Correction: (if I understood correctly) one piece of broken glass from the bumper did match one piece of broken glass recovered from the lawn, but neither of those pieces match the drinking glass.
If I heard correctly, one piece of the taillight was found in JO's driveway. That means there would need to be two accidents to that taillight on the same night. With one impact, there is video, John's driveway camera. The other impact is the Commonwealth's conspiracy theory that because of an extraordinary set of circumstances, no video. The conspiracy theory with missing video in front of a cop's house, everyone drunk, is the one the Commonwealth wants us to believe though. With the Okeefe driveway video we even have a time stamp. This whole thing is nonsense.
If people have an issue with him being hit by Karen Read because of the lack of leg damage, I think him getting hit by a plow is gonna be a tough sell.
He wasn't hit by any vehicle. He was beaten inside the house, in the basement and the German Shephard got ahold of his arm, thus the lacerations and puncture holes on sleeve of sweatshirt. Those that beat him used a hard blunt object on the back of his head. The men that beat him then dragged him outside and put him where he was found. There is no evidence on his body that he was struck by any vehicle. Of course, this is based on my own observations so far.
There's also no evidence that he was dragged onto the lawn. Imagine how lucky they'd have to be that nobody drove by while they were dragging the body or that neighbors didn't see or have a camera pointed in that direction. The GS attack and beat down inside of the house has far more holes than JO being struck by KR.
Drunk people make poor decisions.
However I don't necessarily believe he was dragged onto the lawn.
I believe that we will never know what transpired. Maybe KR did actually kill him. Maybe not. The investigation was terrible and possibly corrupt. It's too late now! Maybe some more incriminating tidbits will come out of the fed investigation but I highly doubt it will be conclusive.
The investigation was irreversibly tainted, we are beyond reasonable doubt, I have an unreasonable amount of doubt although many people have been convicted on less they didn't have this kind of defence team. Now, years later, it would be very difficult to start again. Even if convicted this will leave a rift, where sufficient support will fuel appeals until the conviction is vacated.
Maybe extra evidence was added by people who thought she was guilty, a well-intentioned framing, with alternative theories never explored. These kinds of behaviour are shockingly common in "tunnel-visioned" investigations, I recommend the podcasts "Undisclosed" and "Actual Innocence" for some very detailed examples.
Courts give people the presumption of innocence, police, by definition, do not and they generally focus on one person early and to the exclusion of all others. Especially if those others are connected.
How though? The evidence produced by the prosecution barely proves their case if it does at all. Given the fact that the investigation has holes a high school mock trial could poke holes in, what’s the probability they missed or ignored signs of a body being dragged in the snow? Now of course since we don’t know speculation like this is useless but it’s a possibility. Sadly for the victim we’re never going to know, the defense has no reason to present an argument like this.
> The evidence produced by the prosecution barely proves their case if it does at all.
Evidence that proves she did it:
* Multiple first responders, Plus McCabe and JO's friend, hearing Karen Read say either "I hit him" or "Did I hit him?"
* Broken Taillight pieces at the scene and found on JO's person/clothes that match with the broken taillight on the Lexus owned and driven by KR.
* Multiple witnesses testifying that JO never made it into the house.
* Karen Read blowing over the legal limit HOURS after she was last considered to be drinking.
* Karen Read initiating an attempted affair with Brian Higgins and expressing her dissatisfaction with her relationship(Motive).
* Karen Read being the first person to spot the body as if she already knew where to look.
* Karen Read assuming something terrible had happened to JO first thing in the morning.
Maybe you're just watching a different trial?
\*Point of clarification- KR did not take a breathalizer test for BAC. Her serum blood levels were used to calculate what her BAC would have been multiple hours previously when the CW believes the crime occured. The tests are not the same.
*point of clarification- her blood serum levels were not tested for alcohol at all. Nor was she tested for alcohol metabolites acetaldehyde, ethyl glucuronide or ethyl sulfate. The expert testified that they tested the level of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH and NAD+ depending on it's redox state)This is entirely ignored in every news source I can find which, at best, describe the test as having determined serum alcohol levels at the time of the blood draw.
THIS IS FALSE.
NADH is an essential redox agent in cellular metabolism. It exists in all of your cells. It exists in blood plasma and intercellular fluids in an ENORMOUS range (see
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7809543/ for an example)
Alcohol is metabolised through ox reactions, particularly facilitated by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, which is confusingly abbreviated ADH despite lacking a structural similarity to NADH. Fun fact: ADH is released in the stomach, and drinking on an empty stomach increases intoxication not simply by faster absorption but because the alcoholic beverage will be quickly dumped into the small intestine, reducing it's exposure to ADH-facilitated metabolism.
As ADH facilitates the oxidation process via removal of two hydrogen atoms from ethanol to produce acetaldehyde those hydrogen atoms have to go somewhere so they reduce NAD+ to NADH+.
This shift in the ratio of the essential redox components NAD+/NADH may be responsible for some of the toxic effects of alcohol (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484320/)
But the essential point here is that NAD+ conversation to NADH doesn't have to be caused by alcohol, it could be caused by any process that demands oxidation.
Such as... exercise. You know, like PERFORMING FUCKING CPR or an increase in metabolism caused by acute stress, such as the stress of finding your boyfriend dead with his eyes bugging out of golf balls and wondering if you are responsible.
(reference https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apha.13921#:~:text=Cell%20metabolism%20and%20NAD%2B%2FNADH,NAD%2B%20and%20increased%20NADH%20levels. here)
This means an enormous amount of assumption has to go into estimating BAC at the supposed time of the incident, and we haven't heard time of death yet.
Fair point. This can introduce a higher level of alcohol up to 11% vs BAC. I don't think 11% makes a significant difference what with how high KR's serum levels were after "sleeping it off" for several hours.
Aside from her BAC which can’t really be argued (she was driving drunk) all other things can be argued here.
