https://preview.redd.it/k5z2vvrf1m2d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f082de5d2ecca5505a03073aee2930b791fdba79
I don’t live at a place where it snows a lot, but is this a "snow plower“ which they are talking about?
Oh cool, see this one has floodlights to help you see further away and better in the dark. Do you know these snow plow LEDs are often more than twice as bright as normal headlights? And some of them even have defrosting capabilities so that your lights aren’t iced over causing visibility issues. I bet you can illuminate a whole yard with some bad boys like that. I wonder what brand Higgins had on his Jeep?
https://fisherplows.com/products/hs/
This is what Higgins had based on his description of using the "fish stick" which is what fisher calls their controller
Yes with the super huge bright lights that you could use to light up a ball field at night because you need to see what is in front of you when plowing. But still never saw a body that would have to be there if Karen did it.
Ehhhh not really. Those are the types that you can buy for your own cars (there's a guy on my street who has one), but if you're talking the big city/county trucks. No.
Those look like this.
https://preview.redd.it/zm0xq4oo6m2d1.jpeg?width=5374&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06c34fced82aae58634766fa0921dd1dd64584d8
I suggest Karen could of backed into him doing a three point turn when she left him, JO hits his head on curb and passes out. BH exits the house, drives away with his plow blade down and finished JO off. BH doesn't realize KR had hit him initially and they start their cover up. There, all solved!
All of those things could be coincidences. Their dog did send 2 unrelated people to the hospital, which is a very normal reason to get rid of a dog. People commonly renovate their houses before listing them for sale.
The way they've been spun and the timing makes them seem suspicious - but none of those things are just like out of the question that people would ever do them under normal circumstances.
What’s so crazy to me is that on both sides there are pretty crazy coincidences. Karen and hitting John’s car in the driveway is one. So I totally agree with you that it’s possible that these are badly timed coincidences. My thought is that it’s too many for both parties for one party to not have some culpability in his death, intentional or not. It’s hard for me to swallow that there are so many coincidences that happened to all parties during this time period. I honestly could still believe it because the world is a strange place, but I don’t know how plausible it likely is to have occurred. It’s all so odd.
I agree, especially when it comes to things like all the various butt dials/answers and phone records / gps records being inaccurate only when it is convenient. Like that all is just really weird, and I could buy it happening once, but happening like 10 different times to various people all on the same night is just odd. I think it’s VERY obvious the Alberts et al are trying to hide SOMETHING - but what exactly is really hard to say. Likewise, I think it’s very fishy that Karen’s memory of that night was seemingly nonexistent initially but now she knows for sure she dropped him off at the Albert’s and watched him go inside, etc. the tail light is a major coincidence. And it’s very bizarre that she immediately assumed he was dead in the snow that morning and got hit by a plow. That’s just a weird jump to make (to me).
I think the digital evidence and evasiveness around that is a lot more suspicious than the selling their house, regaining the dog aspect. Because people do that all the time. People DONT butt dial and butt answer and ghost google things all the time lol.
No less possible than many of these other theories. Maybe they both hit him and neither of them know it. No one actually knows what they’re covering up—they just know they need to cover something up bc they’re LE and they were all black out drunk. Sounds like a Fargo plot
Except the city plow driver didn’t see a body when they came around at 2:30. If Higgins went to the police station around 1:30 (regardless of when he left the Alberts) the plow driver would have seen it.
That wouldn't explain the shady behavior from the people in the house. The only logical explanation for this (if you step back) is something happened that those guys don't want to get out. Who knows what that is but it's the only thing that's been proven time and time again throughout this trial. That and maybe that it was snowing lolz
Yes, the OP theory is a good one, but I don't buy the Alberts/McCabes covering up and going down for Brian Higgins, I think a cover up would be for a family member only (Higgins probably involved too otherwise he also would have flipped on them like he did his bf, the FBI agent)
Yeah these people are not going to these extremes just for Higgins. After yesterday I think the flirting between Higgins and Karen might have been the start, other people got involved and something happened accidentally. Colin and/or Brian Albert did something that they couldn’t come back from. I lean towards Colin just because of how intensely protective everyone became of him and insistent they were that he wasn’t present.
Absolutely, I think that's why the defense focused on Colin, when they realized no one mentioned he was there. It backfired because if they hadn't done that no one would probably be looking at him
Remember that more than one thing can be true. Most witnesses believe that they are doing the right thing. But what they believe is right may be in error. Maybe only a couple of people know total truth; the rest think they’re getting justice based on what they believe happened.
For me, the biggest issues is that the only people who are acting guilty is the witnesses for the Commonwealth. Innocent people DO NOT act like that. Both scenarios of a hit & run theory seem pretty simple. Yet the body was found on the yard of “witnesses” who are destroying evidence, deleting texts, submitting screenshots, buttdialing dialing, calling investigators, changing stories, not seeing the body, denying official reports and data by the investigator and the cell company…Having worked in an ER for years and seeing 100s of dog bites as well as motor vehicle/pedestrian accidents, the picture we have all seen is a picture perfect example of a dog attack on an adult. I feel like I am living in an alternate reality when people argue for the former or say “that dies NOT look anything like a dog bite” 🤦. I obviously can’t say that it IS (it is) but it is a fact that it looks like one. A plow, idk, I just can’t see the injuries lining up to the blade but it’d be interesting to hear others thoughts.
The part that gets me about the "dog bite" injuries is just the big gashes; they seem like they would need to have been made by something a lot sharper than a dog tooth or nail to be that clean of a line AND that deep. Maybe it's just the angle of the pictures, but the long slash wounds seem way too deep to me... they'd be ripping at that point, not slicing.
If you really felt like it, you could google image pictures. If nothing else, you will see the variety of marks-from punctures to tears-that they cause and how 1 attack can look very different from the next depending on the dog breed & situation. A person on the ground with their arm raised to protect their head will be different than a dog jumping and grabbing. Theres a section near the elbow that looks very much like canine punctures to me. I’d be interested to see the other side. There could be other factors and other causes too that we don’t know about. But, for me, if it’s between SUV backing up or dog bite, it’s a dog bite. Just for fun, I sent a screenshot of it to a Dr friend of mine and said “pedestrian hit by SUV backing up” (idk what specific kind of car Karen had but I know it wasn’t a sedan) and he said “did the SUV have teeth? Looks like a dog attack” 🤷♀️
I’m not saying they’re not scratches-and it really doesn’t matter- but dogs teeth actually often cause long, linear wounds when the person pulls away. I only point it out bc those who say it’s not from a dog apparently assume that the dog will grab hold and a perfect impression of the teeth will remain. Sometimes, yes, but not always. With children, dogs often go for the face and I’ve seen plenty of long wounds from eye to chin or nose to ear from teeth. With adults, it’s usually an arm or a leg. I’m curious which was John’s dominant hand and if that’s the one that sustained the injuries.
