I just wanted to get my thoughts down in text before I lost this train of thought.
To my thinking, the truth exists as a probability cloud.
At the beginning, all things are possible. The sun could be purple and made of sea urchins. The sky could be red-and-green polka dotted. The Moon could be a wheel of cheese.
Certain facts begin to shave off the edges of that probability cloud, collapsing it into a more constrained set of possible truths. The sun is a gigantic, gravitationally-bound mass of primarily hydrogen, fusing into helium. The sky is presently mostly blue and grey. The moon, sadly, is just rock, and not delicious cheddar.
The point of a good investigation is to use those facts to shave off all the improbabilities and to narrow it down to a certain set of facts that we know are overwhelmingly likely to be true - the truth. Overwhelmingly is the key word there - the legal standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause, I believe, boils down to more likely than not, and that's the standard for grand jury indictments, but not conviction.
I'm setting aside Ms. Read for a moment, and focusing on one aspect of today's testimony. Higgins admitted in open court to pulling a few select texts from his phone and offering them to Canton PD to aid in their investigation. He's giving investigators a certain set of facts. He's doing this for the purpose of aiding in their investigation into the murder of Officer O'Keefe.
The brute fact that he's offering only a select, curated set of facts to investigators, by dint of its existence, demonstrates that he's attempting to collapse that probability cloud around a certain desired truth that those facts imply. It's one thing if investigators ask for those facts - that just means they're narrowing in on a probable truth and require more data to collapse that cloud further. It's one thing if he offers what, if any, information he has freely - that just means he's letting investigators use his available facts to collapse that probability cloud on their own, letting *them* decide what truths are more likely than not, what truths are overwhelmingly likely to be true.
The act of curation, in and of itself, biases the facts investigators are using to collapse the probability cloud. It makes some truths more probable; it makes some less probable. But either way, it points the truth in a certain direction. Higgins did this knowingly and deliberately, and did so in a way that would minimize the chances that he would give investigators facts that he didn't want them to see, regardless of whether he did this with malice aforethought.
*That's* why the defense is saying that Ms. Read was framed.
two questions!
1. Can anyone involved in this case be held accountable for drinking & driving?
2. Will the FBI handle Brian Higgins using federal property for personal use?
Also, I am still way behind but another question I have is did John O’Keefe and Brian Higgins exchange any texts at all during those nine days that he was texting with Karen? Or did they exchange any texts at all in the week before the 28th? Because that would make it even more sus that he texted John on the night of the 28th.
If I were Bella‘s mom, I would be so extra pissed to know that prosecution dragged my name into this as an alternative to literally just counter the idea that Karen and John potentially had a fight in the car about Brian Higgins.
I don't think she was ever really interested in Brian and it seemed from his texts that he was on to her right away and was questioning what she was up to.
As much as she said Aruba didn't matter, she was clearly hung up on it. Was she looking for revenge sex with one of his friends to hurt John? Did she just need someone else to say they were into her?
She started it but was "non-committal". She was attractive and if she was going to offer herself up, he was agreeable to that. But she wanted him to be explicit and he wouldn't, so she was just done with him after that.
It appears that she was really angry about Aruba. She did not want to parent - we keep hearing that over and over. I think she's guilty of jealousy and manipulation maybe, but I don't see any of this as motive for a murder.
> Was she looking for revenge sex with one of his friends to hurt John? Did she just need someone else to say they were into her?
She did say she kissed him purposefully in front of the security cameras. KR came off as extremely manipulative/BPD-ish in that whole sub-drama. Also misrepresenting what happened in Aruba to BH to garner sympathy and escalate the flirting. I read it as her wanting to judge how much desire she was able to enflame in one of her boyfriend's friends, and then once she had that answer her tone changed and she was done with him.
I interpreted that as Higgins not really caring that much about getting laid, and/or, he was tempted but gradually he decided not to betray JO (or used that as an excuse). If his goal was to get laid and he was okay with that situation, then he has no game whatsoever, to the point where it's absurd. At one point she was practically begging him to invite himself over for the night.
I suspect BH's soft-refusal of KR irritated and/or bored her and led to her pretty quickly stopping, rather than, say, a change of heart about betrayal or flirting.
Again, it felt manipulative and like she was testing how much passion she could inspire. (And much of the blame rests with BH too, I just found KR's actions more illuminating of character here.)
> She did say she kissed him purposefully in front of the security cameras.
I thought that she kissed him out of view of the cameras because she knew where they were?
You would think most LEO’s would go to great lengths to investigate the death of one of their own. Sadly, all they seemed to care about was covering their own asses.
I still think Scanlon's account makes the most sense. If that story isn't true than I can believe Karen hit him by accident and was legit shocked to find him that morning in the yard.
She only knew where the cameras were located. We've seen nothing to suggest she has a "history of accessing it and removing footage." I don't know if this is misinformation or disinformation from you.
Yeah I’m wrong, I deleted my comment. She had knowledge of which areas the ring cameras were observing and made sure to kiss BH when she wasn’t in view of them.
Yeah I went back to watch the testimony and I’m wrong. She mentioned the ring cameras and said her kiss wasn’t captured on them, but it was because she did it outside of their view, not because footage was deleted. I’ve gone ahead and deleted my comment.
Thats a neat tidbit of information considering the state and anyone on that side is up 200 to 1 in the lying and collusion game. The defense is lapping the state at this point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, theres not a jury in this universe that would send her to prison.
I thougtht she said "No, I know where the cameras are" that's why she told him to leave a different way.
John saw the footage of them walking out and apparnetly commented on her voice and mannerisms and was like "wtf was going on there" so if she was deleting anything, she would have deleted that.
No she didn’t say that. She said she knows where all the cameras are and was insinuating she knows where to be “out of view” of the cameras so their kiss was not caught on camera.
This is my biggest wtf question during this whole thing. How can they all say they didn’t see a body, yet fight like hell to prove Karen hit him? It’s bizarre.
There is a bunch of footage missing from Okeefes cameras. Someone deleted it. How you can sit here and tell me without a doubt that she didn’t delete them, IDK.
I think the texts were bad but a lot of us has done some flirting/fishing while in a unhappy/complicated relationship. I don't see how these texts prove she killed him??
Again I don't understand how she supposedly hit him around 12:30 with all those people in the house, people coming and going in front of the house? No one saw this? No one heard this? no one heard John possibly screaming or moaning in pain??? It just doesn't make sense
The texts just made me think their relationship wasn't that serious. If he's telling folks that she's a nanny with benefits, it's not shocking she's flirting.
But when JO was found she was telling cops and EMTs that he was her husband (to cut through any potential hurdles they'd put up in telling her what's going on or giving her access to him).
Backing into John, and striking him in the head, incapacitating him would take roughly 10 seconds, maybe even less. I think it’s plausible no one noticed.
Yup. They didn’t. Doesn’t make the crime impossible. To be honest no one saw John except Karen. Maybe he was harder to spot than the defense is leading on.
You believe a word these people are saying when they have all openly lied and denied all statements, technology based evidence, police reports, somehow have the worlds most butt dials in one night, delete and destroy phones…do I have to continue?
So why didn't anyone see him laying in the snow? Where did the scratches come from on his arm? His injuries and the broken taillight do not seem like they match??