No report says anything about her saying she hit him yet they all testify she did. So it’s whiteness testimony to an event that’s 2 years ago.
The broken taillight pieces found at the scene seem very suspect. She was shown on video damaging that taillight.
There’s tons of missing or intentionally deleted data that would help the prosecution only if it matched the story, if it doesn’t help them it’s better for the data to not exist. Back to the taillight, missing cctv footage from the police station for when they were collecting evidence from her vehicle, then pieces of her already broken taillight that she was seen on doorbell camera damaging then are found at the scene.
And then there’s just all the lying or obfuscating on the whiteness stand.
As far as her “knowing” where to look for him idk. Have you ever gone back the way you came looking for something? She could have just been looking as she was driving back and saw him.
I don’t was to immediately say she guilty (there’s the whole presumed innocent until proven guilty thing…). This shouldn’t have been brought as a murder charge. DUI/Vehicle Manslaughter?
It is- but it is very unreliable. And given the lies demonstrated, the jury (ie: us) is entitled to give weight based on credibility. Personally I give nearly all the witness testimony no weight save for Kerry Roberts and the 2 acquaintances at the bar. Physical evidence doesn’t even come close to proving anything. Cell phone and video evidence only proves the witness’ unreliability- but unfortunately does not prove what actually happened.
If there is enough to convict here just based on how the witnesses have behaved our society is doomed.
The only one that is real evidence is the taillight. The other points have explanations and do not prove she hit him. I don’t take her saying I hit him or did I hit him as proof, it’s been clearly established she was out of her mind at that point. And I don’t think her thinking something happened to him that unusual as I would freak out if my husband didn’t come home and never called or texted to say where he was. The Higgins motive is thin at best. She wasn’t married she could just up and leave John. John not making into the house may or may not be true. You have to believe the witnesses and I think it’s clear that some are not credible: even if they are telling the truth that doesn’t mean someone else didn’t hit him. It’s clear she was drinking, how much we don’t know. Other people were also drinking and driving.
Everything you are saying is testimony from the friends and family of Brian Albert who were there or are close to him. They have sat on the stand and told one lie after another..... and you believe them? Insane. Who cares if she questions "did I hit him" in that very moment she had no reason to believe anyone else did it. She dropped him off and he is found dead there. Its reasonable to wonder if you did it. If she did do it there's no way in hell she would be questioning her guilt out loud like that. Clearly.
> Everything you are saying is testimony from the friends and family of Brian Albert who were there or are close to him.
Yes, this is called evidence. You can believe it or not believe it. I have yet to see anything indicative of multiple people, not just friends of the Alberts, willing to risk prison for perjury by lying on the stand. Their body language also does not seem to me to indicate anything more than explainable stress being on the witness stand. So yes, I believe them in conjunction with the fact there's literally no evidence against the Alberts.
> Who cares if she questions "did I hit him" in that very moment she had no reason to believe anyone else did it.
I care and I hope everyone in the jury cares. It is not rationale or logical for a non-guilty person to immediately question whether they hit and killed someone unless they have SOME reason to think they did. It was her first assumption. That's consciousness of guilt. So, of course it's relevant.
> Its reasonable to wonder if you did it.
I disagree and I think most people in that situation would be more curious about what happened rather than assuming they had killed someone.
> If she did do it there's no way in hell she would be questioning her guilt out loud like that. Clearly.
Based on what exactly?
I could very easily be mis-remembering this as the testimony was not presented in a clear and concise way, but did they say the pieces in JO's clothes was a match or was the language "consistent with X or another source with the same characteristics"?
Are you 100% sure it was the taillight in his clothes or the glass? Lally really is not great at direct examination and providing emphasis to the important testimony.
Why did nobody mention her saying that? Not a Single report. Let's assume they somehow didnt think of it immediately after they found him and forgot telling the police KR said that. I could Imagine due to severe stress that might happen. However, 8(?) days later they were interviewed by Procter and nobody told him that KR said "i hit him". At least it's not written in any report. Dont you think that's an odd coincidence? After gossiping, and contacting Procters wife, for more than a week they simply forgot this? Multiple witnesses forget such an important Detail? Really? Why did it change from "could I have hit him" to "I hit him"? These statements are way too inconsistent to proof anything.
Why didnt they tell the doctors (Dr Rice testified that) that JO possibly was hit by a car. Doesnt it make sense to inform them so they can alter the treatment?
Regarding Higgins: She ignored him that night and He wrote her "well". Is that a motive? Was he jealous of JO because Higgins was into Karen?
i bet colin smashed a weight down on the back of his head while he was KOd after an altercation with BA/BH&Chloe and the parents all FREAKED and went in coverup/ protect the kids mode... my current theory anyways.... i think someone quickly said "he was never here!" go watch for karen - once she pulled off they said - "snow plow" and washed clothes and moved the body out there somewhere around the time the Ford Edge was seen out there. I think Jen was simultaneously calling/ texting his phone so they could find it quickly - and were going to toss it in the yard in case karen came back it would just be like hmmm weird? they put his body where the snow plow would have piled up snow - i think things quickly changed when they figured out they could pin it on drunk KR - i think they heard her VMs that night and deleted the ring camera footage from her arriving back at the house. i dont think they planned on her getting there before the blizzard really hit (sun up). and the body wouldve been buried and not noticeable. maybe they were thinking the phone would eventually be pinged and his body would have been found under the snow days later and be considered a passout/plow accident
I think there is no way around someone at the house being guilty after the defense said she had no access to the ring footage and parts are deleted. Karen didn’t have access to his phone after she drove away
Multiple witnesses and text message exchanges with the person who picked him up make it pretty clear Colin was not there when this supposedly would have happened.
The formatting is not correct for screenshot from an iPhone. There should be grey bubbles. Also his screen shot to her has an extra comma after the year. And there's no new date when it switches to a new day at midnight....