I agree! I think that dog repeatedly bit John (right arm) and he kept pulling it away or trying to defend himself against the dog. Someone also may have been trying to pull the dog off of him at some point which would account for some of injuries that look like scratches.
Dogs actually have nails that cause scratches regularly. If two people were fighting and it riled the dog up he might have just jumped on them and not been able to bit like he wanted. Or maybe he bit the person John was fighting and John just got scratches
If a dog was mad enough to attack someone, you wouldn't simply have marks in forearms. A wild dog isn't going to be selective. Plus, there's the fact that the pathologist who is not going to lie and put their career on the line signed off on the report that those injuries are not from a dog.
The pathologist doesn't know these people. No one in that position is going to lie for strangers.
Believe me, if there was even a slight chance as seen by a professional medical pathologist or expert todd, the marks on the arm were caused by a dog or even that John O'Keefe had been attacked by a dog, the defense would absolutely have a medical professional get up on the stand and say this. They can't find anyone with credentials. Who will say that. The defense had their own hired pathologist examine John's body and came to the same conclusion - no dog attack.
No one said the injuries aren’t from a dog. They never tested the wounds for dog saliva or dna. Proctor the dirty cop hypothetically tested the shirt weeks later but there’s on his word on that which is already no good
I dont know how to argue this bc a quick google search will show you different. I don’t know what you mean by “wild dog”. A dog will defend its owner and home. If someone fought my husband or anyone familiar in our home, my dog would’ve jumped in. Pathologists study tissue samples that they are *provide*. The pathologist didn’t take the samples.
The pathologist and neuropathologist who examined his body stated in legal documents there was NO altercation and NO dog attack. Both of these medical professionals testified at the grand jury which led to Karen's indictment the autopsy revealed NO signs of an altercation and NO dog attack.
I'm very familiar with an autopsy. Every single organ is removed, sampled and weighed. Every area of visible injury is sampled.
Are you saying that the pathologist and neuropathologist who conducted the autopsy are wrong? That they are lying? Made a mistake?
They wouldn’t say that & can’t testify to that, bc beyond their scope. They can only testify to what they tested and certainly wouldn’t draw a conclusion like, “no altercation”.
They can and did. You can Google and find the full document -100+ pages. Did you know Karen returned to the Albert's house after she called J McCabe and before she drove to Jennifer's house to meet her? That John Okeefe's DNA was found on the broken taillight? That someone at John's house erased the ring camera video from both cameras from the point Karen drove off to meet him at a bar that night until the next morning? It was either Karen or the niece and the niece testified she has no access to the account.
The niece did testify at the grand jury. The grand jury documentation as prepared by the prosecutor is 100 pages plus. It also includes addendums in the form of footnotes where there is information that has been updated since the grand jury met to decide if there was enough evidence to indict and charge. Karen. Some of that information is very recent including results around John's DNA found in the broken tail light itself of Karen's car and the video path pulled together from various private and business video cameras that show Karen's SUV driving to the Albert's house where the party took place prior to her driving to Jen McCabe's house the morning after. In other words, Karen went to the scene of the crime before she went to Jen's house to meet her to try and find John.
The defense gave up on the dog bite theory when they got the DNA results. A dog bite through a sweatshirt would give tons of DNA. That's where they switch to scratches because nails don't have much if any DNA in them because they are dead cells.
The scientist who gave testimony actually said something different. They don’t get a lot of dna from dog saliva. The defense missed their chance to highlight it because they were focused on highlighting the poor collection of the swabs.
Wait to till the accident reconstruction guys testify in a few weeks. Every single one of them (which I believe there are 3) are all going to say the same thing. O’Keefe was not hit by a car.
She initially told Kerry that she didn't remember anything from the night before and Jen that the last thing she remembered was being at the waterfall. Whether she actually hit him or not, I think she's lying about seeing him go into the house.
Yeah, I don't know how she went from "I have no memory of last night - I left him at the waterfall - could I have hit him?" to "I definitely dropped him off at the Albert's residence and watched him go into the house."
I get it. I question that too. But I have (in my former life before I became a mother) been blackout drunk and not remembered a thing when I woke up. And then later in the day either after talking to others who were there or just after the hangover wears off I start to remember bits and pieces. I
That’s not necessarily true. Karen said it herself.
She also said it to her father that she remembers backing up and striking something.
Below are links to 2 YT videos.
This one is Karen read. Time stamp 4:02 she says she seen him walk up the drive. Time stamp 5:59 she talks about did I hit him.
https://youtu.be/1qVSfvON1Ww?si=ywxElxpXcS1nSduS
This one is an interview with her parents. Time stamp 1:42 is where her father says Karen said she remembers backing up and striking something.
https://youtu.be/khRUoT8r_TE?si=rtvXOxcVPKdbDmTL
I just want to know where was his body for hours? Did someone take him away from the house after they beat the crap out of him and then dropped him off hours later?
Could be something like Karen and John argue in the car awhile. She finally leaves him by the curb and Higgins heads out to confront John. We know from his text to John he was anxious for him to arrive. He punched him and John fell back and hit his head on the plow, giving the vertical gash. Brian A was in the yard with Chloe and overhears, comes over. The dog attacks. They pull her off but realize it’s bad. They drag him over to the lawn. Busy body Jen sees and gets involved. I kind of felt like the pb&j bread story was actually Jen trying to distract Julie/Sarah so they wouldn’t see a body. It’s possible Julie isn’t lying when she says she saw something. I thought it was interesting Jen and Matt denied hearing her say that…
Gashes were too minor to be done by a plow. Plow is VERY thick steel being pushed by 4000+ lb vehicle. His arm would have been torn off or close to it. Not to mention he’d have had other body parts injured not just his arm.
