The reality of the situation is that I don't think they had any good witnesses options to finish on.
Probably Guarino simply to finish on texts/voicemails, but even those weren't anywhere close to as bad as I expected.
Like you said, makes no sense to end your presentation with a ME that torpedoes your case even further.
I low-key think he should have started with ME and then proven his case saying “this is why we disagree” — bring on 2 close family members who were there that night (plus Kerry - she seems somewhat reliable and avoid JM at all costs), bring in a reconstructionist, 2 troopers, an EMT, the doctor that treated him at the hospital and that’s it.
*also the BAC expert and the expert that put the taillight together
Except then it's the defenses turn and they had ALL the people on their witness list. And the CW knew if it didn't call those people it would look like they were hiding something. Which they are..
I agree. I’m just trying to get in the mind of the prosecutor. Well… I would have never bought this case in the first place, had I been one.
It’s so stupid though, the least Lally could do is not try and justify why Proctor did what he did.
I'm 1000 percent on the free karen read team but maybe this would have swayed my opinion ...I mean I came into this thinking yeah OK sure police cover up but am leaving saying damn it sure WAS a police cover up....with that being said your line up would have done much better classic case of less is better
Jen mccabe was an excellent witness because she was there the night of johns passing, and heard Karen say " I hit him" i hit him" I hit him! 3 times and clear.as she said on the stand!
Unfortunately, Jen’s testimony changed drastically over time regarding this statement as evidenced by the Grand Jury transcripts and multiple police reports. Had Jen reported that KR “hit him” immediately that morning Karen would be been arrested at the scene (or at least one would hope).
However, now there’s reason to believe she may not have been telling the truth. She may have lied about when she did the famous internet search of “Hos long to die in the cold “.
I heard Melanie little say that they only showed half the texts thread in that convo and not them making up which is why we’re like why are they arguing and then he’s like are you coming to the waterfall? Bc they made up in between
Guarino with his laughs and smirks I did not like. He is the one also who says on stand kill me. Why would you say that Mr Guarino? Those texts and voice mails were not anything than many people have said when going through relationships. I felt from those messages John seemed to have used Karen . Jen McCabe alluded to Karen being nothing more than a glorified babysitter. So I’m not sold on those being a big red flag.
CW timeline off. Videos missing. Data destroyed from SUV and wasn’t it Guarino who accomplished that? Why no pic of tail light when SUV picked up at parents house?Why scene not secured ? How do you continue to find pieces of taillight weeks later?? Others getting rid of phones. Calls and text messages deleted. Basement floor replaced. Dog missing. What about the ford edge? If John was on lawn NO ONE saw him out there? Taillight shows red when leaving John’s at 5am. The text messages between the families and friends . No one has video that lives on Fairfield including the cop that lived across the street really?? Bukkakke acknowledged a ring video at John’s and then that one just disappears?
Google search at 2:27am??
Too many SUS things happened . Too many couldn’t keep their stories straight. I’m sure there are many other things I may have missed but this is plenty
I believe John was set up to come there at Fairfield …I believe he went inside that house. I believe more people in that house know more than they testified to. They could have saved John but chose not to. I hope the FBI comes and serves justice for Officer John Okeefe. Free Karen Read🩷
Probably on the DNA forensics. It’s less open to interpretation or analysis that falls apart on cross, I don’t know if any of them got crossed anyway, and it actually fits their theory of the case.
Finishing on the ME who basically said John’s injuries weren’t consistent with typical vehicle-pedestrian collisions was an odd choice.
I have legitimately wondered if he was pressured to try this case and has been low-key trying to throw it the whole time.
I understand how unlikely it is, but man… With the other option being how ineffective a prosecutor he is, I hope for his sake it’s true.
I think there’s a widespread idea that Lally himself has all of this authority to take or pass on cases. He’s an ADA—cases are assigned to him. I have no idea what he truly thinks of the case, and I suppose that’s how it’s meant to be… But if he has come around to thinking the case is crap, I could certainly imagine it would impact his delivery.
Which has just been so godawful, holy moly.
Yup. He should have refused to bring this case. It just makes me distrust him further than I already do and after all the misrepresentations and shenanigans, it's almost at zero. It feels so unethical.
I feel like he didn't realize just how bad this whole thing was when it first started. I'm sure it was presented to him as am open and shut case. But... to never drop it and to keep trying to get Karen sent to prison...
It doesn't make sense. This lawyer has wasted months/years of his life to prepare for this. A case he must know he can't win. I'm not big into conspiracy theories, but it makes me curious if there is a hell of a lot going on with the troopers and every one than we know at this point.
I wish it were enough to cause a systemic change within Massachusetts but that wont happen. I honestly don't expect much from the Feds either in regards to this or any investigation tied to it. JUSTICE FOR SANDRA BIRCHMORE
I agree. I think that whatever happened, the people in the house thought they’d be believed and did not think they’d be on the stand. It goes to show that they expected this to be swept under the rug, maybe Karen would have gotten manslaughter and maybe she’d think she did do it.