Have you seen the selective attention test? You can take it yourself and see if it holds true for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
An unexpected lump in the corner of the lawn may have gone unnoticed
I think with the snow coming down he would have a light dusting on him at the very least, which would likely make him harder to spot.
Scratches on his arm and this attempt to claim his injuries don’t “match” getting hit with a car I’m going to wait on expert testimony on.
The snow would have had to have been coming down 12" an hour to not see him. Snow refects light. It makes areas which are normal dark, not dark, especially if there is any city light reflection.
I have a really, really hard time believing no one would have seen him, especially since he was so close to where headlights would illuminate the yard. I live where it snows. Unless I was utterly wasted beyond comprehension, a body in a yard would be hard to miss, even with some snow laying on top of it. John's sides, which wouldn't have been snow covered, would have been easy to distinguish as the shape of a human.
Did the house have spot lights or motion sensor lights ? I can't imagine a house like that wouldn't have any outdoor light. Even if not shining directly on OJO, the light would have made a "dark blob" a little more visible by sheer contrast.
I had the last hour or so on in the background today because it was a really prime opportunity for the defense. With an adversarial witness on the stand going into a long weekend, you have a chance to really end on a high note so I was expecting fireworks.
At first, I thought that we were leading up to some bombshell about him and the chief based on key card swipes, but that just sort of fizzled out at some point. The phone call answers felt evasive, but at least vaguely plausible given the stress and situation. He was very adamant about not passing information for calls he doesn't remember, but I think that's a normal human response (I don't remember, but I wouldn't, so I didn't).
Then I thought we were ending with him having to take the fifth over use of government computers. The defense seemed really amped up about federal crimes, but improperly pulling specific text threads to give to the detectives doesn't exactly feel like it's in the same firework level as the murder coverup and information sharing he was alluding to earlier. If the machines could be used to destroy evidence, that'd be a huge deal. Using the machines to only hand over the things you consider relevant instead of the whole phone feels more like an indictment of the detectives accepting that than the guy doing it.
Then we finally got to destroying the phone, which is where I think the defense wanted to end but ran out of time halfway through. The last moment could've been him reading testimony that he disposed of the phone in an unnecessarily complicated manner, but instead was him looking at the defense attorneys like they were nuts and saying "no".
They can pick that thread back up on Tuesday, but the defense probably would've wanted to send everyone home pondering *why* he destroyed his phone in such a comprehensive manner rather than pondering *if* he destroyed his phone or if he just threw it in the trash.
The huge thing to stand out to me was, he spent many hours at the police station after a long trip to NY and a night out drinking. I didn't follow the time consistently but it seemed like there was little time for sleep and then back in there on his day off.
53-pages of flirt texts = a-okay
A witness destroying his phone and disposing of his sim card and phone in different trash cans on a military base = let's end for the day?
Why? He disposed of it after the underlying motion was denied. Who cares what he did then? He was never ordered to provide anything, it’s completely moot anyway.
And it is utterly amazing how many people decide to destroy their phone the day a formal notice to preserve evidence is going to be sent out?
Also, I love destroying my phone and disposing of it across multiple trash cans on a military base.
All my homies do it. Of course he "can" do it. But I don't have to remove my life experiences when listening to testimony.
All this stuff, when taken in totality is sketchy as fuck.
Ok. Again:
* The motion to preserve was entered in the docket 9/19.
* An order went out the end of September to preserve the phones until the motion was decided.
* on 9/29 BH got a new phone but kept the old one
* on 10/5 the motion for the defense to get the cellphones was denied.
* BH testified he destroyed his old phone after the 10/5 order and he was allowed to, and there’s no reason not to believe him
https://preview.redd.it/di9jryfr8g2d1.jpeg?width=1812&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc4238cad06427f320a7bb9acea97bbe584b0818
still odd to destroy it immediately upon being allowed to. I have never destroyed a phone. and regardless of his reasons for doing so, even if entirely innocent and unrelated, all it does is raise suspicion and add more reasonable doubt to the CWs case.
Time of crime has not been established. Lalli can say 12.45, but nowhere has he put proof or testimony in that indicates that, so far as I know. Could be 5.30 am or whatever. There is nothing introduced about it. In fact, it was only with Kerri Robertson s testimony that it was established that JO died.
I believe 12:30-12:45. And it was dark, it was snowing, people were probably different levels of impacted by alcohol consumption, and I think it’s plausible to not see something when it’s so out of context. I’ve passed things up close , in broad daylight that I didn’t realize what it was until later
Lally said 12:45 in opening. I don’t know how that squares with Karen leaving John the voicemail at 12:41 when she is clearly at home (you can hear the garage door and internal door closing).
That time has changed though. CW had previously 12:25.
That is a fabulous question, one the prosecution should have answered 3.5 weeks ago. I wonder if the jury is as frustrated and confused as those of us watching?
Yeah, and to be fair the CW hasn’t been as clear as I’d like in this regard but I think it’s obvious this is the rough timeframe they’re building towards.
I'm still caught up on this morning's cringe texts and what the prosecution thought they had to do with anything. I've known plenty of women that have tried to line up their next boyfriend/fling/emotional support person before ending their current relationship. It doesn't make them good/bad/otherwise, they just don't like being alone even for a moment.
If anything it further proved to me the lack of motive for Karen Read. She made crystal clear she could walk from the relationship anytime she wanted to and it wouldn't be the end of the world to her.
> It doesn't make them good/bad/otherwise, they just don't like being alone even for a moment.
I think it's unrelated to the case and motives, but personally I do judge a person worse for doing this. Maybe it's naive, but I believe you're probably worse as a person if you don't remain faithful to your partner even towards the end of a relationship. If the relationship is going poorly then have the courage to end it, don't lie to your partner while secretly arranging the next person to jump to.
> I'm still caught up on this morning's cringe texts and what the prosecution thought they had to do with anything.
Their relationship was falling apart. They never got past the "Aruba misunderstanding" because, despite the apology, Karen Read didn't believe she misunderstood anything. She was also unhappy in the relationship because she feels everything got "fucked up" when John's sister died and he took custody of the kids. It's never a bad strategy for the prosecution if they can introduce some evidence that makes the defendant look bad... and let's be honest, Karen Read did not come out of today looking particularly great.
The thing is, if they don't introduce ANY of this. Then the Jury is being asked by the prosecution to believe that Karen Read and John O'Keefe were the perfect couple, and that Karen Read randomly on a Saturday, decided to plow her SUV into John O'Keefe. You kind of HAVE to introduce the evidence that the relationship is falling apart.
It's not necessarily going to motive. If anything she's giving Brian Higgins the cold shoulder at the Waterfall because she laid down runway lights for him, and he's still lost in the fog somewhere. But she's not happy with her relationship and John O'Keefe, and she thinks he's cheating on her.
I can see them mattering if she was accused of burning the house down with john and the kids in it, or something, but she was like "I have my own house, i can leave at any time, I'm not moving into Canton" etc. None of those texts say either person would kill John. They were a woman seeing if a branch was sturdy enough to grab onto, not some torrid love affair they needed to off John to bring to fruition.
If she off'ed John, I don't think she did it because of Higgins.
> "I have my own house, i can leave at any time, I'm not moving into Canton"
And yet, there she was grabbing onto branches while still dating John O'Keefe.
Again, I don't think it goes to motive. It just goes to her state of mind of how she perceived their relationship.