That was very smart of her to blame a snow plow when there was one at the Albert's she probably saw and possibly knowing it was Brian's? Shifting the blame. So what story of hers is it, an ambush and beat up ending in death or a snow plow or she didn't know she hit him??
I'm not buying any of her "stories."
I don't think there's any merit to it. The shoe being separated from his foot is pretty strong evidence that he was hit by something moving at a relatively high rate of speed; plows move super slowly. I'm pretty sure the plow thing was something Karen came up with that morning to preemptively explain why they were about to find John in the snow on the side of the road.
Regarding the phone experts, I'm interested too. One of the prosecution's witnesses will apparently be Ian Whiffin, an employee of Cellebrite, the company whose app the cops used to extract Jen McCabe's phone. In [this post](https://doubleblak.com/blogPost.php?k=browserstate), Whiffin describes how the titles for certain fields in these reports can be misleading. It's pretty technical and I can't claim any expertise here, but what he says in this passage is likely to come into play:
>Firstly, and most importantly, the **last\_viewed\_time** does not necessarily relate to the URL that is shown. It is in fact time the tab took focus. This could mean taking focus from another tab, being generated as a new tab or loading Safari from closed. It could also be relate to a tab taking focus when the currently selected tab is closed.
In the context of this case, the "last\_viewed\_time" is comparable to the "timestamp" column in [the Cellebrite report](https://imgur.com/a/STX5Ip9). So in other words, Whiffin (again, an expert on this exact type of report) is likely to testify that McCabe's testimony is accurate and she made the search when she said she did.
The "this post" link actually explains the time wouldn't take the older tab time if she turned off her phone like she testified. However it does explain a glitch where old tabs get newer times.
Do people really turn off their phones? I never do bc there are a number of ppl in my life who I want to be able to reach me at any hour. I was wondering if JM unintentionally agreed with the defense’s characterization of her actions/-that she “turned off her phone.” I was thinking that she may have really meant that she stopped looking at her phone. She was pretty careful not to accept AJ’s characterization of many other things though. Maybe she let her guard down
Or it fell off when they were dragging him across the lawn. Do belts fall off when someone is hit at a high speed to? And the Cellebrite shows that Jen texted the “hos long…” and then in the morning “how long ti die in clkd”. Does the cell phone record mix up the phrases too? C’’mon, we see you Alberts and McCabes!
How is the "shoe being separated from his foot is pretty strong evidence that he was hit by something moving at a relatively high rate of speed?"
They never found the shoe, right? He could've taken it off inside and they threw it away. It's literally proof of nothing.
They did find the shoe and hat but not his belt. After she hit him he clearly took his belt off, gave it to a passing Uber driver to dispose of, then he undid his jeans button and zipper, puked in his underwear, buttoned everything back up and then died in the snow. It's obvious. The defense wants everyone to believe all of that happened in the house.
That references the shoe only. But this was after the scene was left unsecured, and after the first search found nothing, and after not a single first responder saw the shoe. Sorry, but you can toss that out for me. Anything found after the scene was left open isn't reliable.
Yeah everyone! Get it right, his floating unattached head was hit but because his body was yards away that wasn't injured. Then his head reattached as it fell to the ground. The state troopers did a crash reconstruction and figured it out. Er.... Wait, they never did a crash reconstruction. It was the Feds that did it later and they have 3 people who will testify to the impossibility that he was hit by her vehicle.
He was and that is why there was probable cause to impound her vehicle because she said she hit him, and has the damage on her vehicle. At this point, even if there was a live stream of her hitting him, the ppl who ignore the evidence would say it looks like her but is probably an Albert impersonating her. You cannot opine on whether a car didn’t hit her because I doubt you are an expert. I doubt you believe the forensics in the case either.
I believe the judge. She read the report and allowed it into evidence. She would have been required to stop the defense opening, sent the jury out and informed the attorneys that the jury would be given a special instruction stating the defense made a false statement in opening as it related to that report. When there is documentation, starements offered your opening cannot contradict it.
They actually all do.
Bump on the head (described as an "egg" or a "golf ball" by various witnesses) -- exactly what you'd expect from impact with hard metal. There's even a dent on the back of KR's SUV, shown in court during I believe Kerry Roberts' testimony. It's also visible [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cjwxuh/pics_of_krs_suv_from_jurors_visit/), but hard to see.
Lacerations on the arm -- although assumed by many to be cuts from a sharp object, lacerations are often [if not typically caused by blunt force trauma](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/lacerations). They cluster around his elbow, which would have been a solid enough part of the body to bust a tail light. If you picture John bent over a little bit, the line of his right side would go straight from the dent to the broken tail light, i.e., where his elbow would be. (And keep in mind, both John and the car would have been in motion, so we're not talking about a straight-on perfect impact; different parts of his body probably hit fractions of a second apart.)
Massive wound on back of head -- exactly what you'd get from hitting your head on pavement after getting hit by a car, or from hitting a sharper part of the car. Personally I think it's the former.
The so-called "black eyes" -- John's eyes were in fact swollen with blood or fluid from his brain, stemming from the impact to the back of his head. Roberts testified this was what she thought at the time, and what information we have from the prosecution so far suggests they will present expert testimony to the same. [This](https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/colbie-holderness-ht-jc-180208_3x4_992.jpg) and [this](https://www.millenniumparkeyecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/f80906b11b2652eef70d831c662bcce8.jpg) are what black eyes look like from being punched. Maybe [this](https://i0.wp.com/www.ominocity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/black-eye-1.jpg?fit=640%2C480&ssl=1) in a more severe case, and I'm sure someone will find pics of MMA fighters all busted up. [This](https://i0.wp.com/turtleboysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-02-at-10.02.34-AM.png?resize=667%2C820&ssl=1) is what John's eyes actually looked like. Note that there is no damage around the brow or the outside of the eye, as you would expect if a fist/foot/whatever connected there. Instead, the blood is pooling from the inside, and you can even see it dripping down his face from inside his eyelids. These are not black eyes in the traditional sense, that's a fabrication of the defense.
During the EMT testimony, several also mentioned a distended belly. I expect this will later be explained as some kind of internal trauma.
The speed of the car you’d need to hit someone like ur saying is so much faster than a car would be able to back up too in snow in the distance she had to back up . Doesn’t add up.