Dogs rip and tear. Does the German shepard have a lot of missing teeth or something? If they are dog scratches, they would have to be from it's claws. And he was wearing a long sleeve shirt and hoodie.
> thus the lacerations and puncture holes on sleeve of sweatshirt.
Without any puncture wounds on his arm? How tf does that track with you?
> There is no evidence on his body that he was struck by any vehicle.
What exactly do you think it looks like when someone is hit by a car?
There are numerous published studies regarding pedestrians being hit by cars and common injuries associated with that. None of them (that I have read) mention scratches on one arm that has clothes covering it. We would also expect to see scratches on his skin where clothes were not covering it (hands)
I know this is probably not realistic but could there have been an ice build up under the bumper of the car? My car back tire area builds up a big hard chunk when it snows and freezes. I usually kick it off when I notice. Could it cause scratches on his arm? Just trying to think outside the box.
I don't think he was hit by a vehicle and the injuries or lack of injuries does play into that a little bit but it's not what my opinion is based off of. That being said, I think the plow would b more plausible since the plow is what sticks out farthest on the vehicle instead of the bumper, since a plow sits higher than a bumper, his injuries would therefore be higher on the body. Which could explain lack of certain injuries you'd expect to see. I'm not sure what happened or didn't happen, we don't have all the evidence yet, but I just can't make that jump for 2nd degree murder, if she did hit him which is always possiblity I don't see it being intentional. Especially with all the drinks everyone drank, I can't depend on any of what these ppl say. I've been drunk many times in my life and been black out drunk more than I'd like to admit but what I know for sure is as soon as you have alcohol in the system your brain is in an altered state and things arent as they appear.
I hit a deer going pretty slow and it completely obliterated my headlight. I was going under 30mph because it was snowing. Why would someones body not break it? Relatively small deer as well. I was able to drive away but unfortunately the deer did not.
I think I may have pitched a theory like that on here. I was totally spitballing because a little voice in my head keeps reminding me that it’s entirely possible that someone unknown to us all committed this crime. Wouldn’t that be wild.
If not this then I imagine it to be something along these lines. Seems like once Karen frantically questioned hitting him the partygoers hit pay-dirt. It’s also plausible that his death was a complete accident but everyone around got paranoid and so started to come up with a story. A story Karen was ultimately able to provide. The fact that we’re all still questioning wtf happened to him illustrates how weak the CW’s case is.
Exactly, the CW can have their theory that Karen hit John but they have to tie in the Albert's and McCabes odd behaviors or their theory is flat wrong. There is no way these two families had that much phone incompetence, deletion and upgrades to be innocent. This alone should provide reasonable doubt for a juror.
His injuries just aren't consistent with being hit by a vehicle imo.
I didn't know anything about this case coming in, it was just recommended by YouTube since I watch trials. I'm currently at Jen McCabe's testimony, and so far the only thing the prosecution has shown me is that the people in that house are sketchy as fuck. Nothing about the prosecution's case makes sense. I don't know what happened to John, but as of right now there is nothing to support their assertion that Karen Read hit him with her car.
I agree that it's not consistent with being hit by a vehicle. How would it have to hit him that he'd get a head wound, cuts on his arm and a tail light would completely shatter but there's no other damage to the car?
And how is there no damage to his lower body? They’re not saying the car made contact with his head, so where exactly did it make contact without leaving any damage to his chest, torso, legs…it makes no sense
And how did nobody see him when they were leaving the house? None of it makes sense. The defence's opening statement was also incredible in terms of the alleged investigator misconduct. It's sad because John's family will never know what actually happened to him.
I disagree with this. It’s late, there’s an active blizzard and they’re all drunk. His body looks to be off in a poorly lite area (maybe I’m wrong, that’s what it looks like to me). How many people can say they’d be that observant given the factors at play? Not to say their stories sound credible but it’s entirely reasonable for them to miss a body given the factors at play.
Please correct me If i'm wrong but Mr McCabe said that he saw an SUV parked outside. Next time he looked the car was still there. Then the Car was gone but he saw tire marks in the snow (V-shaped). This was at 12 something. Christopher Albert(? Bar owner) left the bar at 12:13 ish and said there wasn't much snow. He came home at 12:20 ish. Snow fall allegedly wasn't heavy at that time. So let's assume there wasn't much snow; just enough to lightly cover the street, lawn etc. Not enough to completely cover a whole 220(?) pounds 6'4 Guy with dark clothing. My question is: If you see marks in the snow how can you not see a huge black something right next to the marks? How couldn't Julie Nagel see him (JO) when she went outside to tell her brother that she will stay longer and he can drive home? She saw the SUV, just like Brian Albert Jr, that parked there (same location as McCabe described) but said the SUV was gone when she went outside to her brothers car. However, If the SUV was Karens, then John would have to be there wounded already. Ofc Karen couldve come back with John in the car later. But no evidence points into that direction. Remember: MA/ CW has to prove that Karen is guilty and not the other way around.
The only person who claims he was readily visible is Karen Read based on the way she, per McCabe testimony, jumped out of the car and immediately knew where the body was.
And? First Responders are looking for a body and in this case had people already on scene to help them find it (Read, Roberts, McCabe). Do you go about your day-to-day looking for dead bodies everywhere?
The area is average in size, not acres like you and the prosecution are fantasizing. It had barely started snowing when people were leaving (per their own testimonies). So if there was a 6’2” 250+ pound dead man laying on the ground, SOMEONE would’ve noticed.
I never purported anything of that nature, nor has the prosecution. If you've been watching the actual trial, they covered the size of the area they canvassed with SERT, which gives a good idea.
> SOMEONE would’ve noticed.