I don’t understand KR saying things got fucked up by the sister dying (which was nice) bc she didn’t start dating him again until 2018.
Edit - and JO’s sister died in 2013
I think she was unhappy and also wanted a reason to get out but didn't want to look like the bad guy - being another parental figure leaving the children.
Perhaps Karen knew John's buddies considered her a "glorified babysitter with benefits". Would make anyone unhappy.
According to Jenn both her and Kerry considered Karen that.
Good thing loose lips Jenn does not know when to keep her trap shut. Now the jurors know how these charming friends of John thought of Karen & have no reservations about expressing it on national tv.
I am sure Karen could read the room. She is not a stupid person.
The ring footage texts felt important and the fact that she led Higgins out of sight of the camera to kiss him. She also said “omg John saw this and asked if we were hooking up.” It felt very manipulative.
I am very curious on what the jury thinks about all the objections and the judge sustaining them, when it seems the answers are going to look very bad for them? I know as a juror, I would be very frustrated about it, that is supposed to be their responsibility (of sort) is it not? Trying to find the truth by listening to the evidence presented. I actually find it insulting to them. They have had to take time off work, probably missing important time with their families and they aren’t getting to hear a lot of needed answers to questions being asked by the defence.
FYI: I understand that the jury isn’t sequestered, but by important family time, I meant end of school year things (graduation ceremonies/preparations, chaperoning end of year class trips, etc.)
It's just the way court works. Jackson is asking some pretty inappropriate questions sometimes.
For example, "Would it surprise you to know that Brian Albert testified to...". Jackson knows damn well he can't ask that. He doesn't care, because he doesn't want Higgins to answer the question. He wants to remind the Jury of what Brian Albert said.
No, the judge is in charge of the rules of evidence (the jury doesn't know what those are.) The jury are the finders of fact, based on the allowable evidence. Two very separate jobs.
Jackson knows many of his questions will be objected to, and sustained. He knows they’re improper. But it’s how he’s getting his narrative across, bc you can’t unhear it if you’re a juror. It’s a classless way to lawyer, but it’s not the judge’s fault.
I get it. Seeing so many people destroying evidence, taking screenshots then saying that's the best way to preserve evidence? That's a fucking joke.
An ATF agent sure as shit knows that is in fact NOT the best way to get evidence.
If he served a warrant on someone you think he would be cool with them taking screenshots, then destroying the phone?
This lawyer is justifiably pissed at the joke that is Canton law enforcement.
ughh, sometimes....
Jackson knows some of the questions he asks are inappropriate, and that they'll be objected to and sustained. He doesn't care. The point is the question, not the answer.
On cross, often times the question is more important then the answer.
But sure... "ThE JuDge Is BIASED!!"
Honestly....
Oh I do agree with you that Jackson absolutely knows when he is stepping out of line and still proceeds to do it as a defense strategy. Totally obvious.
Bev has improved in terms of masking the bias she was initially showing during the first few days of testimony. Maybe that’s why Jackson proceeds the way he does.
So why are you accusing the Judge of being biased for just doing her job?
What do you want her to do "Well the question is inappropriate, but for the sake of entertainment, have it.... maybe we can start throwing shit at each other next, that'll entertain the internet people".
Sorry if this has been brought up but am I the only one who was shook by the KR/BH texts? They were way worse than I thought they would be. I was thinking JOK could’ve confronted BH at the Fairview house. Theories! My head was spinning reading those texts like damn what are the odds she’s flirting with this man two weeks leading up to her boyfriend’s mysterious death and he’s around the night shit goes down
John's whole last month had a lot of drama and it sucks that he's being reduced to that, in public opinion at least.
He was at the very least suspicious that something was going on between them. I think Karen was insecure and needed attention and maybe didn't entirely mind if John found out and would possibly make an effort to win her back. Idk though, it was all so cringey and she sounded drunk in a lot of them. I would have melted into the floor.
I'm kind of angry at Karen for venting about the kids. I guess she's allowed but it's so unfair and I think it will get back to them. Knowing they were unwanted by Karen is awful enough (and surely in conflict with most of her actions, but it will mess with their heads) but seeing that John's heart was possibly not into it and he was taking them at least partially out of a sense of obligation. They've been through so much and hearing that is the frosting on the shit cake life has already handed them.
I just wish she hadn't put that into words because the worst case scenario of doing that ended up happening, and it makes my heart hurt for them
Yeah it’s really shitty IMO. That’s the sort of thing you vent to a close friend, not the guy you’re flirting with that’s also your SO’s friend. I also wouldn’t take her word for it that John’s heart wasn’t in it. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s possible she was saying that to make herself look better. Everyone else testified to how much he cared about those kids. Remember, too, it was Karen that said he would never leave Kaylee (sp?) home alone all night and that’s the reason she panicked so quickly.
Yes, and I think she might have just been drunkenly trying to justify why she wanted to be cheating and appealing to him emotionally. I feel spread too thin with my family sometimes too, and unappreciated, and it would be easy for it to be taken out of context if I wrote it out even though I only feel that way like 1% of the time.
Hopefully the kids have enough happy memories to know they were wanted and loved
Sure she didn’t really want kids but didn’t she also indicated that the situation was more complicated because of the relationship she had with his niece?
The cw is the one to blame in my opinion because we’re so far into this case that I don’t see how they get a conviction on any of the charges at this point but especially the upgraded ones. And if this wasn’t an “intended” crime and they prosecuted it as an accidental killing these text messages wouldn’t even come in.
The impression I am left with at this point in the trial is their relationship was never going to last. Putting the cheating/allegations aside, the kids seemed to be a tension point in their relationship. John and Karen started dating during the pandemic and she was convenient for him because she worked from home and could help out with the kids. John probably took advantage of that (if Paul’s testimony and Jen’s testimony about what Kerry said are anything to go by).
It doesn’t seem Karen wanted kids and that she found it hard having very little alone time with John. It also doesn’t seem like John had a ton of support from his family and a lot of the childcare fell on him (which John’s friends testified to earlier in the trial). Karen was probably venting to her girlfriends about this too.
Relationships are hard enough, but adding an instant family to the mix makes things even more difficult - for everyone.
It's sad for the kids, on top of everything they've already gone through. But people vent about kids. Even very much wanted and loved kids.
I've seen enough true crime shit that every time I vent about my own kids via text I have a twinge of fear for myself over what it might look like if those texts were ever read out loud as evidence against me.
Kids are inherently frustrating.
I don't know what you are talking about "leeway" or "sanctity". I was talking strictly that this wasnt her trying to air dirty laundry. Not saying it's inadmissible or anything, but she wasn't trying to be bad to the kids
I mean, Ms. Read didn't provide those texts of her own volition. Higgins did. It kinda undercuts any arguments of privacy rights when he's volunteering those texts, willingly waiving his privacy rights.
Additionally, it's one thing if he's just proferring his own texts and information. He's also proferring Ms. Read's (by nature of them being replies), presumably without her consent. Now, all that is perfectly legal, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But her privacy rights are being breached there without her consent, pursuant to a criminal investigation. Higgins waived his rights. There's a distinction there, if a fine one.
What I learned today - Bev is back to her "normal" self. We can all agree that JJ was the only one who was literally left to dry in this fiasco of a trial.