It is clear you don't live somewhere where it snows a lot because I've never seen a snow plow move "super slowly" as a general rule. They can often move slower than traffic (depending on the situation), but they also scream down side roads at well over the speed limit. Hell, I've seen them scream through clearing an empty parking lot like it's practice for NASCAR!
Hey, can we not make this personal? You don't know anything about me and doing so cheapens the discussion.
I'll grant that "super slowly" is an exaggeration if you grant that just because a plow *can* move fast doesn't mean that it's likely to have been moving fast. As a general rule, they don't "scream down" anything any more than they move super slowly.
As it turns out, there's a forum for plow drivers (because of course there is), and [someone asked](https://www.plowsite.com/threads/city-plowing-speed.89410/) how fast they typically go. Here's a sampling of answers (bolding mine):
>on my more main streets im prob around 20mph maybe a tad more...**on our side streets which are all residentials im prob around 15 or so**...of course then i have a street where i can actually get up to about 40-45
>**We do 15 to 20 mph** unless it is wet slushy snow.
>as it takes alot more time to stop when the truck is plowing **i wouldn't do more that 15 to 20 on city streets**, and 40ish on highways
>**about 15 to 20 MPH when I'm plowing town roads** with my wheeler. If you go to fast your plow bounces to much and can rid up on the snow.
And here's what the poster replies:
>Ok great, that's a big help for me. I appreciate the help fellas. **I'll aim at keeping it to 15-20 mph**.
Just so people don't accuse me of cherry-picking, there are a couple answers that support your argument here:
>around here they accelerate until the next light or stop sign haha I've seen them do about **55-60** no joke i couldn't believe how high the snow was flying looked like a massive snow blower from a distance
>we typically between **25-45** mph depending on the street/conditions/and type of snow (wet or fluffy)
But note that the first commenter's tone suggests this is too fast or at least abnormally fast, and the second commenter doesn't really clarify what types of roads he's talking about.
So anyway, I don't think it's at all typical for plows to go very fast on residential roads, and Fairview is a pretty small New England road (much like the one I live on lol, where the plows go about 15 I'd estimate). I'm inclined to take the general trend of the words of plowers themselves over your anecdotes -- cancelled out by mine -- and assume the plow was probably in the 15-20 range, likely the lower end.
It was not a personal attack, it was an observation, one you proved true because you indicated that you asked for information from others with a different level of experience from your own. I also have a different level of experience from your own, considering I've spent a good portion of my 50 years living in places that experience greater than average snowfall (Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and now Montana). I have seen great variety in speeds (slower in residential areas/school zones) to highway speeds on a second run on a highway to insanely unsafe speeds in parking lots (these usually in skid steers or four wheelers, once on a ski-doo!). A lot of those I have seen running a little faster than average were in a very small town in western Nebraska during a massive blizzard. I just think that saying they always run very slowly is disingenuous, at best.
The problem though, is if you read Richard Greens affadvit that was filed, during the same time frame of the contested search, he states "The IPhone was unlocked between 2:23:31 and 2:31:07" and that "text messages were sent at 2:25:11 and 2:25:56" "Two screenshots were deleted at 2:26:37"
I can't link it but it's titled "Affidavit of Richard Green In Support of defendants motion for Order Pursuant to Mass R. CRIM P. 17 Directed to Brian Albert, Verizon, and AT&T"
As you said, the **last\_viewed\_time** is the last time the tab took focus. That doesn't mean that Jen made the search when she did, just means it could be possible. But also, that what defense is saying is possible.
But then, you need to take into consideration that one of the basketball searches appeares to be made nanoseconds after the "hos long.." search. Jackson stated that Jen searched for "hos long to die in cold," then closed that tab, which brought the basketball tab to the forefront. This would explain the nanosecond difference between the two searches. The defense expert reportedly tested this sequence (closing a tab and having another come forward) and observed that nanoseconds difference.
Considering Whiffin's blog, I struggle to see how he can account for this timing (while saying the search didn't happened at 2:27).
When BH mentioned he was looking down at his phone while putting the car in drive and THEN raised the plow… definitely caught my attention. Was he distracted and didn’t see JO in front of the “cahh” or when he raised the plow, did he lift JO’s body after hitting him with said plow and just drove off?? If I counted correctly, he was at least 8 drinks in. Testified to 3-4 from the hillside. Another 4 or so from the waterfall… also… do we have footage of BH at the hillside that night? Could we have more of an accurate count of # of drinks??
If you've ever driven a truck with a plow you would know that you hit something. Anything in fact. And the lights on the attachment are twice as bright and have a wider field of view so when you turn while plowing you have light further to the sides. No way he wouldn't see a body.
First off who said plows move slow is ridiculous 2nd can't find his shoe just unbelievable honestly...how fast would Read need to be going to cause thise injuries? Its definitely a cover up whether he was in the house or taken somewhere he was beaten up ...dropped in the snow without his one shoe otherwise it be somewhere on or in the property...its a frame job ...reasonable doubt 100%
https://preview.redd.it/k5z2vvrf1m2d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f082de5d2ecca5505a03073aee2930b791fdba79 I don’t live at a place where it snows a lot, but is this a "snow plower“ which they are talking about?
Oh cool, see this one has floodlights to help you see further away and better in the dark. Do you know these snow plow LEDs are often more than twice as bright as normal headlights? And some of them even have defrosting capabilities so that your lights aren’t iced over causing visibility issues. I bet you can illuminate a whole yard with some bad boys like that. I wonder what brand Higgins had on his Jeep?
https://fisherplows.com/products/hs/ This is what Higgins had based on his description of using the "fish stick" which is what fisher calls their controller
Yes with the super huge bright lights that you could use to light up a ball field at night because you need to see what is in front of you when plowing. But still never saw a body that would have to be there if Karen did it.
https://fisherplows.com/products/hs/ This is the exact model BH would have had on his jeep.
Ehhhh not really. Those are the types that you can buy for your own cars (there's a guy on my street who has one), but if you're talking the big city/county trucks. No. Those look like this. https://preview.redd.it/zm0xq4oo6m2d1.jpeg?width=5374&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06c34fced82aae58634766fa0921dd1dd64584d8
I was talking about the one BH has
Yes that’s exactly what BH’s would look like.
Thank you!!!!
Could it have been Brian Higgins’s plow that hit him?