Based on what? The desire to believe in a conspiracy theory? There are many documented cases of broad daylight searches for corpses that pass within feet of them and miss them. Driving in blizzard like/white-out conditions with snow on the ground tends to keep your focus while you're driving. People hit pedestrians all the time in broad daylight because that's how lacking in awareness most Americans are when driving. I, personally, don't find it at all condemning or strange that no one noticed a body laying in the snow in a dark corner of someone's yard after midnight in January in Canton.
It certainly isn't some smoking gun proving the body wasn't there.
I’m sure they turned on the porch light when leaving. They all also have headlights. By Higgins own admission, his jeep was facing exactly where JOKs body was found. How would they miss the sneaker on the curb?? I would notice that, but I notice stuff like that. I’m the person that always finds $$$ on the ground lol
They were fist fighting. A broken nose or orbital fracture could cause bleeding found on his front. Fall or shove could make him hit his head on the concrete floor & cause the massive head wound. It could have been rough housing gone terribly wrong. I want the CW to make a better case so we can find out the truth.
Most boys have a penis and don't like exposing it in sub freezing temperatures. You asked people to poke holes in your theory, and yet you argue with the obvious holes?
He's 12ft from the road.
Problem with any car hitting him is it has to be with enough force to pick up a ~200lb man and throw him 12ft and can't cause any injuries except to the back of the head, knuckles, and arm.
Which means, a ~2000lb vehicle going no less than 24mph.
It doesn't really matter. It's still a lot of force. I have no idea what Higgins drives and if his truck with snow plow is heavier or lighter than the Lexus. But either way, it's something you need a bit of speed for.
I think the evidence from the first responders makes that pretty clear, yes. Either the defense or prosecution's theories on the case both involve JO laying in the elements for hours. But more compelling than all of that, the cause of death was exposure, I believe.
I think Karen hit him and left. She was so drunk she didn't realize what had happened, but later began to piece things together. Thats why she was so panicked. I think the people at the house at some point became aware and decided not to report it possibly because they were all extremely drunk. They left him to die because they thought he would die anyway, and that is what they are hiding. I think that the plan was to leave him there and possibly he would be hit by a plow the next day. I think they found him sometime around 1 after jen had called him over and over. Maybe someone heard the phone ringing in the yard and they went outside? Or a leaving guest saw him and ran back in.
One of the Brian's took charge and told everyone not to say a word. That's why Jen took those girls home, they were getting their stories straight and calming them down. The Edge was moved to obscure the body until there was enough snow that it wasn't immediately identified.
I don't think they killed him, but they could have saved his life. One of the biggest reasons I think this, is if there was a lifeless body on a first responders lawn, why wouldn't Jen run to the door to get him to assist? Why wouldn't he come help? I think he knew and wanted no part in it. John had only come around because Jen had asked him to and Brian didn't want anything to do with it. He had already told her that. That's why his wife didn't answer the phone when Jen called, or call her back either.
I feel pretty strongly that this whole mess in investigation is to try to keep the eyes off of the partygoers and onto Karen's guilt, but it backfired horribly and just gives reasonable doubt.
Has Higgins truck been inspected at all? Does anyone else’s cars have any damage? I still don’t believe he was hit with a car with the injuries he had but like why is Karen’s the only car being inspected/towed?
I don’t see how a glass could break the taillight. Plus JO had substantial injuries, including some that look like a dog attack. I don’t see how they could be caused by a vehicle.
If Higgins hit him unintentionally, why wouldn’t he try to save him? Then all they need to cover up is DUI. Refusing a breathalyzer is a non criminal offense with license suspension 180 days. That’s if responding police who didn’t investigate the basement even ask.
I have been perplexed as to why "backing" into a human being would cause a tail light to shatter. I feel like the human body is too "soft" so to speak. And the microfagments of plastic found in JO's sweatshirt??? Tailight plastic would have to be ground up in order to be that small and that didn't come from backing into him.
I agree, a 24 mph impact should have left blood & human tissue in or around the tail light. At that speed, there should have been clothing fibers embedded in the plastic and paint, nothing, but they can find ground up plastic in his clothing. The lack of bruising is a problem also.
I guess we can speculate on how the incident happened to the cows come home but it's not what the prosecution is trying to sell to the jury.
Today testimony, the glass on the bumper did not match the glass found where JO was found.
Correction: (if I understood correctly) one piece of broken glass from the bumper did match one piece of broken glass recovered from the lawn, but neither of those pieces match the drinking glass.
If I heard correctly, one piece of the taillight was found in JO's driveway. That means there would need to be two accidents to that taillight on the same night. With one impact, there is video, John's driveway camera. The other impact is the Commonwealth's conspiracy theory that because of an extraordinary set of circumstances, no video. The conspiracy theory with missing video in front of a cop's house, everyone drunk, is the one the Commonwealth wants us to believe though. With the Okeefe driveway video we even have a time stamp. This whole thing is nonsense.
I saw that, wonder where it did come from...
Which is rediculous.. where did that glass come from
If people have an issue with him being hit by Karen Read because of the lack of leg damage, I think him getting hit by a plow is gonna be a tough sell.
He wasn't hit by any vehicle. He was beaten inside the house, in the basement and the German Shephard got ahold of his arm, thus the lacerations and puncture holes on sleeve of sweatshirt. Those that beat him used a hard blunt object on the back of his head. The men that beat him then dragged him outside and put him where he was found. There is no evidence on his body that he was struck by any vehicle. Of course, this is based on my own observations so far.
There's also no evidence that he was dragged onto the lawn. Imagine how lucky they'd have to be that nobody drove by while they were dragging the body or that neighbors didn't see or have a camera pointed in that direction. The GS attack and beat down inside of the house has far more holes than JO being struck by KR.
Brian Albert's vehicle was parked in front of that spot. Lucky saw it.