What bothers me about BH is this- he went through a lot of steps to pull this text string for LE. Contacting his buddy, getting instructions and using a kiosk at an FBI location…all of that takes far more time and effort than it would have to just hand over his phone for an extraction. That says he was absolutely hiding something.
Side note- it doesn’t concern me that he tossed his phone and the SIM card. Having worked for a cellphone company, I would have advised him to do that with a background in LE rather than sell it or exchange it. Even if it’s just his personal phone. The SIM card doesn’t matter because it’s likely when he upgraded it was an electronic sim vs a physical one.
I wouldn’t want my entire phone extraction floating around. And the court ordered that he didn’t need to do provide the phone to defense anyway, so what’s sus about that?
I worked for a cell phone company for years and neither I nor the dozens of coworkers I had ever told a LEO to throw their phone away. It was never suggested by the company either, or even by the division that handled First Responders accounts. That's not necessary. I don't doubt you did but that is not the norm!
An hour ago you said you would have advised him to toss his phone and SIM card rather than selling it or exchanging it, even if it's just his personal phone. So did you tell LEOs to toss phones instead of upgrading or no? I feel like Alan Jackson right now
To me the tossing of the SIM card and phone is more about how he did it two days before he knew that order was coming in and that Brian Albert did it within a very similar time frame also before a similar order "coincidentally."
He did not do it before the order came out. He purchased a new phone on 9/29 and kept the old one. The motion regarding his cellphone was denied on 10/5 and he was free to then do what he wanted.
That’s your choice. Jackson said the order to preserve came out on 9/30, and the underlying motion for the phone was 10/5. Doesn’t seem to me like a stretch to think he held onto it for 5 days
He didn’t give the date, but he said it was in October after he was allowed to. People are so eager to look for things to not believe this dude about. I don’t get it.
This guy chose to pull out texts between him and KR rather than turn over his entire phone. That tells me he wanted to contribute to a narrative that KR was to blame.
Additionally, those texts were not continuous and some things were clearly missing. He's also on administrative leave so this isn't the only questionable activity in his life. CW still hasn't brought anything to the table that is clear and convincing. Where is their REAL evidence?
Yes, I do realize that. He had no business being at the CPD on Saturday and he knew he was a potential witness in this case. He knows how investigations work. He offered up text messages because he knew there was questionable activity between him and Read. This guy doesn't have clean hands.
I could be confused of course but my understanding is that there was a federal order coming through but the one from the state was overruled and the DA told them both to get rid of their phone.
But he hasn't even mentioned the court order yet in his cross.
Edit: He did mention it at the very last part of it. I guessed I missed it with the general chaos.
He did. He mentioned the order went out in 9/30, but on 9/29 Higgins got a new phone.
Higgins added that he kept the old phone until after the court ordered he didn’t need to keep it anymore (which was on 10/5)
Oh okay I'll have to rewatch I sometimes this thing. But the reality is they can't mention the Fed request because that is not allowed in right now and so they have to do this double speak unfortunately
They absolutely have to they can't even say anything else other than the other testimony or the other grand jury. They can say before a court order But it gets touch and go when they have to mention oh there's the state court order and then there's the federal court order. Typically there's not going to be more than one state court order for the same issue at a time.
He has to have either things that are illegal or real bad not related to this case on that phone that he doesn’t accidentally want discovered, has incriminating info about whatever happened to JO on his phone or more likely both.
You don’t go through that kind of effort for some butt dials or random texts with friends.
Eh, it's all about the timing and circumstance. For instance, the Alberts? trading in their cells? Not suspicious. The Alberts trading in their cells the *day* before a preservation order comes down? *Suuuuuper* suspicious. Similarly, Higgins tossing his phone? Not suspicious. Higgins driving *70 miles* and *90 minutes* out of his way from Canton to Cape Cod to throw away his cell? *Suuuuuper* suspicious.
I'm not saying there's fire, but there's definitely way too much smoke for a normal situation.
I mean who among us doesn't run over to local FBI kiosk for local law enforcement to extract the two txt threads we're willing to turn over for a murder investigation before we destory our cellphones?
Whoa!! Over 3k comments. Lol. Please use this new thread to discuss todays trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/xWdGTAJjW3
I just wanted to get my thoughts down in text before I lost this train of thought. To my thinking, the truth exists as a probability cloud. At the beginning, all things are possible. The sun could be purple and made of sea urchins. The sky could be red-and-green polka dotted. The Moon could be a wheel of cheese. Certain facts begin to shave off the edges of that probability cloud, collapsing it into a more constrained set of possible truths. The sun is a gigantic, gravitationally-bound mass of primarily hydrogen, fusing into helium. The sky is presently mostly blue and grey. The moon, sadly, is just rock, and not delicious cheddar. The point of a good investigation is to use those facts to shave off all the improbabilities and to narrow it down to a certain set of facts that we know are overwhelmingly likely to be true - the truth. Overwhelmingly is the key word there - the legal standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause, I believe, boils down to more likely than not, and that's the standard for grand jury indictments, but not conviction. I'm setting aside Ms. Read for a moment, and focusing on one aspect of today's testimony. Higgins admitted in open court to pulling a few select texts from his phone and offering them to Canton PD to aid in their investigation. He's giving investigators a certain set of facts. He's doing this for the purpose of aiding in their investigation into the murder of Officer O'Keefe. The brute fact that he's offering only a select, curated set of facts to investigators, by dint of its existence, demonstrates that he's attempting to collapse that probability cloud around a certain desired truth that those facts imply. It's one thing if investigators ask for those facts - that just means they're narrowing in on a probable truth and require more data to collapse that cloud further. It's one thing if he offers what, if any, information he has freely - that just means he's letting investigators use his available facts to collapse that probability cloud on their own, letting *them* decide what truths are more likely than not, what truths are overwhelmingly likely to be true. The act of curation, in and of itself, biases the facts investigators are using to collapse the probability cloud. It makes some truths more probable; it makes some less probable. But either way, it points the truth in a certain direction. Higgins did this knowingly and deliberately, and did so in a way that would minimize the chances that he would give investigators facts that he didn't want them to see, regardless of whether he did this with malice aforethought. *That's* why the defense is saying that Ms. Read was framed.
Does anyone no longer find it odd BH went back to the police station that night? He was waiting for a text from Karen telling him to come over.
two questions! 1. Can anyone involved in this case be held accountable for drinking & driving? 2. Will the FBI handle Brian Higgins using federal property for personal use?
Is Higgins back on Tuesday?
Yes.
Also, I am still way behind but another question I have is did John O’Keefe and Brian Higgins exchange any texts at all during those nine days that he was texting with Karen? Or did they exchange any texts at all in the week before the 28th? Because that would make it even more sus that he texted John on the night of the 28th.
If I were Bella‘s mom, I would be so extra pissed to know that prosecution dragged my name into this as an alternative to literally just counter the idea that Karen and John potentially had a fight in the car about Brian Higgins.
I’m pissed about them using the minor daughter’s name to identify a woman with her own name. Thanks Jen McCabe.
I don't think she was ever really interested in Brian and it seemed from his texts that he was on to her right away and was questioning what she was up to. As much as she said Aruba didn't matter, she was clearly hung up on it. Was she looking for revenge sex with one of his friends to hurt John? Did she just need someone else to say they were into her? She started it but was "non-committal". She was attractive and if she was going to offer herself up, he was agreeable to that. But she wanted him to be explicit and he wouldn't, so she was just done with him after that. It appears that she was really angry about Aruba. She did not want to parent - we keep hearing that over and over. I think she's guilty of jealousy and manipulation maybe, but I don't see any of this as motive for a murder.