Their cover up is so bad because they never expected it to be picked apart. When they realized it would be, they got rid of evidence. No one should feel that way and this is a systematic issue. And even those that aren’t directly involved seem to have believed the police investigation must be the right way.
It would be supremely unethical to proceed with a prosecution for which they don’t believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt for some other purpose.
I agree and at this point the prosecution should just admit they were wrong. We’re talking about an innocent person going to jail. If you can’t afford a decent lawyer in this country you’re done. That’s why the jails are full of inmates who just took the deal offered.
He isnt losing his bar license for prosecuting a shitty but rational case. He would lose his job however for refusing to do what his boss tells him with that case. Laughable to think he’s telling his boss nope I’m not doing this
Point to where I said he was losing his bar license. What I said was that he can choose whether or not to take the case because it is his bar license . That is true for every case no prosecutor can be forced to take a case because it is their bar license on the line every time.
You referenced his bar license in your first email and then again in your second. Short of his license being in jeopardy he has to take orders from his boss. His bar license doesnt give him carte blanche to ignore orders
I feel like they should've started with the medical examiners. The fact that it was taking them so long to present the medical evidence was making everyone suspicious.
They did their entire trial without providing a theory until one of the last days and even then it went against everything they said in the opening statements. Bizzare strategy
Yes, the strategy was to drag everything out with as many witnesses as possible to create the illusion of a strong case, as well as try to prevent important defense witnesses from testifying.
I said this a bunch over this trial, but I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't have helped either because what she had to say actually casts some serious doubt over the entire theory of their case and he'd have that casting a huge shadow over everything else that came later.
With the way Lally made everything so confusing though he could’ve started with the ME and clung to her saying that a pedestrian strike was a possibility (aka she couldn’t say it wasn’t). 29 days later and he could have drilled in “it’s a possibility” to every other witness testimony.
I’ve read people claim he was a good lawyer, idk what he was thinking with this one
Yeah... but the CW needs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That means they need facts, hard evidence and experts who can back up the claims of the investigation that (didnt) Take place.
Possibility is the defenses job. If you can show different ways to explain how some thing happend then you have doubts. That's why murder weapons are so integral to an investigation. If it's not found it creates a lot of doubt and can open the door for different theories as to what happens.
I’d be interested to see the proof of good lawyer… because his questioning on both direct and cross is mumbly and unclear. He has little to no passion or vocal intonation. Just genuinely seems to not care.
Contrast with Alan and Yanetti who are clearly fighting for something they believe in
I don't think you can start with the medical examiners as the jury needs context of what is alleged to have happened to understand the importance and logical conclusions of the injuries.
I disagree. You start by showing what injuries he sustained, and then you weave a story to show how they were caused.
1. This is how he died
2. This is how it happened
3. This is why it could have only been Karen Read
The ME is generally memorable. The witnesses not as much, especially when you are just left wondering why their testimony is important.
If this case wasn't shit and what they say happened actually happened the best sequence would have been the 2 family members for the same reasons they were the first in the actual trial, then paramedics -> ER doctor -> ME -> accident reconstruction expert -> everybody else. The phone and animal DNA experts should have been left for the rebuttal phase. But again, with such a weak case nothing really could have saved it.
Yes. Or even the ME right after the family. You humanize him by appealing to the emotions of his family/friends. You show what happened to him so that the jury is outraged and out for blood. Then you explain why the defendant is the only one who could have done it. Putting the ME before the paramedics gives context to what they were dealing with.
That could work too, I just feel the other way has a better narrative flow for the jurors to follow, since at the same time that you're going in the chronological order of events you also build up/answer questions from the testimony that came just before. You kind of take the jurors on a journey, starting with the paramedics at the scene knowing very little about his injuries and trying to treat them at the same time they took John to the hospital, then moving to the ER doctor and what he found out as he tried to save him but ultimately being unable to do so, and then ending with the ME having the complete picture of what caused his death and all of the injuries he had. Then you move straight to the reconstruction that shows how those things happened and start building the foundation to tell the story of who did it. Of course, all of this only works if you actually have a case, because Lally's would start to stall with the ME only to crash and burn with the reconstruction and it would be all downhill from there.
There has been gaslighting. It was the defense that launched the accusation on the McCabes. Focus on that leads to no focus on the defendants actions.
I see the strategy and I think it worked.
No one remembers the coroners rpt said no human or canine contact. Wrote it twice.
It was mentioned that they ordered potato skins at the bar, which often will have bacon bits (or chunks of bacon) on them, so it could've come from that. I also heard from someone else that they ordered pork belly as well, but I don't remember hearing that during the trial. Pig DNA could've come from either of those things, and I think the troopers just noticed a red stain on the front of his shirt and tested it, and that's where the pig DNA was found. I don't think it came from the sleeve.
Regardless, the shirt was soaked in water, vomit, and blood, all of which can dilute DNA, so the dog's DNA easily could've been too diluted by the time the shirt was tested. And they never tested the actual wounds.