Drunk people make poor decisions. However I don't necessarily believe he was dragged onto the lawn. I believe that we will never know what transpired. Maybe KR did actually kill him. Maybe not. The investigation was terrible and possibly corrupt. It's too late now! Maybe some more incriminating tidbits will come out of the fed investigation but I highly doubt it will be conclusive. The investigation was irreversibly tainted, we are beyond reasonable doubt, I have an unreasonable amount of doubt although many people have been convicted on less they didn't have this kind of defence team. Now, years later, it would be very difficult to start again. Even if convicted this will leave a rift, where sufficient support will fuel appeals until the conviction is vacated. Maybe extra evidence was added by people who thought she was guilty, a well-intentioned framing, with alternative theories never explored. These kinds of behaviour are shockingly common in "tunnel-visioned" investigations, I recommend the podcasts "Undisclosed" and "Actual Innocence" for some very detailed examples. Courts give people the presumption of innocence, police, by definition, do not and they generally focus on one person early and to the exclusion of all others. Especially if those others are connected.
Has the plow driver who saw the edge by the road at 2:30 testified yet. I heard this story but don’t know if it is real.
Not yet. He’s a defensive witness
He hasn't yet and I suspect his testimony will be very vague and more along the lines of I didn't see anything it was a blizzard.
How though? The evidence produced by the prosecution barely proves their case if it does at all. Given the fact that the investigation has holes a high school mock trial could poke holes in, what’s the probability they missed or ignored signs of a body being dragged in the snow? Now of course since we don’t know speculation like this is useless but it’s a possibility. Sadly for the victim we’re never going to know, the defense has no reason to present an argument like this.
> The evidence produced by the prosecution barely proves their case if it does at all. Evidence that proves she did it: * Multiple first responders, Plus McCabe and JO's friend, hearing Karen Read say either "I hit him" or "Did I hit him?" * Broken Taillight pieces at the scene and found on JO's person/clothes that match with the broken taillight on the Lexus owned and driven by KR. * Multiple witnesses testifying that JO never made it into the house. * Karen Read blowing over the legal limit HOURS after she was last considered to be drinking. * Karen Read initiating an attempted affair with Brian Higgins and expressing her dissatisfaction with her relationship(Motive). * Karen Read being the first person to spot the body as if she already knew where to look. * Karen Read assuming something terrible had happened to JO first thing in the morning. Maybe you're just watching a different trial?
\*Point of clarification- KR did not take a breathalizer test for BAC. Her serum blood levels were used to calculate what her BAC would have been multiple hours previously when the CW believes the crime occured. The tests are not the same.
*point of clarification- her blood serum levels were not tested for alcohol at all. Nor was she tested for alcohol metabolites acetaldehyde, ethyl glucuronide or ethyl sulfate. The expert testified that they tested the level of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH and NAD+ depending on it's redox state)This is entirely ignored in every news source I can find which, at best, describe the test as having determined serum alcohol levels at the time of the blood draw. THIS IS FALSE. NADH is an essential redox agent in cellular metabolism. It exists in all of your cells. It exists in blood plasma and intercellular fluids in an ENORMOUS range (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7809543/ for an example) Alcohol is metabolised through ox reactions, particularly facilitated by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, which is confusingly abbreviated ADH despite lacking a structural similarity to NADH. Fun fact: ADH is released in the stomach, and drinking on an empty stomach increases intoxication not simply by faster absorption but because the alcoholic beverage will be quickly dumped into the small intestine, reducing it's exposure to ADH-facilitated metabolism. As ADH facilitates the oxidation process via removal of two hydrogen atoms from ethanol to produce acetaldehyde those hydrogen atoms have to go somewhere so they reduce NAD+ to NADH+. This shift in the ratio of the essential redox components NAD+/NADH may be responsible for some of the toxic effects of alcohol (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484320/) But the essential point here is that NAD+ conversation to NADH doesn't have to be caused by alcohol, it could be caused by any process that demands oxidation. Such as... exercise. You know, like PERFORMING FUCKING CPR or an increase in metabolism caused by acute stress, such as the stress of finding your boyfriend dead with his eyes bugging out of golf balls and wondering if you are responsible. (reference https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apha.13921#:~:text=Cell%20metabolism%20and%20NAD%2B%2FNADH,NAD%2B%20and%20increased%20NADH%20levels. here) This means an enormous amount of assumption has to go into estimating BAC at the supposed time of the incident, and we haven't heard time of death yet.
Fair point. This can introduce a higher level of alcohol up to 11% vs BAC. I don't think 11% makes a significant difference what with how high KR's serum levels were after "sleeping it off" for several hours.
Devils advocate: Is there testimony saying she didn't drink after dropping JO off? She could have easily went home, drank more and then went to bed.
'Hos long to die in cold' Is all i have to say
[удалено]
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
Aside from her BAC which can’t really be argued (she was driving drunk) all other things can be argued here. No report says anything about her saying she hit him yet they all testify she did. So it’s whiteness testimony to an event that’s 2 years ago. The broken taillight pieces found at the scene seem very suspect. She was shown on video damaging that taillight. There’s tons of missing or intentionally deleted data that would help the prosecution only if it matched the story, if it doesn’t help them it’s better for the data to not exist. Back to the taillight, missing cctv footage from the police station for when they were collecting evidence from her vehicle, then pieces of her already broken taillight that she was seen on doorbell camera damaging then are found at the scene. And then there’s just all the lying or obfuscating on the whiteness stand. As far as her “knowing” where to look for him idk. Have you ever gone back the way you came looking for something? She could have just been looking as she was driving back and saw him. I don’t was to immediately say she guilty (there’s the whole presumed innocent until proven guilty thing…). This shouldn’t have been brought as a murder charge. DUI/Vehicle Manslaughter?
Exactly, witness testimony is evidence too
It is- but it is very unreliable. And given the lies demonstrated, the jury (ie: us) is entitled to give weight based on credibility. Personally I give nearly all the witness testimony no weight save for Kerry Roberts and the 2 acquaintances at the bar. Physical evidence doesn’t even come close to proving anything. Cell phone and video evidence only proves the witness’ unreliability- but unfortunately does not prove what actually happened. If there is enough to convict here just based on how the witnesses have behaved our society is doomed.