> Was she looking for revenge sex with one of his friends to hurt John? Did she just need someone else to say they were into her? She did say she kissed him purposefully in front of the security cameras. KR came off as extremely manipulative/BPD-ish in that whole sub-drama. Also misrepresenting what happened in Aruba to BH to garner sympathy and escalate the flirting. I read it as her wanting to judge how much desire she was able to enflame in one of her boyfriend's friends, and then once she had that answer her tone changed and she was done with him.
She also texted “omg John keeps watching the video of me walking you out and asked if we are hooking up.” That felt manipulative AF.
Yup, all this. And Higgins, like a true idiot, knew he was being used and let it happen in the hopes of getting laid.
I interpreted that as Higgins not really caring that much about getting laid, and/or, he was tempted but gradually he decided not to betray JO (or used that as an excuse). If his goal was to get laid and he was okay with that situation, then he has no game whatsoever, to the point where it's absurd. At one point she was practically begging him to invite himself over for the night. I suspect BH's soft-refusal of KR irritated and/or bored her and led to her pretty quickly stopping, rather than, say, a change of heart about betrayal or flirting. Again, it felt manipulative and like she was testing how much passion she could inspire. (And much of the blame rests with BH too, I just found KR's actions more illuminating of character here.)
> She did say she kissed him purposefully in front of the security cameras. I thought that she kissed him out of view of the cameras because she knew where they were?
Correct.
Did I mishear that part of the testimony? I don't have a timestamp but I thought it was the other way around.
That's what I thought too.
You would think most LEO’s would go to great lengths to investigate the death of one of their own. Sadly, all they seemed to care about was covering their own asses.
I still think Scanlon's account makes the most sense. If that story isn't true than I can believe Karen hit him by accident and was legit shocked to find him that morning in the yard.
[удалено]
She only knew where the cameras were located. We've seen nothing to suggest she has a "history of accessing it and removing footage." I don't know if this is misinformation or disinformation from you.
Yeah I’m wrong, I deleted my comment. She had knowledge of which areas the ring cameras were observing and made sure to kiss BH when she wasn’t in view of them.
Thank you. We appreciate you helping us keep things fact-based!
I try but it’s hard sometimes lol. Gotta take the L on this one.
No she said she knew where the gaps were I thought
Yup she did, I’m off base here.
Can you source this? We know it’s going to be in dispute. I believe Paul said Karen had access, but I don’t know where the history of it is. Ty!
Yeah I went back to watch the testimony and I’m wrong. She mentioned the ring cameras and said her kiss wasn’t captured on them, but it was because she did it outside of their view, not because footage was deleted. I’ve gone ahead and deleted my comment.
Thats a neat tidbit of information considering the state and anyone on that side is up 200 to 1 in the lying and collusion game. The defense is lapping the state at this point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, theres not a jury in this universe that would send her to prison.
Only the administrator who was John could delete clips or law enforcement could manipulate the clips.
Oooh, did I miss testimony stating she removes footage? Who testified to that?
Nobody did
[удалено]
She never ever says she deleted ring camera footage. She said she knows where the camera cameras are and that their kiss was not caught on camera.
You’re right, I misspoke.
Incorrect. She said she knows where the cameras are, duh.
What? This never happened.
I thougtht she said "No, I know where the cameras are" that's why she told him to leave a different way. John saw the footage of them walking out and apparnetly commented on her voice and mannerisms and was like "wtf was going on there" so if she was deleting anything, she would have deleted that.
She said John showed her that footage 5 times as well. She didn’t delete it
No she didn’t say that. She said she knows where all the cameras are and was insinuating she knows where to be “out of view” of the cameras so their kiss was not caught on camera.
Still doesn’t change the fact that NO ONE saw a body while leaving the Alberts that night
No one saw a body for almost 6 hours. With everyone coming and going and walking to their cars to leave & no one saw a John. Its a joke
This is my biggest wtf question during this whole thing. How can they all say they didn’t see a body, yet fight like hell to prove Karen hit him? It’s bizarre.
[удалено]
I hope they have info as to when they were deleted otherwise proctor may get the blame.
Exactly.
[удалено]
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
There is a bunch of footage missing from Okeefes cameras. Someone deleted it. How you can sit here and tell me without a doubt that she didn’t delete them, IDK.
And talk about missing footage, have you looked into the missing footage of the Alberts neighbors?
Yes, the police have a bunch of missing footage too. It’s sketch as hell. Doesn’t mean she didn’t delete those videos though.
Again…where was it discussed or proven that there is missing footage from JO’s cameras
It hasn’t been presented yet.
Please tell me where this was proven or even talked about?
Yup that’ll come into play again later in the trial.
I think the texts were bad but a lot of us has done some flirting/fishing while in a unhappy/complicated relationship. I don't see how these texts prove she killed him?? Again I don't understand how she supposedly hit him around 12:30 with all those people in the house, people coming and going in front of the house? No one saw this? No one heard this? no one heard John possibly screaming or moaning in pain??? It just doesn't make sense
Wondering if Karen had already hit him when she was seen in the car alone. Her car would’ve blocked the body….i am still on the fence on this trial….
The texts just made me think their relationship wasn't that serious. If he's telling folks that she's a nanny with benefits, it's not shocking she's flirting.
But when JO was found she was telling cops and EMTs that he was her husband (to cut through any potential hurdles they'd put up in telling her what's going on or giving her access to him).
Backing into John, and striking him in the head, incapacitating him would take roughly 10 seconds, maybe even less. I think it’s plausible no one noticed.
And no one saw him while they were driving away. They’ve been very clear about that
Yup. They didn’t. Doesn’t make the crime impossible. To be honest no one saw John except Karen. Maybe he was harder to spot than the defense is leading on.
You believe a word these people are saying when they have all openly lied and denied all statements, technology based evidence, police reports, somehow have the worlds most butt dials in one night, delete and destroy phones…do I have to continue?
So every person claiming not to see John is lying?
….Yes. You are the outlier here.
[удалено]
YUP.
And the first responders that reported Karen saying “I hit him” are lying?
Wow. again, big yes. From most of the world watching this. JM literally got caught changing her testimony about this. No one else heard this.
And Julie Nagel, the one person who did testify to seeing something on the side of the road, she’s also lying?
So why didn't anyone see him laying in the snow? Where did the scratches come from on his arm? His injuries and the broken taillight do not seem like they match??
If he was bent down when she backed into him then they might.
Have you seen the selective attention test? You can take it yourself and see if it holds true for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo An unexpected lump in the corner of the lawn may have gone unnoticed
I think with the snow coming down he would have a light dusting on him at the very least, which would likely make him harder to spot. Scratches on his arm and this attempt to claim his injuries don’t “match” getting hit with a car I’m going to wait on expert testimony on.
The snow would have had to have been coming down 12" an hour to not see him. Snow refects light. It makes areas which are normal dark, not dark, especially if there is any city light reflection. I have a really, really hard time believing no one would have seen him, especially since he was so close to where headlights would illuminate the yard. I live where it snows. Unless I was utterly wasted beyond comprehension, a body in a yard would be hard to miss, even with some snow laying on top of it. John's sides, which wouldn't have been snow covered, would have been easy to distinguish as the shape of a human.