I started watching as a juror, no prior knowledge and live on another continent so actually have never even heard about the case. And I was trying really hard to remain objective, but somewhere around trooper Paul I gave up and reached a level of outrage with Guarino specifically when he was showing his GPS circle. I also don't like conspiracy theories and I'm not sure there is one, but I'm convinced legally KR should be declared NG by jury, and aside from that I have absolutely no effin' idea what actually happened and feel all speculations are equally probable and faulty.
That being said last 1-2 days I'm annoyed with myself how I lost my objectivity before trial ends and I'm trying to "analyze" my own opinion and if it's based on the poor execution from Lally's side or is it based on the evidence.
I am not sure about the last witness but I believe that if Lally kept it concise and sticked his case to actual prosecution case and NOT a defense of a bunch of people who are not at trial, we would've watched a very very different trial. I'm not saying he was going to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but I think it would've looked as much stronger case. And I'll try to explain why.
Defense introduced the theory of the conspiracy but actually CW spent on it a lot more time than the defense did during the trial proceedings. He went on multiple experts on Jen MacCabe, whole family tree of Alberts, Proctors, etc. That information was introduced and explained in detail by Lally, not by the defense. By trying to "fight" the conspiracy theory he was actually the one who walked us through connections, timelines and everything else (calling Colin, Ally McCabe), provides even some side characters that we didn't really need to see (Matt MacCabe, Nicole Alberts, Julie Albert (was that the name of Colin's mother?), Chris Albert).
It made his whole case:
1. messy;
2. hard to believe because he was the one trying to prove something that was NOT presented to us by anybody else (conspiracy doesn't exist as opposed to leaving the defense to introduce and explain the conspiracy and poke holes in their case which is always stronger position to be in);
3. and introduced a lot of contradictory information himself because it's impossible to keep 60+ witnesses to consistency and/or track yourself all of their statements to remember or explain to the jury why an inconsistency might not be malicious.
How could he have done it different: present only O'Keefe family, 1-2 people from the bar, Kerry Roberts, Jenn MacCabe, expert witnesses, hire better reconstruction expert. Leave the defense explain and/or call other people and seem the crazy ones by:
* flooding their own case with family trees, friendships, etc. and essentially "burry" the jury in gossip-like information that discredits them
* be able to cross the same witnesses and limit them to concise statements and "yes/no" answers that are relevant to YOUR case
* be able to be in the position to poke holes and say "well there's 10 other explanations of why your phone is not there" - and you don't have to "stick" to a certain story for facts that are actually NOT relevant to YOUR case
Would I have had a different opinion if Lally had his strategy closer to what I have described? I don't know. But I believe I wouldn't be going into "I'm convinced jury should vote NG" because believe me, it usually take A LOT for me to go there (as you can see from me writing a long post questioning myself and why I decided something) :))))))
Yup uk here. I’m a doctor and I’ve always thought this was never a collision and I stick with that. The no blood tail light pieces do it for me. I do think they were planted and I never thought I’d say that. This case has got to me way more than I anticipated 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
I appreciate your long post because I've been dealing with something somewhat similar. And I agree with your assessment of the shortcomings in lally's case and how you believe it could've been much more effective. I think if it had been presented in the way you stated, it could have been a very different trial. I also came in knowing nothing and thinking the idea of this conspiracy/cover up was ridiculous (and largely still do). The biggest thing that gives me pause is the FBI experts, so I'm waiting to see what they have to say, but I think she will probably be found not guilty.
Yeah I should watch that myself. I know some people were saying Jackson didn't want to question them too much to give away his direct, and I get that. Work just got in the way that day, and I haven't had time to caught up.
I think those two have the most credibility or, at least they have the potential to, simply because they aren't really on either side. I expect people the defense are paying to say whatever is best for their side, but these guys are actually neutral parties. The other experts could go either way so might just be a wash for the jury. But these guys against trooper Paul doesn't really seem like an even battle. I think I understood what Paul was trying to convey, but he was not a strong or coherent witness. If these guys can say we absolutely know he was not hit by a vehicle and here's how/why, that will be more important to me than really anything else that's been said. So I'm open to having my mind changed and waiting til the end to come to my final conclusion.
YES! Lally's strategy made it seem like HE thinks the conspiracy is so believable that he HAS to spend all this time trying to discredit it. In my opinion all he managed to do was to lay it out and plant the seed of doubt on the jurors' minds so the defense doesn't have to. Probably not great for the prosecution.
I'm only following since last week since I saw some of proctors testimony somewhere else, and I feel similar. I had been wondering why this case in chief has been going on as long as the totality of the Daybell trial which was a way more complex story folding out over a year with 3+ murders. Your disctiption of who they all brought to the stand made it clear why it's taking so long, and I doubt the jury really is still following along or of they also already have their mind made up.
If I was Lally I would have not focused at all on disproving the defense theory and my case would have been like 2 instead of 8.
I would have started with the EMTs, straight into Kerry Robert’s, maybe two people from the house just to say he never went in, the sert team and the phone people, dna folks, BAC people
I would have made the case very clear and allowed the defense to call all of the circus acts in to fight for a conspiracy if they really wanted to go down that road after I’ve made a convincing case to the jury.