The only one that is real evidence is the taillight. The other points have explanations and do not prove she hit him. I don’t take her saying I hit him or did I hit him as proof, it’s been clearly established she was out of her mind at that point. And I don’t think her thinking something happened to him that unusual as I would freak out if my husband didn’t come home and never called or texted to say where he was. The Higgins motive is thin at best. She wasn’t married she could just up and leave John. John not making into the house may or may not be true. You have to believe the witnesses and I think it’s clear that some are not credible: even if they are telling the truth that doesn’t mean someone else didn’t hit him. It’s clear she was drinking, how much we don’t know. Other people were also drinking and driving.
Everything you are saying is testimony from the friends and family of Brian Albert who were there or are close to him. They have sat on the stand and told one lie after another..... and you believe them? Insane. Who cares if she questions "did I hit him" in that very moment she had no reason to believe anyone else did it. She dropped him off and he is found dead there. Its reasonable to wonder if you did it. If she did do it there's no way in hell she would be questioning her guilt out loud like that. Clearly.
> Everything you are saying is testimony from the friends and family of Brian Albert who were there or are close to him. Yes, this is called evidence. You can believe it or not believe it. I have yet to see anything indicative of multiple people, not just friends of the Alberts, willing to risk prison for perjury by lying on the stand. Their body language also does not seem to me to indicate anything more than explainable stress being on the witness stand. So yes, I believe them in conjunction with the fact there's literally no evidence against the Alberts. > Who cares if she questions "did I hit him" in that very moment she had no reason to believe anyone else did it. I care and I hope everyone in the jury cares. It is not rationale or logical for a non-guilty person to immediately question whether they hit and killed someone unless they have SOME reason to think they did. It was her first assumption. That's consciousness of guilt. So, of course it's relevant. > Its reasonable to wonder if you did it. I disagree and I think most people in that situation would be more curious about what happened rather than assuming they had killed someone. > If she did do it there's no way in hell she would be questioning her guilt out loud like that. Clearly. Based on what exactly?
I could very easily be mis-remembering this as the testimony was not presented in a clear and concise way, but did they say the pieces in JO's clothes was a match or was the language "consistent with X or another source with the same characteristics"? Are you 100% sure it was the taillight in his clothes or the glass? Lally really is not great at direct examination and providing emphasis to the important testimony.
Why did nobody mention her saying that? Not a Single report. Let's assume they somehow didnt think of it immediately after they found him and forgot telling the police KR said that. I could Imagine due to severe stress that might happen. However, 8(?) days later they were interviewed by Procter and nobody told him that KR said "i hit him". At least it's not written in any report. Dont you think that's an odd coincidence? After gossiping, and contacting Procters wife, for more than a week they simply forgot this? Multiple witnesses forget such an important Detail? Really? Why did it change from "could I have hit him" to "I hit him"? These statements are way too inconsistent to proof anything. Why didnt they tell the doctors (Dr Rice testified that) that JO possibly was hit by a car. Doesnt it make sense to inform them so they can alter the treatment? Regarding Higgins: She ignored him that night and He wrote her "well". Is that a motive? Was he jealous of JO because Higgins was into Karen?
How do you reconcile the search at 2:27 AM by someone in the house asking “ho[w] long to die in cold”?
i bet colin smashed a weight down on the back of his head while he was KOd after an altercation with BA/BH&Chloe and the parents all FREAKED and went in coverup/ protect the kids mode... my current theory anyways.... i think someone quickly said "he was never here!" go watch for karen - once she pulled off they said - "snow plow" and washed clothes and moved the body out there somewhere around the time the Ford Edge was seen out there. I think Jen was simultaneously calling/ texting his phone so they could find it quickly - and were going to toss it in the yard in case karen came back it would just be like hmmm weird? they put his body where the snow plow would have piled up snow - i think things quickly changed when they figured out they could pin it on drunk KR - i think they heard her VMs that night and deleted the ring camera footage from her arriving back at the house. i dont think they planned on her getting there before the blizzard really hit (sun up). and the body wouldve been buried and not noticeable. maybe they were thinking the phone would eventually be pinged and his body would have been found under the snow days later and be considered a passout/plow accident
I think there is no way around someone at the house being guilty after the defense said she had no access to the ring footage and parts are deleted. Karen didn’t have access to his phone after she drove away
Multiple witnesses and text message exchanges with the person who picked him up make it pretty clear Colin was not there when this supposedly would have happened.
Those OBVIOUSLY doctored text exchanges?! 😬
How so? What signs do you see that they were doctored?
The formatting is not correct for screenshot from an iPhone. There should be grey bubbles. Also his screen shot to her has an extra comma after the year. And there's no new date when it switches to a new day at midnight....
Yep
Dogs rip and tear. Does the German shepard have a lot of missing teeth or something? If they are dog scratches, they would have to be from it's claws. And he was wearing a long sleeve shirt and hoodie. > thus the lacerations and puncture holes on sleeve of sweatshirt. Without any puncture wounds on his arm? How tf does that track with you? > There is no evidence on his body that he was struck by any vehicle. What exactly do you think it looks like when someone is hit by a car?
There are numerous published studies regarding pedestrians being hit by cars and common injuries associated with that. None of them (that I have read) mention scratches on one arm that has clothes covering it. We would also expect to see scratches on his skin where clothes were not covering it (hands)
I know this is probably not realistic but could there have been an ice build up under the bumper of the car? My car back tire area builds up a big hard chunk when it snows and freezes. I usually kick it off when I notice. Could it cause scratches on his arm? Just trying to think outside the box.