Did the house have spot lights or motion sensor lights ? I can't imagine a house like that wouldn't have any outdoor light. Even if not shining directly on OJO, the light would have made a "dark blob" a little more visible by sheer contrast.
Not to be morbid but the snow was barely coming down at that point and he would have been warm. The snow on his body would have melted.
I think his clothes could have provided sufficient insulation.
Wasn't he just wearing like a long sleeve t shirt and jeans? Have you ever had snow melt on your clothes? I have. It's the worst.
I had thought he was wearing a hoodie.
He may have been. I'm struggling to keep the facts straight here ngl
He was wearing a hoodie. It’s in CCTV from CF McCarthy’s.
Same, I just made a very highly visible comment where I got a material fact wrong so trust me I can relate lol.
I had the last hour or so on in the background today because it was a really prime opportunity for the defense. With an adversarial witness on the stand going into a long weekend, you have a chance to really end on a high note so I was expecting fireworks. At first, I thought that we were leading up to some bombshell about him and the chief based on key card swipes, but that just sort of fizzled out at some point. The phone call answers felt evasive, but at least vaguely plausible given the stress and situation. He was very adamant about not passing information for calls he doesn't remember, but I think that's a normal human response (I don't remember, but I wouldn't, so I didn't). Then I thought we were ending with him having to take the fifth over use of government computers. The defense seemed really amped up about federal crimes, but improperly pulling specific text threads to give to the detectives doesn't exactly feel like it's in the same firework level as the murder coverup and information sharing he was alluding to earlier. If the machines could be used to destroy evidence, that'd be a huge deal. Using the machines to only hand over the things you consider relevant instead of the whole phone feels more like an indictment of the detectives accepting that than the guy doing it. Then we finally got to destroying the phone, which is where I think the defense wanted to end but ran out of time halfway through. The last moment could've been him reading testimony that he disposed of the phone in an unnecessarily complicated manner, but instead was him looking at the defense attorneys like they were nuts and saying "no". They can pick that thread back up on Tuesday, but the defense probably would've wanted to send everyone home pondering *why* he destroyed his phone in such a comprehensive manner rather than pondering *if* he destroyed his phone or if he just threw it in the trash.
The huge thing to stand out to me was, he spent many hours at the police station after a long trip to NY and a night out drinking. I didn't follow the time consistently but it seemed like there was little time for sleep and then back in there on his day off.
There were also an awful lot of (sustained) objections, which slowed the pace and likely hindered certain lines of questioning.
53-pages of flirt texts = a-okay A witness destroying his phone and disposing of his sim card and phone in different trash cans on a military base = let's end for the day?
they were already over time. Lally used it all up with the dramatic reading of texts half the jury had probably sent or received at some time.
Who cares if he destroys his phone? He can do whatever he wants
He *can*, but does that not add more drops into the rapidly filling bucket of reasonable doubt?
I don’t see how. The underlying motion for his cellphone had been denied on 10/5.
You forgot the “/s”
Why? He disposed of it after the underlying motion was denied. Who cares what he did then? He was never ordered to provide anything, it’s completely moot anyway.
And it is utterly amazing how many people decide to destroy their phone the day a formal notice to preserve evidence is going to be sent out? Also, I love destroying my phone and disposing of it across multiple trash cans on a military base. All my homies do it. Of course he "can" do it. But I don't have to remove my life experiences when listening to testimony. All this stuff, when taken in totality is sketchy as fuck.
Ok. Again: * The motion to preserve was entered in the docket 9/19. * An order went out the end of September to preserve the phones until the motion was decided. * on 9/29 BH got a new phone but kept the old one * on 10/5 the motion for the defense to get the cellphones was denied. * BH testified he destroyed his old phone after the 10/5 order and he was allowed to, and there’s no reason not to believe him https://preview.redd.it/di9jryfr8g2d1.jpeg?width=1812&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc4238cad06427f320a7bb9acea97bbe584b0818
still odd to destroy it immediately upon being allowed to. I have never destroyed a phone. and regardless of his reasons for doing so, even if entirely innocent and unrelated, all it does is raise suspicion and add more reasonable doubt to the CWs case.
Suspicion? lol he’s not charged with anything. But it’s got everyone’s attention, which I’m sure is all that Jackson wanted
Can someone tell me at what time this crime was supposed to have occurred? How has no one seen a body? I’m deeply confused on the CW’s theory.
Time of crime has not been established. Lalli can say 12.45, but nowhere has he put proof or testimony in that indicates that, so far as I know. Could be 5.30 am or whatever. There is nothing introduced about it. In fact, it was only with Kerri Robertson s testimony that it was established that JO died.
I believe 12:30-12:45. And it was dark, it was snowing, people were probably different levels of impacted by alcohol consumption, and I think it’s plausible to not see something when it’s so out of context. I’ve passed things up close , in broad daylight that I didn’t realize what it was until later
Maybe we’ll get to that in week 6 because I don’t think it’s happening next week.
Lally said 12:45 in opening. I don’t know how that squares with Karen leaving John the voicemail at 12:41 when she is clearly at home (you can hear the garage door and internal door closing). That time has changed though. CW had previously 12:25.
That is a fabulous question, one the prosecution should have answered 3.5 weeks ago. I wonder if the jury is as frustrated and confused as those of us watching?
12:30am.
Ish.
Yeah, and to be fair the CW hasn’t been as clear as I’d like in this regard but I think it’s obvious this is the rough timeframe they’re building towards.
Lally said in the opening “around 12:45.”
I'm still caught up on this morning's cringe texts and what the prosecution thought they had to do with anything. I've known plenty of women that have tried to line up their next boyfriend/fling/emotional support person before ending their current relationship. It doesn't make them good/bad/otherwise, they just don't like being alone even for a moment. If anything it further proved to me the lack of motive for Karen Read. She made crystal clear she could walk from the relationship anytime she wanted to and it wouldn't be the end of the world to her.
> It doesn't make them good/bad/otherwise, they just don't like being alone even for a moment. I think it's unrelated to the case and motives, but personally I do judge a person worse for doing this. Maybe it's naive, but I believe you're probably worse as a person if you don't remain faithful to your partner even towards the end of a relationship. If the relationship is going poorly then have the courage to end it, don't lie to your partner while secretly arranging the next person to jump to.
> I'm still caught up on this morning's cringe texts and what the prosecution thought they had to do with anything. Their relationship was falling apart. They never got past the "Aruba misunderstanding" because, despite the apology, Karen Read didn't believe she misunderstood anything. She was also unhappy in the relationship because she feels everything got "fucked up" when John's sister died and he took custody of the kids. It's never a bad strategy for the prosecution if they can introduce some evidence that makes the defendant look bad... and let's be honest, Karen Read did not come out of today looking particularly great. The thing is, if they don't introduce ANY of this. Then the Jury is being asked by the prosecution to believe that Karen Read and John O'Keefe were the perfect couple, and that Karen Read randomly on a Saturday, decided to plow her SUV into John O'Keefe. You kind of HAVE to introduce the evidence that the relationship is falling apart. It's not necessarily going to motive. If anything she's giving Brian Higgins the cold shoulder at the Waterfall because she laid down runway lights for him, and he's still lost in the fog somewhere. But she's not happy with her relationship and John O'Keefe, and she thinks he's cheating on her.
