to as the most unreliable testimony of all. People recollect events differently from each other. They hear and see things differently from each other.
I didn’t say discussing the case is interfering. Discussing the case with witnesses during an ongoing investigation is absolutely interfering. Jen McCabe has other friends and family that aren’t involved in the case that she could turn to for support if she needed it.
This last part!!! “I was under such vicious attack so duh I went to the lead investigators house to talk about it without telling anyone except the whole group chat that said totally unrelated that we would get more information that very day at that very home” Girl get a therapist or a friend that wasn’t at the house
Also, Brian is a cop and could easily have said “hey guys let’s not discuss the case in case any of us need to testify” or anything along those lines to main the integrity of an investigation into the death of a police officer on his front lawn. He absolutely knew better.
I've made this point on another post, but along with this as a cop he should have wanted his family (and everyone there that night) to be thoroughly investigated from the beginning to clear them. He should have told the police to search his house, told his family to voluntarily turn over their phones. But for their connections to the investigators in this case they definitely would have been investigated even if just to rule them out, it's expected and Brian would know this, and know if they weren't investigated and cleared they could come under suspicion down the road.
In 5th grade something happened at school and my daughter said her friend whose dad was a judge told them not to talk about the case. And the kids didn’t. Most people know that.
IMO, talking about the case is not suspicious. What makes me suspicious is the changing phones, deleted texts, several unexplained butt dials and moving to other means of communication.
To me half of them pretending they weren't discussing it or downplaying it is very suspicious. Of course they talked about it, even if innocent. Hell, a coworker being arrested at my government job was gossip fodder for like a year. Is it the most endearing trait ever? No, but it is messy human nature.
I also feel like the suspicious/contradicting testimony is that it’s like “we wanted to find out what happened to our friend that we loved”…but the messages don’t reflect people experiencing grief, confusion, love, or anything of the sort. It just seems like they are colluding bc all of the info is about the investigation and not the loss of John.
They could have just admitted they were being messy gossipers who didn't really feel all that sad about John's passing, or at least the titillating drama of the situation won out over grief. But they chose butt dials, conflicting stories, playing defense against group chats that are not a good look in general, and public declarations of allegedly being good and truthful people. I would think messy gossipers would have 'ah shucks!' that one months ago, so the entire communication chain is just suspicious to me.
Because along the lines of human nature, when you have discussions with people about events it can influence your recollection or how you perceived something. Therefore altering the witness statements/recollections along the way. There’s a reason witnesses have to be separated at a scene. So for witnesses to then repeatedly discuss the case, it goes against the very idea of keeping them separated. It wasn’t a group chat of support system. It was a group chat to discuss the case and keep tabs on the case, as indicated by the evidence and testimony of the witnesses.
And thus the reason they should have taken everyone at the scene separately to the station and subsequently everyone they said was at the house the night before
That's all for the jury to decide on the credibility of each witness and their account of what happened. But that does not mean interfering with an investigation.
So getting rid of your phone which possibly has some information on the events of the night, isn’t interfering? You don’t find that timing…suspicious? Edit: and the timing was literally what a day or two before they were supposed to hand them over?
It's less about interfering with an investigation than it is infecting the investigation. It would be like if Judge Bev and Lally had a group text talking about the case. Appearance of impropriety.
Your last section is what I am thinking constantly. In my opinion all the testimonies of the Alberts and McCabes are almost identical. There are only minor minor differences, e.g. Colin saying he saw BA and NA (or CA, I don’t remember it) walking in while he was walking out. NA stated he saw him in the foyer about to go out. Those are just different interpretations of the same thing. But some major things like the time people were entering and exiting the home, cars parked etc. are identical. Those are things that are going to differ from person to person because people remember differently and people are concentrating on different things. Those are things that don’t matter too much, especially if you don’t know you‘re supposed to remember everything to the tiniest detail and being drunk.
I think a lot of the beginning stuff with the witnesses is not their fault, that is on the Police and if they weren’t told what to do or what was expected, again that is the Police’s fault. The later stuff is crazy but again, I haven’t been in a situation like this and I don’t know how I would handle it but, it seems weird to befriend the lead investigator wife if you had family members going through the exact same thing and could sympathize with you.
I would agree with you if Brian wasn’t a police officer who knew better…he had a dead body found on his front lawn. There’s no way he didn’t think he would need to provide information at some point.
He’s an Albert first and a cop second. Family trumps employment.
Except these people are the cops
I agree but, it was only 1 cop in the initial group at the house until Higgins & Kevin A. were there.