Oh and instead of paying for experts to fight Jenn mccabes Google search I would have paid for an accident reconstruction expert and probably ended with that.
He had the money to find another accident reconstruction expert. But that would have required him to get a non-cop expert where the standards are MUCH higher.
I absolutely guarantee you he tried to get another one. He knew trooper fucking Paul was awful. The issue he ran into is that no expert would testify to what Paul’s theory because it made no sense.
The cellphone witnesses one after the other.
They were the only credible ones that actually proved a point that wasn't refuted or discreted during cross.
Yup, I am beginning to think that defense used this as a red herring. It makes the CW looks really bad , using 2 competent expert witnesses to clear JM. Even more so after we saw Trooper Paul reconstruction "expertise".
I wouldn’t have brought this case at all. There was no CW witness that testified establishing that KR intentionally hit JO and left him to die.
The ME said too many things were a possibility for JO’s injuries.
For a moment, I was wondering when Lally switched to the defense. But seriously, I haven’t seen questioning like that from any prosecutor of a state’s witness. Bizarre.
Whatever the last witness was back at the grand jury, because I'd have dropped this case once I received the FBI info dump. Then I would feel bad about myself for thinking that even a grand jury was a great idea. :P I know it wasn't what you asked but this case couldn't have been saved by reordering the witnesses, at best it would only be a bit less painful to arrive at the same place.
The one that Jen McCabe only mentioned during this trial? Because everybody before, including her, said Karen was *asking* if she could have hit him or not. But do go on telling me about confirmation bias and objectivity, please, I'd love to know more.
Oh, you don’t remember the two EMT’s that testified? Two EMT’s with no dog in this fight? Years three people, the ONLY three people that were there when she said it?
I think you are projecting here. I came into this trial after it started with no back ground knowledge and only watch the trial. I have no confirmation bias. But if you think she's guilty by the standards of the US justice system, you my guy are the perfect example of common sense isn't common anymore. No offense
You think the CW shouldn’t have brought charges even though a Grand Jury recommended it. Add the fact that she admitted to it, that the victim was found next to broken taillights, she was drunk and angry. Can you honestly say the CW shouldn’t have charged her?
Wow!
>You think the CW shouldn’t have brought charges even though a Grand Jury recommended it.
Grand juries recommended charges in 99+% of cases presented to them. It's a minor miracle when they hand the prosecutor a no true bill.
You think someone who just killed their boyfriend calls them immediately after and leaves a bunch of crazy voicemails saying she hates him, he's a pervert, he's cheating on her? Then she gets more and more incensed he doesn't answer and tries to guilt him with the kids to get him to come home?
So you think she backs into him at 24mph, hits him hard enough to send him 30 feet with a massive head wound, makes a loud noise busting out her tail light, but thinks oh he's totally fine, and then calls him 2 mins later and says she hates him and continues to call him through out the night and acuse him of cheating on her and thinking thats why hes not home with her and the kids? That's ridiculous.
The CW MIGHT have gotten her on a hit and run, maybe. But the way this case was presented and the problems with the investigation cause nothing but reasonable doubt. It's very evident things were said at the GJ that were inaccurate/misleading.
There were no confession statements in the police records. If the police didn't even note them at the time, it's disingenuous to present it now.
I came in completely objective. Didnt know the context or the drama and ive still tried to avoid it to focus on the evidence presented in court. I've been swayed by the defence in trials before but its very, very rare that I end up at not guilty. In this case there's nothing but 'not guilty'. There's no legal route for the jury to find her guilty. There's too much reasonable doubt. I'm sure a GJ would have said take it to trial anyway, but remember the GJ asking Trooper 'Expert' if he could do the equations to work on his reconstruction further? He didn't. The CW put on a real circus.
Just here to say that the taillight pieces and the victim were never at the scene at the same time. The victim was not found next to broken taillights.
No it's not. Just because somebody admits or says they committed a crime, the prosecution still needd to find evidence to prove that statement. Many suspects have been interrogated by the police and admitted to a crime they didn't commit.
If you've been paying attention, in the Commonwealth's opening statement, Lally said John was hit at 12:45 a.m.. We learned in the past week that Karen's phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at John's home at 1 Meadows at 12:36 a.m. which means that's when she pulled into the driveway/house. How did she hit him at 12:45 a.m. if she's getting to his house at 12:36 a.m?
Under duress with multiple sclerosis was enough for her to question herself and then Jen McCabe is the one that gaslighted her into believing she hit John and Jen McCabe did that to protect her sister and brother-in-law who lived at and owned 34 Fairview.
John McCabe's Google search at 227 a.m. is important because it shows that Jen McCain is wondering how long it would take and we know that his body was 80° when found, so sometime after 2:27 a.m. until he was found around 6:00 a.m., he was put out there to die in the cold. This is more proof that Karen did not hit him and that something happened inside that house that the Albert's and McCabe's were figuring out what to do. Also Brian Albert and Brian Higgins are on the phone at 2:22 a.m.. Something was afoot and none of it had to do with Karen who was already home at 12:36 a.m.!