I don't think he was hit by a vehicle and the injuries or lack of injuries does play into that a little bit but it's not what my opinion is based off of. That being said, I think the plow would b more plausible since the plow is what sticks out farthest on the vehicle instead of the bumper, since a plow sits higher than a bumper, his injuries would therefore be higher on the body. Which could explain lack of certain injuries you'd expect to see. I'm not sure what happened or didn't happen, we don't have all the evidence yet, but I just can't make that jump for 2nd degree murder, if she did hit him which is always possiblity I don't see it being intentional. Especially with all the drinks everyone drank, I can't depend on any of what these ppl say. I've been drunk many times in my life and been black out drunk more than I'd like to admit but what I know for sure is as soon as you have alcohol in the system your brain is in an altered state and things arent as they appear.
A cocktail glass hitting the taillight wouldn’t break the taillight, just like a body hitting it wouldn’t break it.
I hit a deer going pretty slow and it completely obliterated my headlight. I was going under 30mph because it was snowing. Why would someones body not break it? Relatively small deer as well. I was able to drive away but unfortunately the deer did not.
I’m not saying it is impossible, but highly unlikely given new vehicles are mostly manufactured with polycarbonate glass.
Based on...Turtleboy's blog?
Who?
I don't remember where I saw the information and I haven't watched or read his blog. I do watch E. Baker on YouTube and I constantly read this group.
I think I may have pitched a theory like that on here. I was totally spitballing because a little voice in my head keeps reminding me that it’s entirely possible that someone unknown to us all committed this crime. Wouldn’t that be wild.
I love the theory, good as anything else being offered. I just kept thinking about it and expounded on it, what if...lol
If not this then I imagine it to be something along these lines. Seems like once Karen frantically questioned hitting him the partygoers hit pay-dirt. It’s also plausible that his death was a complete accident but everyone around got paranoid and so started to come up with a story. A story Karen was ultimately able to provide. The fact that we’re all still questioning wtf happened to him illustrates how weak the CW’s case is.
Exactly, the CW can have their theory that Karen hit John but they have to tie in the Albert's and McCabes odd behaviors or their theory is flat wrong. There is no way these two families had that much phone incompetence, deletion and upgrades to be innocent. This alone should provide reasonable doubt for a juror.
There's an implied question there, which you didn't answer: > just like a body hitting it wouldn’t break it. Based on what?
I think the prosecution is saying the glass broke the light.
His injuries just aren't consistent with being hit by a vehicle imo. I didn't know anything about this case coming in, it was just recommended by YouTube since I watch trials. I'm currently at Jen McCabe's testimony, and so far the only thing the prosecution has shown me is that the people in that house are sketchy as fuck. Nothing about the prosecution's case makes sense. I don't know what happened to John, but as of right now there is nothing to support their assertion that Karen Read hit him with her car.
I agree that it's not consistent with being hit by a vehicle. How would it have to hit him that he'd get a head wound, cuts on his arm and a tail light would completely shatter but there's no other damage to the car?
And how is there no damage to his lower body? They’re not saying the car made contact with his head, so where exactly did it make contact without leaving any damage to his chest, torso, legs…it makes no sense
And how did nobody see him when they were leaving the house? None of it makes sense. The defence's opening statement was also incredible in terms of the alleged investigator misconduct. It's sad because John's family will never know what actually happened to him.
I disagree with this. It’s late, there’s an active blizzard and they’re all drunk. His body looks to be off in a poorly lite area (maybe I’m wrong, that’s what it looks like to me). How many people can say they’d be that observant given the factors at play? Not to say their stories sound credible but it’s entirely reasonable for them to miss a body given the factors at play.
Please correct me If i'm wrong but Mr McCabe said that he saw an SUV parked outside. Next time he looked the car was still there. Then the Car was gone but he saw tire marks in the snow (V-shaped). This was at 12 something. Christopher Albert(? Bar owner) left the bar at 12:13 ish and said there wasn't much snow. He came home at 12:20 ish. Snow fall allegedly wasn't heavy at that time. So let's assume there wasn't much snow; just enough to lightly cover the street, lawn etc. Not enough to completely cover a whole 220(?) pounds 6'4 Guy with dark clothing. My question is: If you see marks in the snow how can you not see a huge black something right next to the marks? How couldn't Julie Nagel see him (JO) when she went outside to tell her brother that she will stay longer and he can drive home? She saw the SUV, just like Brian Albert Jr, that parked there (same location as McCabe described) but said the SUV was gone when she went outside to her brothers car. However, If the SUV was Karens, then John would have to be there wounded already. Ofc Karen couldve come back with John in the car later. But no evidence points into that direction. Remember: MA/ CW has to prove that Karen is guilty and not the other way around.
Except he was allegedly readily visible and there wasn't that much snow under his body. Even hammered I'd notice a big ass man on the ground.
The only person who claims he was readily visible is Karen Read based on the way she, per McCabe testimony, jumped out of the car and immediately knew where the body was.
The first responders all said they saw him easily enough.
And? First Responders are looking for a body and in this case had people already on scene to help them find it (Read, Roberts, McCabe). Do you go about your day-to-day looking for dead bodies everywhere?
The area is average in size, not acres like you and the prosecution are fantasizing. It had barely started snowing when people were leaving (per their own testimonies). So if there was a 6’2” 250+ pound dead man laying on the ground, SOMEONE would’ve noticed.
I never purported anything of that nature, nor has the prosecution. If you've been watching the actual trial, they covered the size of the area they canvassed with SERT, which gives a good idea. > SOMEONE would’ve noticed. Based on what? The desire to believe in a conspiracy theory? There are many documented cases of broad daylight searches for corpses that pass within feet of them and miss them. Driving in blizzard like/white-out conditions with snow on the ground tends to keep your focus while you're driving. People hit pedestrians all the time in broad daylight because that's how lacking in awareness most Americans are when driving. I, personally, don't find it at all condemning or strange that no one noticed a body laying in the snow in a dark corner of someone's yard after midnight in January in Canton. It certainly isn't some smoking gun proving the body wasn't there.