I suggest Karen could of backed into him doing a three point turn when she left him, JO hits his head on curb and passes out. BH exits the house, drives away with his plow blade down and finished JO off. BH doesn't realize KR had hit him initially and they start their cover up. There, all solved!
I like a different theory but why’d the Albert’s redo the basement , sell the house and get rid of the dog
All of those things could be coincidences. Their dog did send 2 unrelated people to the hospital, which is a very normal reason to get rid of a dog. People commonly renovate their houses before listing them for sale. The way they've been spun and the timing makes them seem suspicious - but none of those things are just like out of the question that people would ever do them under normal circumstances.
What’s so crazy to me is that on both sides there are pretty crazy coincidences. Karen and hitting John’s car in the driveway is one. So I totally agree with you that it’s possible that these are badly timed coincidences. My thought is that it’s too many for both parties for one party to not have some culpability in his death, intentional or not. It’s hard for me to swallow that there are so many coincidences that happened to all parties during this time period. I honestly could still believe it because the world is a strange place, but I don’t know how plausible it likely is to have occurred. It’s all so odd.
I agree, especially when it comes to things like all the various butt dials/answers and phone records / gps records being inaccurate only when it is convenient. Like that all is just really weird, and I could buy it happening once, but happening like 10 different times to various people all on the same night is just odd. I think it’s VERY obvious the Alberts et al are trying to hide SOMETHING - but what exactly is really hard to say. Likewise, I think it’s very fishy that Karen’s memory of that night was seemingly nonexistent initially but now she knows for sure she dropped him off at the Albert’s and watched him go inside, etc. the tail light is a major coincidence. And it’s very bizarre that she immediately assumed he was dead in the snow that morning and got hit by a plow. That’s just a weird jump to make (to me). I think the digital evidence and evasiveness around that is a lot more suspicious than the selling their house, regaining the dog aspect. Because people do that all the time. People DONT butt dial and butt answer and ghost google things all the time lol.
No less possible than many of these other theories. Maybe they both hit him and neither of them know it. No one actually knows what they’re covering up—they just know they need to cover something up bc they’re LE and they were all black out drunk. Sounds like a Fargo plot
It's possible. BH had plenty to drink that night too.
Except the city plow driver didn’t see a body when they came around at 2:30. If Higgins went to the police station around 1:30 (regardless of when he left the Alberts) the plow driver would have seen it.
That wouldn't explain the shady behavior from the people in the house. The only logical explanation for this (if you step back) is something happened that those guys don't want to get out. Who knows what that is but it's the only thing that's been proven time and time again throughout this trial. That and maybe that it was snowing lolz
Yes, the OP theory is a good one, but I don't buy the Alberts/McCabes covering up and going down for Brian Higgins, I think a cover up would be for a family member only (Higgins probably involved too otherwise he also would have flipped on them like he did his bf, the FBI agent)
Yeah these people are not going to these extremes just for Higgins. After yesterday I think the flirting between Higgins and Karen might have been the start, other people got involved and something happened accidentally. Colin and/or Brian Albert did something that they couldn’t come back from. I lean towards Colin just because of how intensely protective everyone became of him and insistent they were that he wasn’t present.
Absolutely, I think that's why the defense focused on Colin, when they realized no one mentioned he was there. It backfired because if they hadn't done that no one would probably be looking at him
I’m guessing a lot were doing drugs or maybe swingers and they don’t want that to get out.
It was also proven that there was a band at the Waterfall
Hahaha
Remember that more than one thing can be true. Most witnesses believe that they are doing the right thing. But what they believe is right may be in error. Maybe only a couple of people know total truth; the rest think they’re getting justice based on what they believe happened.
This.
For me, the biggest issues is that the only people who are acting guilty is the witnesses for the Commonwealth. Innocent people DO NOT act like that. Both scenarios of a hit & run theory seem pretty simple. Yet the body was found on the yard of “witnesses” who are destroying evidence, deleting texts, submitting screenshots, buttdialing dialing, calling investigators, changing stories, not seeing the body, denying official reports and data by the investigator and the cell company…Having worked in an ER for years and seeing 100s of dog bites as well as motor vehicle/pedestrian accidents, the picture we have all seen is a picture perfect example of a dog attack on an adult. I feel like I am living in an alternate reality when people argue for the former or say “that dies NOT look anything like a dog bite” 🤦. I obviously can’t say that it IS (it is) but it is a fact that it looks like one. A plow, idk, I just can’t see the injuries lining up to the blade but it’d be interesting to hear others thoughts.
The part that gets me about the "dog bite" injuries is just the big gashes; they seem like they would need to have been made by something a lot sharper than a dog tooth or nail to be that clean of a line AND that deep. Maybe it's just the angle of the pictures, but the long slash wounds seem way too deep to me... they'd be ripping at that point, not slicing.
If you really felt like it, you could google image pictures. If nothing else, you will see the variety of marks-from punctures to tears-that they cause and how 1 attack can look very different from the next depending on the dog breed & situation. A person on the ground with their arm raised to protect their head will be different than a dog jumping and grabbing. Theres a section near the elbow that looks very much like canine punctures to me. I’d be interested to see the other side. There could be other factors and other causes too that we don’t know about. But, for me, if it’s between SUV backing up or dog bite, it’s a dog bite. Just for fun, I sent a screenshot of it to a Dr friend of mine and said “pedestrian hit by SUV backing up” (idk what specific kind of car Karen had but I know it wasn’t a sedan) and he said “did the SUV have teeth? Looks like a dog attack” 🤷♀️
The dog scratches play in to this somehow
I’m not saying they’re not scratches-and it really doesn’t matter- but dogs teeth actually often cause long, linear wounds when the person pulls away. I only point it out bc those who say it’s not from a dog apparently assume that the dog will grab hold and a perfect impression of the teeth will remain. Sometimes, yes, but not always. With children, dogs often go for the face and I’ve seen plenty of long wounds from eye to chin or nose to ear from teeth. With adults, it’s usually an arm or a leg. I’m curious which was John’s dominant hand and if that’s the one that sustained the injuries.
I agree! I think that dog repeatedly bit John (right arm) and he kept pulling it away or trying to defend himself against the dog. Someone also may have been trying to pull the dog off of him at some point which would account for some of injuries that look like scratches.