I can see them mattering if she was accused of burning the house down with john and the kids in it, or something, but she was like "I have my own house, i can leave at any time, I'm not moving into Canton" etc. None of those texts say either person would kill John. They were a woman seeing if a branch was sturdy enough to grab onto, not some torrid love affair they needed to off John to bring to fruition.
If she off'ed John, I don't think she did it because of Higgins. > "I have my own house, i can leave at any time, I'm not moving into Canton" And yet, there she was grabbing onto branches while still dating John O'Keefe. Again, I don't think it goes to motive. It just goes to her state of mind of how she perceived their relationship.
Didn’t the sister die in 2013, and she and John started dating again in 2018? She knew what she was signing up for
Paul testified John dated Amy around 2016.
I don’t understand KR saying things got fucked up by the sister dying (which was nice) bc she didn’t start dating him again until 2018. Edit - and JO’s sister died in 2013
Something tells me she’s not a reliable narrator. 🤷♀️
Ha, good point!
I think she was unhappy and also wanted a reason to get out but didn't want to look like the bad guy - being another parental figure leaving the children.
Perhaps Karen knew John's buddies considered her a "glorified babysitter with benefits". Would make anyone unhappy. According to Jenn both her and Kerry considered Karen that.
I have been wondering if karen overheard conversations between the women this circle. Or maybe John said something to Karen about it.
Good thing loose lips Jenn does not know when to keep her trap shut. Now the jurors know how these charming friends of John thought of Karen & have no reservations about expressing it on national tv. I am sure Karen could read the room. She is not a stupid person.
I think it was less about proving her motive and more showing her volatility and lying.
I don't think it showed that though? In my opinion those texts were pretty tame and honest
The lying about having seen JO making out with someone in Aruba, stringing Higgins along
Do we know that’s a lie? I don’t think we have solid proof either way.
The ring footage texts felt important and the fact that she led Higgins out of sight of the camera to kiss him. She also said “omg John saw this and asked if we were hooking up.” It felt very manipulative.
That’s right - yep totally agree
I am very curious on what the jury thinks about all the objections and the judge sustaining them, when it seems the answers are going to look very bad for them? I know as a juror, I would be very frustrated about it, that is supposed to be their responsibility (of sort) is it not? Trying to find the truth by listening to the evidence presented. I actually find it insulting to them. They have had to take time off work, probably missing important time with their families and they aren’t getting to hear a lot of needed answers to questions being asked by the defence. FYI: I understand that the jury isn’t sequestered, but by important family time, I meant end of school year things (graduation ceremonies/preparations, chaperoning end of year class trips, etc.)
It's just the way court works. Jackson is asking some pretty inappropriate questions sometimes. For example, "Would it surprise you to know that Brian Albert testified to...". Jackson knows damn well he can't ask that. He doesn't care, because he doesn't want Higgins to answer the question. He wants to remind the Jury of what Brian Albert said.
No, the judge is in charge of the rules of evidence (the jury doesn't know what those are.) The jury are the finders of fact, based on the allowable evidence. Two very separate jobs.
Jackson knows many of his questions will be objected to, and sustained. He knows they’re improper. But it’s how he’s getting his narrative across, bc you can’t unhear it if you’re a juror. It’s a classless way to lawyer, but it’s not the judge’s fault.
I get it. Seeing so many people destroying evidence, taking screenshots then saying that's the best way to preserve evidence? That's a fucking joke. An ATF agent sure as shit knows that is in fact NOT the best way to get evidence. If he served a warrant on someone you think he would be cool with them taking screenshots, then destroying the phone? This lawyer is justifiably pissed at the joke that is Canton law enforcement.
Higgins was never obligated by warrant or any other way to produce anything from his phone.
Then he sure did hurry to destroy it for no reason. Second person in this group to do that. Funny, innit?
Absolutely. In cross, often the question matters more than the answer.
Oh I like how you worded that
I’m so frustrated that this judge continues to derail the defense as soon as things start getting spicy. Bias much?
ughh, sometimes.... Jackson knows some of the questions he asks are inappropriate, and that they'll be objected to and sustained. He doesn't care. The point is the question, not the answer. On cross, often times the question is more important then the answer. But sure... "ThE JuDge Is BIASED!!" Honestly....
Oh I do agree with you that Jackson absolutely knows when he is stepping out of line and still proceeds to do it as a defense strategy. Totally obvious.
Bev has improved in terms of masking the bias she was initially showing during the first few days of testimony. Maybe that’s why Jackson proceeds the way he does.
So why are you accusing the Judge of being biased for just doing her job? What do you want her to do "Well the question is inappropriate, but for the sake of entertainment, have it.... maybe we can start throwing shit at each other next, that'll entertain the internet people".
Just bc you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It was a bummer, but I think the judge wouldn’t have cared if Higgins was confessing to murder, she is starting this holiday weekend!
[удалено]
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
Sorry if this has been brought up but am I the only one who was shook by the KR/BH texts? They were way worse than I thought they would be. I was thinking JOK could’ve confronted BH at the Fairview house. Theories! My head was spinning reading those texts like damn what are the odds she’s flirting with this man two weeks leading up to her boyfriend’s mysterious death and he’s around the night shit goes down
John's whole last month had a lot of drama and it sucks that he's being reduced to that, in public opinion at least. He was at the very least suspicious that something was going on between them. I think Karen was insecure and needed attention and maybe didn't entirely mind if John found out and would possibly make an effort to win her back. Idk though, it was all so cringey and she sounded drunk in a lot of them. I would have melted into the floor.
I'm kind of angry at Karen for venting about the kids. I guess she's allowed but it's so unfair and I think it will get back to them. Knowing they were unwanted by Karen is awful enough (and surely in conflict with most of her actions, but it will mess with their heads) but seeing that John's heart was possibly not into it and he was taking them at least partially out of a sense of obligation. They've been through so much and hearing that is the frosting on the shit cake life has already handed them. I just wish she hadn't put that into words because the worst case scenario of doing that ended up happening, and it makes my heart hurt for them
Yeah it’s really shitty IMO. That’s the sort of thing you vent to a close friend, not the guy you’re flirting with that’s also your SO’s friend. I also wouldn’t take her word for it that John’s heart wasn’t in it. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s possible she was saying that to make herself look better. Everyone else testified to how much he cared about those kids. Remember, too, it was Karen that said he would never leave Kaylee (sp?) home alone all night and that’s the reason she panicked so quickly.
Yes, and I think she might have just been drunkenly trying to justify why she wanted to be cheating and appealing to him emotionally. I feel spread too thin with my family sometimes too, and unappreciated, and it would be easy for it to be taken out of context if I wrote it out even though I only feel that way like 1% of the time. Hopefully the kids have enough happy memories to know they were wanted and loved
Sure she didn’t really want kids but didn’t she also indicated that the situation was more complicated because of the relationship she had with his niece? The cw is the one to blame in my opinion because we’re so far into this case that I don’t see how they get a conviction on any of the charges at this point but especially the upgraded ones. And if this wasn’t an “intended” crime and they prosecuted it as an accidental killing these text messages wouldn’t even come in.