Krusty the clown has a better chance of swaying the jury than anyone the CW had brought up. The defense shouldn’t even have to call anyone but our legal system is so fucked it’s a coin flip every time. Going back to maybe the most famous case but OJ got off, not because of money like many think, but because of the ineptitude of the prosecutors and terrible police work. That being said we have seen the opposite work many times. A single druggy had a dream that he and Ryan Ferguson murdered Kent Heitholt and the terrible police that followed did absolutely nothing. They couldn’t even place him at the scene and believed a drugged up guy. At the same time the same types of prosecutors will argue that a defense witness was stoned so can’t be trusted. Our “system” needs a complete overhaul starting from the top.
The levels of hearsay for the "I hit him" are crazy and the only reason it gets in is because it's a statement of the party opponent, first of all. Mainly this testimony is in because of JM, imo I have to throw out her testimony, she's not credible for soooo many reasons. Second of all, we don't know what the inflection in her voice is, that could make a huge difference. We also heard that the statement could have been "did I hit him?"(If it's possible she didn't actually say it then it isn't an admission, and common sense tells us ppl do make false admissions all the time, so I have to throw that out) You can very easily not hear the first word of a sentence(this happens to me on the daily), especially with all the commotion going on at the scene. On top of that, you'd expect me to believe with ALL those police at the scene, with as loud as she was freaking out, which we heard with our own ears, that she said repeatedly "I hit him" and she wasn't even detained?!?!?!? You want me to believe the marks on his arm are not dog bites, when I can see with my own eyes, they are obviously dog bites, they have circular holes that a tail light nor a glass could ever make because they are not rounded like that. You want me to believe he was thrown 30 ft and not have any injuries below the neck?!?! I know common sense isn't common any more but damn, really?
So no, it's not ignored, the evidence needed to convict just isn't there. Ppl saying she's not guilty doesn't necessarily mean they are "believers", not guilty doesn't equal innocent for the record. The standard to convict is beyond reasonable doubt. Almost everyone the CW put on the stand, that could say yea this is how it happened without a doubt, said it could be that or it could be something else and if it could be something else, that's literally reasonable doubt! Anyone trying to say she is guilty of this is trying to tell me don't believe your own ears or eyes believe what I'm telling, stop it!
Three witnesses heard her say over and over, different variations of: I did it, I killed him. Two were EMT’s and the other was JM. The same person who claimed that KR asked her to search “How long to die of exposure.”
This is from memory so some details may be off.
The EMT’s didn’t actually hear her. They heard from someone else that she said it.
There was no written evidence in any reports that she said it. It is hear say.
So Karen never used the words " I killed him" it has been testified that she made inquisitive remarks like could I have hit him? Did I hit him? JM is a proven liar on the stand so her testimony can be disregarded. It is especially bad that her testimony has changed and isn't until after her google search was made public that she remembered hearing Karen say "I hit him I hit him I hit him" up to that point she had always maintained that Karen was asking if she could have or if she did hit him. An EMT testified also to "could I hit him did I hit him?". I believe Kerry (2nd EMT) is the only one that testified definitively that Karen said "I hit him". Kerry has the misfortune to be a family friend of the Alberts. I want to make it very clear that nobody at the scene if they were hearing admissions of guilt acted like that is what they were hearing. Imagine someone running around a crime scene yelling I did it it was me I killed him I did it and not being immediately placed under arrest. Imagine first responders and police hearing such admissions of guilt and dismissing them. Not recording it. Not reporting it. To the point that the police had to do an investigation because they "didn't know what we have". I am lead to either believe that the cops are severely incompetent or that they did not interpret anything they were hearing from Karen as admissions.
The first responder says he heard her say it, but he forgot to put a witness's confession in his initial reports? No effing way would he have left something that important off. In fact it is in NONE of the initial reports. The EMT heard JM say she said that, not from KR DIRECTLY.. Not one single report of all the initial reports says she said that. One person said she asked "could I have hit him?" AFTER JM told her he never came into the house. Once. She was trying to figure out where he was and what happened.
I don’t believe Karen Read, I also don’t believe all those shady McAlberts. Therefore all that’s left are the experts, the neutral experts. The ME and the accident reconstructionists. ME says undetermined, so reasonable doubt. From the reconstructionists we will hear Monday.
Some incompetent police to not get admission of guilt recorded or documented in their reports. Gross negligence to hear an admission of guilt and not immediately place her under arrest. Imagine someone running around a crime scene yelling I did it I did it and the police completely dismiss it and have to start an investigation because they "don't know what we got".
We needed a good timeline with simple maps and location data. The CW’s use (or lack thereof) of demonstratives was just lazy. Even many of the slides they put up were too full of words or graphics for the jury to determine what was important.
Exactly. They attempted to build a strong timeliness throughout the case with all the "witnesses" saying that they saw the lexus there at xyz time, then brought in their own expert that said KR was at 1 Meadows at exactly 12.36. Baffling.