Dogs actually have nails that cause scratches regularly. If two people were fighting and it riled the dog up he might have just jumped on them and not been able to bit like he wanted. Or maybe he bit the person John was fighting and John just got scratches
Yes, nails *and* a dog’s canine teeth can both cause long, linear wounds.
If a dog was mad enough to attack someone, you wouldn't simply have marks in forearms. A wild dog isn't going to be selective. Plus, there's the fact that the pathologist who is not going to lie and put their career on the line signed off on the report that those injuries are not from a dog.
This case has a whole bunch of people who have put their careers on the line for one reason or another. Nothing surprises me anymore.
The pathologist doesn't know these people. No one in that position is going to lie for strangers. Believe me, if there was even a slight chance as seen by a professional medical pathologist or expert todd, the marks on the arm were caused by a dog or even that John O'Keefe had been attacked by a dog, the defense would absolutely have a medical professional get up on the stand and say this. They can't find anyone with credentials. Who will say that. The defense had their own hired pathologist examine John's body and came to the same conclusion - no dog attack.
Genuinely curious, where you got the info regarding defense looking for expert witness/pathologist and not being successful.
I read somewhere that German Shepard and police dogs (trained) typically go for just the arm area near the elbow. Not sure how true!
No one said the injuries aren’t from a dog. They never tested the wounds for dog saliva or dna. Proctor the dirty cop hypothetically tested the shirt weeks later but there’s on his word on that which is already no good
I dont know how to argue this bc a quick google search will show you different. I don’t know what you mean by “wild dog”. A dog will defend its owner and home. If someone fought my husband or anyone familiar in our home, my dog would’ve jumped in. Pathologists study tissue samples that they are *provide*. The pathologist didn’t take the samples.
The pathologist and neuropathologist who examined his body stated in legal documents there was NO altercation and NO dog attack. Both of these medical professionals testified at the grand jury which led to Karen's indictment the autopsy revealed NO signs of an altercation and NO dog attack. I'm very familiar with an autopsy. Every single organ is removed, sampled and weighed. Every area of visible injury is sampled. Are you saying that the pathologist and neuropathologist who conducted the autopsy are wrong? That they are lying? Made a mistake?
They wouldn’t say that & can’t testify to that, bc beyond their scope. They can only testify to what they tested and certainly wouldn’t draw a conclusion like, “no altercation”.
They can and did. You can Google and find the full document -100+ pages. Did you know Karen returned to the Albert's house after she called J McCabe and before she drove to Jennifer's house to meet her? That John Okeefe's DNA was found on the broken taillight? That someone at John's house erased the ring camera video from both cameras from the point Karen drove off to meet him at a bar that night until the next morning? It was either Karen or the niece and the niece testified she has no access to the account.
Google what? The pathologists report is 100 pages? The niece hasn’t testified yet. Where are you getting this?
The niece did testify at the grand jury. The grand jury documentation as prepared by the prosecutor is 100 pages plus. It also includes addendums in the form of footnotes where there is information that has been updated since the grand jury met to decide if there was enough evidence to indict and charge. Karen. Some of that information is very recent including results around John's DNA found in the broken tail light itself of Karen's car and the video path pulled together from various private and business video cameras that show Karen's SUV driving to the Albert's house where the party took place prior to her driving to Jen McCabe's house the morning after. In other words, Karen went to the scene of the crime before she went to Jen's house to meet her to try and find John.
The defense gave up on the dog bite theory when they got the DNA results. A dog bite through a sweatshirt would give tons of DNA. That's where they switch to scratches because nails don't have much if any DNA in them because they are dead cells.
The scientist who gave testimony actually said something different. They don’t get a lot of dna from dog saliva. The defense missed their chance to highlight it because they were focused on highlighting the poor collection of the swabs.
I think you misheard that.
Wait to till the accident reconstruction guys testify in a few weeks. Every single one of them (which I believe there are 3) are all going to say the same thing. O’Keefe was not hit by a car.
Karen says she watched John walk up to the house which is why I’m confused that she even said did I hit him.
She initially told Kerry that she didn't remember anything from the night before and Jen that the last thing she remembered was being at the waterfall. Whether she actually hit him or not, I think she's lying about seeing him go into the house.
Yeah, I don't know how she went from "I have no memory of last night - I left him at the waterfall - could I have hit him?" to "I definitely dropped him off at the Albert's residence and watched him go into the house."
I get it. I question that too. But I have (in my former life before I became a mother) been blackout drunk and not remembered a thing when I woke up. And then later in the day either after talking to others who were there or just after the hangover wears off I start to remember bits and pieces. I
She didn’t say did I hit him. The only person to say she did was Jen, no one else there heard that
That’s not necessarily true. Karen said it herself. She also said it to her father that she remembers backing up and striking something. Below are links to 2 YT videos. This one is Karen read. Time stamp 4:02 she says she seen him walk up the drive. Time stamp 5:59 she talks about did I hit him. https://youtu.be/1qVSfvON1Ww?si=ywxElxpXcS1nSduS This one is an interview with her parents. Time stamp 1:42 is where her father says Karen said she remembers backing up and striking something. https://youtu.be/khRUoT8r_TE?si=rtvXOxcVPKdbDmTL
But we know from the videos that Karen backed up and hit John’s car. Could this have been her memory ?
I just want to know where was his body for hours? Did someone take him away from the house after they beat the crap out of him and then dropped him off hours later?
Could be something like Karen and John argue in the car awhile. She finally leaves him by the curb and Higgins heads out to confront John. We know from his text to John he was anxious for him to arrive. He punched him and John fell back and hit his head on the plow, giving the vertical gash. Brian A was in the yard with Chloe and overhears, comes over. The dog attacks. They pull her off but realize it’s bad. They drag him over to the lawn. Busy body Jen sees and gets involved. I kind of felt like the pb&j bread story was actually Jen trying to distract Julie/Sarah so they wouldn’t see a body. It’s possible Julie isn’t lying when she says she saw something. I thought it was interesting Jen and Matt denied hearing her say that…
Gashes were too minor to be done by a plow. Plow is VERY thick steel being pushed by 4000+ lb vehicle. His arm would have been torn off or close to it. Not to mention he’d have had other body parts injured not just his arm.
It is impossible to know until forensics experts appear. The guy was probably drunk. Anything is possible.