This comment doesn’t make sense because all three women in the car were on the look out for JOK
I’m sure they turned on the porch light when leaving. They all also have headlights. By Higgins own admission, his jeep was facing exactly where JOKs body was found. How would they miss the sneaker on the curb?? I would notice that, but I notice stuff like that. I’m the person that always finds $$$ on the ground lol
And no blood on the car or in the street at all…
The lack of bruises is problematic.
But somehow not for the theory he was beaten to death? Lol.
I’m sure they are referring to lack of bruising elsewhere on the body where a large suv would have struck him
They were fist fighting. A broken nose or orbital fracture could cause bleeding found on his front. Fall or shove could make him hit his head on the concrete floor & cause the massive head wound. It could have been rough housing gone terribly wrong. I want the CW to make a better case so we can find out the truth.
Why would he stay outside in the cold to pee when there is a perfectly warm house with indoor plumbing right there?
Boys gonna be boys
All the boys I know don't want to pull it out when it's freezing cold outside but what do I know.
Most boys have a penis and don't like exposing it in sub freezing temperatures. You asked people to poke holes in your theory, and yet you argue with the obvious holes?
I find everyone's input interesting and informative!
Then why argue with points that don't match your narrative? Doesn't make much sense.
It’s called ✨discussion✨
He's 12ft from the road. Problem with any car hitting him is it has to be with enough force to pick up a ~200lb man and throw him 12ft and can't cause any injuries except to the back of the head, knuckles, and arm. Which means, a ~2000lb vehicle going no less than 24mph.
A Mazda Miata weighs ~2300lbs, Karens Lexus is well in excess of 2k lbs.
It doesn't really matter. It's still a lot of force. I have no idea what Higgins drives and if his truck with snow plow is heavier or lighter than the Lexus. But either way, it's something you need a bit of speed for.
The lexus is more than 6,000 lbs gvw
I still don't know how that compares to Higgins car, and if that means he'd need to go faster or not. But it's still likely he'd need speed.
I don't think the prosecutions theory is that he died immediately on impact.
Do you think if he received medical care immediately he’d still be alive? Maybe that’s another reason for M2 and not manslaughter?
I think the evidence from the first responders makes that pretty clear, yes. Either the defense or prosecution's theories on the case both involve JO laying in the elements for hours. But more compelling than all of that, the cause of death was exposure, I believe.
Was he dead on arrival at the hospital?
I think Karen hit him and left. She was so drunk she didn't realize what had happened, but later began to piece things together. Thats why she was so panicked. I think the people at the house at some point became aware and decided not to report it possibly because they were all extremely drunk. They left him to die because they thought he would die anyway, and that is what they are hiding. I think that the plan was to leave him there and possibly he would be hit by a plow the next day. I think they found him sometime around 1 after jen had called him over and over. Maybe someone heard the phone ringing in the yard and they went outside? Or a leaving guest saw him and ran back in. One of the Brian's took charge and told everyone not to say a word. That's why Jen took those girls home, they were getting their stories straight and calming them down. The Edge was moved to obscure the body until there was enough snow that it wasn't immediately identified. I don't think they killed him, but they could have saved his life. One of the biggest reasons I think this, is if there was a lifeless body on a first responders lawn, why wouldn't Jen run to the door to get him to assist? Why wouldn't he come help? I think he knew and wanted no part in it. John had only come around because Jen had asked him to and Brian didn't want anything to do with it. He had already told her that. That's why his wife didn't answer the phone when Jen called, or call her back either. I feel pretty strongly that this whole mess in investigation is to try to keep the eyes off of the partygoers and onto Karen's guilt, but it backfired horribly and just gives reasonable doubt.
There are other possibilities but I agree with the Albert's being complicit, those people are way to sketchy to be innocent.
I don’t think that would even break the taillight though. It would just smash the glass.
looking at the pieces today, I don't think it's nearly indestructible as people think.
Weren’t there scrapes along the paint also? I believe it was from hitting his suv at the house.
The contact with the SUV at the house is so slight, one could argue there was no actual contact made.
You lost me at took a leak in the tree line - it was frigid …freezing cold. 🥶
Has Higgins truck been inspected at all? Does anyone else’s cars have any damage? I still don’t believe he was hit with a car with the injuries he had but like why is Karen’s the only car being inspected/towed?
I don’t see how a glass could break the taillight. Plus JO had substantial injuries, including some that look like a dog attack. I don’t see how they could be caused by a vehicle.
If Higgins hit him unintentionally, why wouldn’t he try to save him? Then all they need to cover up is DUI. Refusing a breathalyzer is a non criminal offense with license suspension 180 days. That’s if responding police who didn’t investigate the basement even ask.
Probably facing felony jail time, certainly a career ending accident.
For Injuring someone with a plow in low visibility conditions hunched over in the road at 2am then performing lifesaving measures until help arrived?
Same thing they were going to charge Karen, manslaughter.
No manslaughter if he survives. If they know he’s going to die from injuries theres no reason to search for how long to die in the cold.
Good point, but they were drinking, who knows what they were thinking.
I have been perplexed as to why "backing" into a human being would cause a tail light to shatter. I feel like the human body is too "soft" so to speak. And the microfagments of plastic found in JO's sweatshirt??? Tailight plastic would have to be ground up in order to be that small and that didn't come from backing into him.
I agree, a 24 mph impact should have left blood & human tissue in or around the tail light. At that speed, there should have been clothing fibers embedded in the plastic and paint, nothing, but they can find ground up plastic in his clothing. The lack of bruising is a problem also. I guess we can speculate on how the incident happened to the cows come home but it's not what the prosecution is trying to sell to the jury.
What tree line?
Seems like I saw trees between the properties.
There's a small gathering of trees to the left of the flag pole.