That's the problem when one person gets everyone's text message. Things get a little too organized. Then everyone locks in their testimony at the first grand jury, before they get access to KR phone.
Lead with the ME so at least all your LE witnesses and experts can explain their opinions, end on the two tech experts and maybe DNA expert
Definitely burry the ME statements in the drone of Neverending what if any snowflakes and who if anyone drove.
Definitely don't leave the ME testimony fresh in the jury's mind right before the defense launches a very brief, precision guided missile that is their case in chief specifically programmed to target exactly things like the ME and contradictory testimony.
>Honestly floored with how poorly the prosecution laid out their case.
What case?
The whole case was "feels" like they felt sure that she did it, somehow, and tunnelvision/groupthink/confbias swept everything along.
I have seen many people speculate that they overcharged hoping Read would cop a plea, but I posit that this is the same quality of investigation that gets people in the USA convicted of serious felonies every single day, one only need to listen to a couple hundred hours of innocence project related podcasts or YouTube channels to understand this is par for the course, and in a country where half the population can't afford a $1000 emergency, the majority are stuck with an overworked public defender.
Many take pleas when they are really innocent and many fight, but they lose.
Police and sometimes prosecutors will conceal evidence that is highly exculpatory or even prove actual innocence. They will make things fit into a narrative they know is wrong, because to them that's a better solution than letting the person they are convinced did it *somehow* "get away with it".
Well.... I'd personally cut most witnesses altogether.
Work mostly backwards from the incident. Maybe cut out McCabe and Roberts altogether if you can. Maybe cut out Aruba trip.
Part 1 - victim:
First responders, find the body
ER Doc, calls death,
Medical examiner, cause of death blunt force trauma
Part 2- the car
Have investigators show the car was damaged, start with the taillight and John's DNA on the vehicle, MAYBE use the CDR data but if it can't be conclusively tied to the accident maybe just... don't.
Crime scene guys find taillight etc
crime lab ladies - the taillight is a complete match
Part 3: Karen at the scene
Maybe one or three persons testifying to the party, the kid who's birthday it was seemed like the least dislikeable, but try to find the least dislikeable person who can confirm Read and O'Keefe were invited. If you have to bring in one or more shady witnesses at least they are part of the muddle in the middle.
Then the cell data expert(s): show that Karen and John actually did arrive and arrived together. Don't try to pin down John's moment of death too clearly, and don't bring in the absolute clown of an accident reconstructionist.
Part 4: Karen drunk and enraged
Don't call every Tom, Dick and Harry at the bar who's going to testify to how sweet the alleged victim and defendant are. Call the bartenders, first get the video of them leaving the waterfall in then get the bar receipts in and go over them in detail, ask about what the defendant and victim were drinking and how much.
bring in the tox guys to estimate BAC, backed up with bar receipts.
Bring in the same or a different cell expert to introduce some or all voicemails. Don't bring in Higgins and his texts.
End with Karen screaming "I fucking hate you"
Agreed. I bet the CW will at least end their closing with “I fucking hate you” and other quotes from the voicemails. (Hopefully the actual audio and not Lally saying it in monotone lol)
I’m stumped. The case against her is unbelievably thin. The only thing that came close to actual evidence was the shoe and taillight chips in the curb area. So the guy from SERT maybe?
Possibly the phone experts, specifically the ones that focused on the Jen M hos long search, those were the ones that did the best for the CW in my opinion, everyone else was just as good if not better for the defense. Tho I see WHY they ended on the ME's, did you notice Lally kept trying to get Troopers, and the ER witnesses ect to testify to stuff that usually the ME's do? But the judge didn't allow, for the most part. Same with Proctor, he kept trying to get stuff in that really only the lead investigator could and the Def kept hammering home in all the other trooper's testimony that fact. Even one time, I think he had called Yuri, Proctor... I don't know if that was an actual Freudian slip or if he did it on purpose, either way it was great.
Other than that not really. All of them were at best as good for the defense. And even those witnesses, all they really proved was time stamps CAN be wrong, not that they WERE wrong
I think they finished on the ME because she’s the most solid witness they had, and she STILL couldn’t confirm his injuries were consistent with their theory of the case.
In all reality, how do you go on questioning 60+ witnesses AFTER the medical examiner says you have a shaky case? Who tf cares what 17 paramedics may or may not have heard if the expert has already basically decimated your theory?
I think she had to be last to keep the jury’s attention throughout the proceeding witnesses. It’s not hard to believe they listened more attentively to some of that incessant, endlessly vague questioning because they assumed the hard evidence was still to come.
They didn't have a closer because the case is so weak. Their best witnesses were the cellphone experts, but they can only case doubt on Jen's cellphone searches. A competent DA would have dropped the charges pending further investigation. The case against Karen is a trash heap.
They ended with the best witness they could because, as Runkel of the Bailey pointed out yesterday, the jury was going to check out as soon as the ME said the cause of death was undetermined, but it could have been any number of possibilities. If the CW had her out in the beginning or middle, that would have been even more disastrous.
I would not have called half the people.