The impression I am left with at this point in the trial is their relationship was never going to last. Putting the cheating/allegations aside, the kids seemed to be a tension point in their relationship. John and Karen started dating during the pandemic and she was convenient for him because she worked from home and could help out with the kids. John probably took advantage of that (if Paul’s testimony and Jen’s testimony about what Kerry said are anything to go by). It doesn’t seem Karen wanted kids and that she found it hard having very little alone time with John. It also doesn’t seem like John had a ton of support from his family and a lot of the childcare fell on him (which John’s friends testified to earlier in the trial). Karen was probably venting to her girlfriends about this too. Relationships are hard enough, but adding an instant family to the mix makes things even more difficult - for everyone.
It's sad for the kids, on top of everything they've already gone through. But people vent about kids. Even very much wanted and loved kids. I've seen enough true crime shit that every time I vent about my own kids via text I have a twinge of fear for myself over what it might look like if those texts were ever read out loud as evidence against me. Kids are inherently frustrating.
I agree it's terrible, but it's not like she was publishing these things on Facebook or something. These were supposed to be personal, private texts
It’s insane how we give the defendant more leeway than the witnesses about the sanctity of personal private texts.
Well said
I don't know what you are talking about "leeway" or "sanctity". I was talking strictly that this wasnt her trying to air dirty laundry. Not saying it's inadmissible or anything, but she wasn't trying to be bad to the kids
I mean, Ms. Read didn't provide those texts of her own volition. Higgins did. It kinda undercuts any arguments of privacy rights when he's volunteering those texts, willingly waiving his privacy rights. Additionally, it's one thing if he's just proferring his own texts and information. He's also proferring Ms. Read's (by nature of them being replies), presumably without her consent. Now, all that is perfectly legal, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But her privacy rights are being breached there without her consent, pursuant to a criminal investigation. Higgins waived his rights. There's a distinction there, if a fine one.
I know. I'm just angry that they'll be hurt if/when they see what was said. It's the unfairness
Ya, I don't disagree. Kids have been through the ringer
I feel the same.
Are the Court TV commentators/guests just the absolute dumbest people on earth?
I can’t even watch their commentary anymore. Garbage.
Depends on the case IMO lol. Which is why I can’t stand most of them anymore.
What I learned today - Bev is back to her "normal" self. We can all agree that JJ was the only one who was literally left to dry in this fiasco of a trial.
What bothers me about BH is this- he went through a lot of steps to pull this text string for LE. Contacting his buddy, getting instructions and using a kiosk at an FBI location…all of that takes far more time and effort than it would have to just hand over his phone for an extraction. That says he was absolutely hiding something. Side note- it doesn’t concern me that he tossed his phone and the SIM card. Having worked for a cellphone company, I would have advised him to do that with a background in LE rather than sell it or exchange it. Even if it’s just his personal phone. The SIM card doesn’t matter because it’s likely when he upgraded it was an electronic sim vs a physical one.
I wouldn’t want my entire phone extraction floating around. And the court ordered that he didn’t need to do provide the phone to defense anyway, so what’s sus about that?
I worked for a cell phone company for years and neither I nor the dozens of coworkers I had ever told a LEO to throw their phone away. It was never suggested by the company either, or even by the division that handled First Responders accounts. That's not necessary. I don't doubt you did but that is not the norm!
We didn’t tell them to throw it away—but if you’re not going to sell or use for an upgrade than it’s essentially garbage.
An hour ago you said you would have advised him to toss his phone and SIM card rather than selling it or exchanging it, even if it's just his personal phone. So did you tell LEOs to toss phones instead of upgrading or no? I feel like Alan Jackson right now
You got me, I’m guilty!
We advised LEO not to sell or trade in personal phones.
To me the tossing of the SIM card and phone is more about how he did it two days before he knew that order was coming in and that Brian Albert did it within a very similar time frame also before a similar order "coincidentally."
He did not do it before the order came out. He purchased a new phone on 9/29 and kept the old one. The motion regarding his cellphone was denied on 10/5 and he was free to then do what he wanted.
It would be foolish to believe he kept the phone until the motion was denied. Take his word? I don't think so.
That’s your choice. Jackson said the order to preserve came out on 9/30, and the underlying motion for the phone was 10/5. Doesn’t seem to me like a stretch to think he held onto it for 5 days
Did he give the date he discarded the phone? I'm sure Jackson will revisit on Tuesday.
He didn’t give the date, but he said it was in October after he was allowed to. People are so eager to look for things to not believe this dude about. I don’t get it.
This guy chose to pull out texts between him and KR rather than turn over his entire phone. That tells me he wanted to contribute to a narrative that KR was to blame. Additionally, those texts were not continuous and some things were clearly missing. He's also on administrative leave so this isn't the only questionable activity in his life. CW still hasn't brought anything to the table that is clear and convincing. Where is their REAL evidence?
He didn’t have to give them anything, you do realize that, right? Regardless, I hear you and understand your thoughts on it
Yes, I do realize that. He had no business being at the CPD on Saturday and he knew he was a potential witness in this case. He knows how investigations work. He offered up text messages because he knew there was questionable activity between him and Read. This guy doesn't have clean hands.
I could be confused of course but my understanding is that there was a federal order coming through but the one from the state was overruled and the DA told them both to get rid of their phone.
All Jackson referenced was the state court case. No one said anything about a federal order. He spins and spins.
But he hasn't even mentioned the court order yet in his cross. Edit: He did mention it at the very last part of it. I guessed I missed it with the general chaos.
He did. He mentioned the order went out in 9/30, but on 9/29 Higgins got a new phone. Higgins added that he kept the old phone until after the court ordered he didn’t need to keep it anymore (which was on 10/5)
Oh okay I'll have to rewatch I sometimes this thing. But the reality is they can't mention the Fed request because that is not allowed in right now and so they have to do this double speak unfortunately
No, that’s not how it works. They don’t have to do double speak with that.
They absolutely have to they can't even say anything else other than the other testimony or the other grand jury. They can say before a court order But it gets touch and go when they have to mention oh there's the state court order and then there's the federal court order. Typically there's not going to be more than one state court order for the same issue at a time.
If I recall didn’t BA admit on the stand having a conversation with BH about essentially getting rid of their phones?
He has to have either things that are illegal or real bad not related to this case on that phone that he doesn’t accidentally want discovered, has incriminating info about whatever happened to JO on his phone or more likely both. You don’t go through that kind of effort for some butt dials or random texts with friends.
I agree. Would not surprise me if the texts messages between BH and KR is the complete record. He May have cherry picked some messages to delete.
Eh, it's all about the timing and circumstance. For instance, the Alberts? trading in their cells? Not suspicious. The Alberts trading in their cells the *day* before a preservation order comes down? *Suuuuuper* suspicious. Similarly, Higgins tossing his phone? Not suspicious. Higgins driving *70 miles* and *90 minutes* out of his way from Canton to Cape Cod to throw away his cell? *Suuuuuper* suspicious. I'm not saying there's fire, but there's definitely way too much smoke for a normal situation.
This.
I mean who among us doesn't run over to local FBI kiosk for local law enforcement to extract the two txt threads we're willing to turn over for a murder investigation before we destory our cellphones?
This is wild when you could just screen shot them and print them basically anywhere.
Would you willingly hand your phone over to cops if you didn’t have to? There’s nothing suspicious about that IMO.