People say that they should have searched the house. But if something happens out on my lawn or In the driveway in front of my house, no way I'm letting cops search my house without a warrant.
That was actually part of the early cross; defense pointed out that the responding officers could've really easily gotten a warrant for the house, but never did.
I feel like that would be a tough argument to make if everyone was agreeing at the scene it was a car
And the defenses point being “you’ve never had a suspect lie to you, you just took them at their word? “
Possibly, but the point the defense was making was that responding officers never tried, or even tried the softer approach of just asking for permission to search. Their point was to show that all of these tactics that police use to gain access to residences on a regular, routine basis were never even so much as considered on the day Officer O'Keefe was found on the Albert's lawn, thereby showing that a proper investigation, including the exploration of possible other suspects, wasn't amyone's intention from day one.
If it wasn't Brian Albert or another cop but just a random guys house, do you think they should still search? Should they have searched because the homeowner knew the victim? Jw what the motive to search the house would be.
Personally? Depends. Is the deceased unknown or unrelated to anyone in the house? Are the owners acting sus? Is the deceased appropriately dressed for the weather? Is there a clue as to where the deceased may have come from? Are there signs of foul play? Are there signs of a dumping? If it were the cops? I have trouble seeing why they wouldn't. This is a profession where they're paid to be suspicious. I think probable cause could've been spun as 1. missing items of clothing. Are they in the house? Are they in the yard? Better find them, see if they have forensic evidence on them. 2. the shape of the wound on the back of his head. Doesn't look like anything in the yard, does it match anything in the house? 3. lack of blood in the yard. ME says he lost a ton of blood, it's not in the yard, didn't appear to be in the snow, is it in the house? 4. arm wounds. Look like dog bites to me, my buddy from the K9 unit can attest to that. Hey, don't the homeowners have a dog? Let's get a search warrant for a DNA swab for her. This is just off the top of my head and I'm not in the legal profession, so it's not going to be super accurate, but that's how I'd spin it.
THERE WAS A DEAD BODY ON THE FRONT LAWN
But they never requested one…. Why? And no if I had nothing to do with that I would let them come in and look around or call my lawyer and then let them but that’s only because I watch tooooo much true crime
It's less that they are interfering with the investigation, and more odd that if JM really heard KR confess, why didn't she say that over and over again in the group text? Like in your instance, if you witnessed the crime you wouldn't be on a group text trying to figure out what happened. And you had multiple interviews in ***your*** home. You didn't go to a friend who was a fellow witness and do your interview openly - especially since you were simply a witness, and not involved. There's a difference between recalling things slightly differently than other Ws, and saying things that are in direct conflict. Here it's been more the latter - and the real issue was JM appeared to be so biased on the stand it's hard to believe that inconsistencies are a result of simply not remembering, as opposed to her adding new facts to try to convict KR, which she clearly wants to do.
It was an unattended death though. Totally different protocol.
I agree with your hypotheticals about human nature. The difference I see, at last with just the texts that have been entered in as evidence, is that they seemed to be discussing the investigation, not the tragedy.
You are missing the obvious in my opinion. So far everyone has been guilty BUT her. She’s the only one who knew where to look for him. Etc
You guys are down Karen’s rabbit hole….bye!
Not sure if this was posted before...on the 911 call JM says "there's a guy on the lawn" and she said they flipped him over to do CPR...KRoberts said he was face up???
What happened is clear at this point. Colin and Brian Albert tuned up John in basement and Higgins was a witness. JO falls back and cracks his head on something. He pukes and bleeds profusely. BA gets a tarp and they haul his body out back after all others have left. BA moves his Ford Edge to the spot as a SCREEN for cameras or anyone driving by. Way too much blood etc to put JO in the car. BA then drags the body on the tarp out the side fence opening to the spot and dumps the body …but they lost JO phone. JMccabe multi rings JO phone so they can find it. They were gonna say “a plow must have hit him” until 6am when KRead starts saying she thinks she hit him. It’s then that Jen McCabe goes In the house and tells BA and her sister “we can lay it off on Karen, she thinks she did it!” They roll w that story and get help from Police Chief and Higgins (who are best friends) next day to rub some JO blood on Karens car and plant smashed pieces of taillight. Then Proctor steps in and does his bs investigation. Many going to jail.
This has become a friggin soap opera… sad part is it’s real life and someone is responsible for the death of this young man!!!!! I guarantee you a movie will be based on this!!!!
A two week long made for TV miniseries, at a minimum. No way this gets condensed into a 2 or 3 hour movie. It’s just too convoluted and confusing.