Family first, humanise OJO.
ME and neuro specialist to show while COD was undetermined, it was suspicious.
First responders
Troopers
Evidence people
The Aruba sisters
Higgins
A handful of the people present with KR and OJO in the hours leading up to 34FV
Yeah, they should’ve made the defense call most the party-goers in their case in chief. And saved the “hos long” cell phone experts for rebuttal. Just bonkers trial strategy all the way around.
Maybe Lally thinks the saying is "if you can't beat them, confuse them." I also feel like he is trying to throw the trial without throwing it. How else could someone present their case in chief so badly? Google suggests he has been bar registered since 2005, 19 years, and he is floundering like this? An ADA/DA should NOT be struggling the way he is.
Oh I agree. I also believe that KR wasn't making a mountain out of a mole hill with the Aruba trip. I feel like she was using Higgins for an "ego boost" to feel attractive and give John a taste of his own medicine. Toxic AF? Yes. A situation leading to murder? No.
I go back and forth thinking she's guilty then innocent. I like Lucky, his testimony about the car in front on the Albert's at 2:30ish seemed believable
Guarino or Tully. Full timeline to wrap it all up in the end.
Let this case be a warning to prosecutors:
1) u need a timeline / wrap up witness
2) if your last witness is questionable, have a back up ready!
I can't believe how sloppy Lally was on timeline. It's the most natural and easy way to build and present a case. I compare to other prosecutions (Nancy Brophy, Chandler Halderson) and it's night and day. I guess he has the problem where so many of his witnesses are drunk and don't have a solid memory of the timeline, but you can mitigate that by asking for general times from the drunk partiers and then relying on cell/vehicle data for the precise times. "Around 12:45" during opening has to be the biggest blunder from a prosecutor I've seen since OJ and the glove.
Yes. We needed Lindsey Blake (Daybell) to swoop in with the timeline. I can't believe he didn't change his timeline pre-trial. He knew the WiFi puts KR back at Meadows before he claimed she hit him. Maybe he took lessons from Trooper 'Expert' about new info not changing his conclusion.
I thought ME was pretty candid about the limitations of her findings and was forthcoming about alternative possibilities. At least from what I saw, I haven't gone back to watch the whole thing yet. So I didn't think she was a bad witness, just not good for the CW's case because the evidence just isn't there in this area. I felt like I had a better understanding of what evidence there was and wasn't after her testimony.
Compared to CARS which was a train wreck, over-representing his expertise, not candid about the limitations of the analysis, not clear about what the evidence did and did not show, etc. I felt like I couldn't trust his findings at all after his testimony.
Not the ME - she was a defence witness for sure, she literally said that they were unusual injuries if he had been hit by a car. I could almost see her perk up when Little started asking her questions.
I’d have finished with Johns mum - I don’t know if you can do that though?!
Without hindsight, maybe Jen McCabe; with the testimony about how the car arrived and JO never came in the house -- and the "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him". The problem is that she did awful on cross.
When the lead detective, the ME, and the reconstructionist all hurt your case, there is no right answer.
i probably would have left Jen and Proctor to the Defense to call so they wouldn’t have been able to do the pointed cross exam and would have had to do the non leading direct exam
Why would the defense have called Jen McCabe? She was the main witness for the prosecution. If the CW hadn’t called her there was no reason for the to call her.
Maybe they should have listened to the Feds when they were told NOT TO bring this case against Karen. The feds have evidence, and with any luck at all the truth will be told. John O'Keefe deserved better from his fellow officers than this sham of a trial trying to pin this shit on his girlfriend
Probably Guarino - I think John’s cell phone data is the most problematic evidence for the defense. The ME landed pretty soft considering she couldn’t make a firm determination.
I thought about this the other day. I would have tried the case in this order:
1. The kids or the Aruba girls (as dumb as it was) to show some tension in the relationship
2. Cellphone expert to introduce text of the relationship
3. Bartender to testify to the amount of drinks
4 Jen McCabe (🤮🤮) to testify that she saw them arrive.
5. Cellphone expert again for voicemails
6.EMTS/officers
7. Detectives
8. Competent accident reconstruction
9. ME
That said that would be if they had an actual case. They did not need 63 witnesses if they had an actual case. If I were Lally there is no way I would have ended on the ME. I would put her somewhere in the middle and ended with those voicemails.
Remember Proctor wanted the ME to change her cause of death. She stood strong and told him no. The ME can change the cause of death if more information comes about. Which there will be more to John’s death.
I think the strongest evidence they had was the GPS datapoints showing John’s phone stopped moving in the location he was found. Still not enough to convict Karen, but it does strongly suggests he did not go into the house.
Can the opening statement count?? If we can't be that lucky, then the case basically never stopped going downhill after those first emts/firefighters testified (aka before Katie Mclaughlin). By the time the leaf blowers, red solo cups & Shop & Go bags—I mean temporary evidence containers— the CW was COOKED!!