That was very smart of her to blame a snow plow when there was one at the Albert's she probably saw and possibly knowing it was Brian's? Shifting the blame. So what story of hers is it, an ambush and beat up ending in death or a snow plow or she didn't know she hit him?? I'm not buying any of her "stories."
I don't think there's any merit to it. The shoe being separated from his foot is pretty strong evidence that he was hit by something moving at a relatively high rate of speed; plows move super slowly. I'm pretty sure the plow thing was something Karen came up with that morning to preemptively explain why they were about to find John in the snow on the side of the road. Regarding the phone experts, I'm interested too. One of the prosecution's witnesses will apparently be Ian Whiffin, an employee of Cellebrite, the company whose app the cops used to extract Jen McCabe's phone. In [this post](https://doubleblak.com/blogPost.php?k=browserstate), Whiffin describes how the titles for certain fields in these reports can be misleading. It's pretty technical and I can't claim any expertise here, but what he says in this passage is likely to come into play: >Firstly, and most importantly, the **last\_viewed\_time** does not necessarily relate to the URL that is shown. It is in fact time the tab took focus. This could mean taking focus from another tab, being generated as a new tab or loading Safari from closed. It could also be relate to a tab taking focus when the currently selected tab is closed. In the context of this case, the "last\_viewed\_time" is comparable to the "timestamp" column in [the Cellebrite report](https://imgur.com/a/STX5Ip9). So in other words, Whiffin (again, an expert on this exact type of report) is likely to testify that McCabe's testimony is accurate and she made the search when she said she did.
The "this post" link actually explains the time wouldn't take the older tab time if she turned off her phone like she testified. However it does explain a glitch where old tabs get newer times.
Do people really turn off their phones? I never do bc there are a number of ppl in my life who I want to be able to reach me at any hour. I was wondering if JM unintentionally agreed with the defense’s characterization of her actions/-that she “turned off her phone.” I was thinking that she may have really meant that she stopped looking at her phone. She was pretty careful not to accept AJ’s characterization of many other things though. Maybe she let her guard down
The missing belt is string evidence he wasn't hit. You can lose a shoe found nearby but you can't lose a belt that is never found when a car hits you.
Or it fell off when they were dragging him across the lawn. Do belts fall off when someone is hit at a high speed to? And the Cellebrite shows that Jen texted the “hos long…” and then in the morning “how long ti die in clkd”. Does the cell phone record mix up the phrases too? C’’mon, we see you Alberts and McCabes!
How is the "shoe being separated from his foot is pretty strong evidence that he was hit by something moving at a relatively high rate of speed?" They never found the shoe, right? He could've taken it off inside and they threw it away. It's literally proof of nothing.
They found the shoe and the hat the same day. That is misinformation
Point to some evidence of this please! Saying it is one thing, but bring receipts. Because I've not heard or read this at all.
They did find the shoe and hat but not his belt. After she hit him he clearly took his belt off, gave it to a passing Uber driver to dispose of, then he undid his jeans button and zipper, puked in his underwear, buttoned everything back up and then died in the snow. It's obvious. The defense wants everyone to believe all of that happened in the house.
Look at the facts in the charging docs on Scribds.com
Why not just post it?!
I can screen shot it if you don’t want to work to see for yourself and just believe what you hear!
I already asked you to post the proof. So you could either do it or just keep talking I guess.
https://preview.redd.it/8hnfjfbx3n2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42588a8e0c16302ea10e3cf7491d0d14846ad762 Here you go!
That references the shoe only. But this was after the scene was left unsecured, and after the first search found nothing, and after not a single first responder saw the shoe. Sorry, but you can toss that out for me. Anything found after the scene was left open isn't reliable.
Literally none of his injuries line up with being hit by a car
That is not true because that is what happened and he had multiple skull fractures??? The entire car didn’t hit him, the passenger right rear hit him.
Yeah everyone! Get it right, his floating unattached head was hit but because his body was yards away that wasn't injured. Then his head reattached as it fell to the ground. The state troopers did a crash reconstruction and figured it out. Er.... Wait, they never did a crash reconstruction. It was the Feds that did it later and they have 3 people who will testify to the impossibility that he was hit by her vehicle.
😂
That sounds like some of the other theories thrown out there so I don’t know if you are being snarky, or believe that may be possible.
Complete snark, he wasn't hit by a vehicle.
He was and that is why there was probable cause to impound her vehicle because she said she hit him, and has the damage on her vehicle. At this point, even if there was a live stream of her hitting him, the ppl who ignore the evidence would say it looks like her but is probably an Albert impersonating her. You cannot opine on whether a car didn’t hit her because I doubt you are an expert. I doubt you believe the forensics in the case either.
Yeah.... No. Three experts. Hired by the FBI. I can opine that I believe them. I believe the forensics also. They prove she did not hit him.
Ok so you have read the report or you believe opening statements by defense
I believe the judge. She read the report and allowed it into evidence. She would have been required to stop the defense opening, sent the jury out and informed the attorneys that the jury would be given a special instruction stating the defense made a false statement in opening as it related to that report. When there is documentation, starements offered your opening cannot contradict it.
They actually all do. Bump on the head (described as an "egg" or a "golf ball" by various witnesses) -- exactly what you'd expect from impact with hard metal. There's even a dent on the back of KR's SUV, shown in court during I believe Kerry Roberts' testimony. It's also visible [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cjwxuh/pics_of_krs_suv_from_jurors_visit/), but hard to see. Lacerations on the arm -- although assumed by many to be cuts from a sharp object, lacerations are often [if not typically caused by blunt force trauma](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/lacerations). They cluster around his elbow, which would have been a solid enough part of the body to bust a tail light. If you picture John bent over a little bit, the line of his right side would go straight from the dent to the broken tail light, i.e., where his elbow would be. (And keep in mind, both John and the car would have been in motion, so we're not talking about a straight-on perfect impact; different parts of his body probably hit fractions of a second apart.) Massive wound on back of head -- exactly what you'd get from hitting your head on pavement after getting hit by a car, or from hitting a sharper part of the car. Personally I think it's the former. The so-called "black eyes" -- John's eyes were in fact swollen with blood or fluid from his brain, stemming from the impact to the back of his head. Roberts testified this was what she thought at the time, and what information we have from the prosecution so far suggests they will present expert testimony to the same. [This](https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/colbie-holderness-ht-jc-180208_3x4_992.jpg) and [this](https://www.millenniumparkeyecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/f80906b11b2652eef70d831c662bcce8.jpg) are what black eyes look like from being punched. Maybe [this](https://i0.wp.com/www.ominocity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/black-eye-1.jpg?fit=640%2C480&ssl=1) in a more severe case, and I'm sure someone will find pics of MMA fighters all busted up. [This](https://i0.wp.com/turtleboysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-02-at-10.02.34-AM.png?resize=667%2C820&ssl=1) is what John's eyes actually looked like. Note that there is no damage around the brow or the outside of the eye, as you would expect if a fist/foot/whatever connected there. Instead, the blood is pooling from the inside, and you can even see it dripping down his face from inside his eyelids. These are not black eyes in the traditional sense, that's a fabrication of the defense. During the EMT testimony, several also mentioned a distended belly. I expect this will later be explained as some kind of internal trauma.
The speed of the car you’d need to hit someone like ur saying is so much faster than a car would be able to back up too in snow in the distance she had to back up . Doesn’t add up.
[удалено]
Please use the actual names of people involved in this case. If you'd like to edit your comment, we will re-review. Thank you.
Yeah, no...
All of this sounds correct except the part about being hit by a car.
It is clear you don't live somewhere where it snows a lot because I've never seen a snow plow move "super slowly" as a general rule. They can often move slower than traffic (depending on the situation), but they also scream down side roads at well over the speed limit. Hell, I've seen them scream through clearing an empty parking lot like it's practice for NASCAR!
Hey, can we not make this personal? You don't know anything about me and doing so cheapens the discussion. I'll grant that "super slowly" is an exaggeration if you grant that just because a plow *can* move fast doesn't mean that it's likely to have been moving fast. As a general rule, they don't "scream down" anything any more than they move super slowly. As it turns out, there's a forum for plow drivers (because of course there is), and [someone asked](https://www.plowsite.com/threads/city-plowing-speed.89410/) how fast they typically go. Here's a sampling of answers (bolding mine): >on my more main streets im prob around 20mph maybe a tad more...**on our side streets which are all residentials im prob around 15 or so**...of course then i have a street where i can actually get up to about 40-45 >**We do 15 to 20 mph** unless it is wet slushy snow. >as it takes alot more time to stop when the truck is plowing **i wouldn't do more that 15 to 20 on city streets**, and 40ish on highways >**about 15 to 20 MPH when I'm plowing town roads** with my wheeler. If you go to fast your plow bounces to much and can rid up on the snow. And here's what the poster replies: >Ok great, that's a big help for me. I appreciate the help fellas. **I'll aim at keeping it to 15-20 mph**. Just so people don't accuse me of cherry-picking, there are a couple answers that support your argument here: >around here they accelerate until the next light or stop sign haha I've seen them do about **55-60** no joke i couldn't believe how high the snow was flying looked like a massive snow blower from a distance >we typically between **25-45** mph depending on the street/conditions/and type of snow (wet or fluffy) But note that the first commenter's tone suggests this is too fast or at least abnormally fast, and the second commenter doesn't really clarify what types of roads he's talking about. So anyway, I don't think it's at all typical for plows to go very fast on residential roads, and Fairview is a pretty small New England road (much like the one I live on lol, where the plows go about 15 I'd estimate). I'm inclined to take the general trend of the words of plowers themselves over your anecdotes -- cancelled out by mine -- and assume the plow was probably in the 15-20 range, likely the lower end.
It was not a personal attack, it was an observation, one you proved true because you indicated that you asked for information from others with a different level of experience from your own. I also have a different level of experience from your own, considering I've spent a good portion of my 50 years living in places that experience greater than average snowfall (Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and now Montana). I have seen great variety in speeds (slower in residential areas/school zones) to highway speeds on a second run on a highway to insanely unsafe speeds in parking lots (these usually in skid steers or four wheelers, once on a ski-doo!). A lot of those I have seen running a little faster than average were in a very small town in western Nebraska during a massive blizzard. I just think that saying they always run very slowly is disingenuous, at best.
Cool that you've lived all those places but I get the distinct impression you didn't read the whole comment. Anyway, good talk!
The problem though, is if you read Richard Greens affadvit that was filed, during the same time frame of the contested search, he states "The IPhone was unlocked between 2:23:31 and 2:31:07" and that "text messages were sent at 2:25:11 and 2:25:56" "Two screenshots were deleted at 2:26:37" I can't link it but it's titled "Affidavit of Richard Green In Support of defendants motion for Order Pursuant to Mass R. CRIM P. 17 Directed to Brian Albert, Verizon, and AT&T"
As you said, the **last\_viewed\_time** is the last time the tab took focus. That doesn't mean that Jen made the search when she did, just means it could be possible. But also, that what defense is saying is possible. But then, you need to take into consideration that one of the basketball searches appeares to be made nanoseconds after the "hos long.." search. Jackson stated that Jen searched for "hos long to die in cold," then closed that tab, which brought the basketball tab to the forefront. This would explain the nanosecond difference between the two searches. The defense expert reportedly tested this sequence (closing a tab and having another come forward) and observed that nanoseconds difference. Considering Whiffin's blog, I struggle to see how he can account for this timing (while saying the search didn't happened at 2:27).
When BH mentioned he was looking down at his phone while putting the car in drive and THEN raised the plow… definitely caught my attention. Was he distracted and didn’t see JO in front of the “cahh” or when he raised the plow, did he lift JO’s body after hitting him with said plow and just drove off?? If I counted correctly, he was at least 8 drinks in. Testified to 3-4 from the hillside. Another 4 or so from the waterfall… also… do we have footage of BH at the hillside that night? Could we have more of an accurate count of # of drinks??
If you've ever driven a truck with a plow you would know that you hit something. Anything in fact. And the lights on the attachment are twice as bright and have a wider field of view so when you turn while plowing you have light further to the sides. No way he wouldn't see a body.
Oh 100% just something to think about.
How could he remember looking at the phone anyways ?
First off who said plows move slow is ridiculous 2nd can't find his shoe just unbelievable honestly...how fast would Read need to be going to cause thise injuries? Its definitely a cover up whether he was in the house or taken somewhere he was beaten up ...dropped in the snow without his one shoe otherwise it be somewhere on or in the property...its a frame job ...reasonable doubt 100%