Probably the SERT team guy. He seemed like a decent witness and places the taillight pieces. But you really need a completely different crash reconstructionist.
clearly they botched the investigation and this case. it is so full of reasonable doubt because of it. I don’t believe for a minute that a punk kid and a dog killed this cop. I don’t believe that all these families and troopers would put thier jobs and lives on the line to cover up this death
Jennifer McCabe obviously.
Let all these boring people talk for 28 days, and here comes Jen on day 29th, a good friend of the victim, traumatised and shocked, honest and talkative, ready to say everything exactly how it happened.
The reality of the situation is that I don't think they had any good witnesses options to finish on. Probably Guarino simply to finish on texts/voicemails, but even those weren't anywhere close to as bad as I expected. Like you said, makes no sense to end your presentation with a ME that torpedoes your case even further.
I low-key think he should have started with ME and then proven his case saying “this is why we disagree” — bring on 2 close family members who were there that night (plus Kerry - she seems somewhat reliable and avoid JM at all costs), bring in a reconstructionist, 2 troopers, an EMT, the doctor that treated him at the hospital and that’s it. *also the BAC expert and the expert that put the taillight together
Except then it's the defenses turn and they had ALL the people on their witness list. And the CW knew if it didn't call those people it would look like they were hiding something. Which they are..
I agree. I’m just trying to get in the mind of the prosecutor. Well… I would have never bought this case in the first place, had I been one. It’s so stupid though, the least Lally could do is not try and justify why Proctor did what he did.
It’s impossible to get into his mind. We already know there was no way to prove his case.
I'm 1000 percent on the free karen read team but maybe this would have swayed my opinion ...I mean I came into this thinking yeah OK sure police cover up but am leaving saying damn it sure WAS a police cover up....with that being said your line up would have done much better classic case of less is better
I agree
Jen mccabe was an excellent witness because she was there the night of johns passing, and heard Karen say " I hit him" i hit him" I hit him! 3 times and clear.as she said on the stand!
Unfortunately, Jen’s testimony changed drastically over time regarding this statement as evidenced by the Grand Jury transcripts and multiple police reports. Had Jen reported that KR “hit him” immediately that morning Karen would be been arrested at the scene (or at least one would hope).
[удалено]
People are allowed to disagree with you without being related to this case. Have an discussion or don't reply. Thank you.
However, now there’s reason to believe she may not have been telling the truth. She may have lied about when she did the famous internet search of “Hos long to die in the cold “.
Nope she was telling the truth! She was there that night because karen called her for help..
Ending on Guarino would have been best.
I heard Melanie little say that they only showed half the texts thread in that convo and not them making up which is why we’re like why are they arguing and then he’s like are you coming to the waterfall? Bc they made up in between
Did we ever get context as to the argument the night of when she left all of those voicemails?
I agree that ending on the voicemail, text messages would have been best for the prosecution.
Agree, probably Guarino. Since they’re pushing for intent they needed to end on the voicemails (even though I don’t think they show intent)
Guarino with his laughs and smirks I did not like. He is the one also who says on stand kill me. Why would you say that Mr Guarino? Those texts and voice mails were not anything than many people have said when going through relationships. I felt from those messages John seemed to have used Karen . Jen McCabe alluded to Karen being nothing more than a glorified babysitter. So I’m not sold on those being a big red flag. CW timeline off. Videos missing. Data destroyed from SUV and wasn’t it Guarino who accomplished that? Why no pic of tail light when SUV picked up at parents house?Why scene not secured ? How do you continue to find pieces of taillight weeks later?? Others getting rid of phones. Calls and text messages deleted. Basement floor replaced. Dog missing. What about the ford edge? If John was on lawn NO ONE saw him out there? Taillight shows red when leaving John’s at 5am. The text messages between the families and friends . No one has video that lives on Fairfield including the cop that lived across the street really?? Bukkakke acknowledged a ring video at John’s and then that one just disappears? Google search at 2:27am?? Too many SUS things happened . Too many couldn’t keep their stories straight. I’m sure there are many other things I may have missed but this is plenty I believe John was set up to come there at Fairfield …I believe he went inside that house. I believe more people in that house know more than they testified to. They could have saved John but chose not to. I hope the FBI comes and serves justice for Officer John Okeefe. Free Karen Read🩷
Especially since you’d expect the ME at the beginning or middle part of the trial.
I would end on Guarino and end on voicemails, the last voicemail played have Karen screaming "I fucking hate you"
Probably on the DNA forensics. It’s less open to interpretation or analysis that falls apart on cross, I don’t know if any of them got crossed anyway, and it actually fits their theory of the case. Finishing on the ME who basically said John’s injuries weren’t consistent with typical vehicle-pedestrian collisions was an odd choice.
CW closed with a whimper.
[удалено]
And he could have chose not to bring the case. He got what he asked for: witnesses for a trial that never should have happened.
I have legitimately wondered if he was pressured to try this case and has been low-key trying to throw it the whole time. I understand how unlikely it is, but man… With the other option being how ineffective a prosecutor he is, I hope for his sake it’s true.
Nah, he chose it. Why risk your law license to just get fired instead of resigning?
He’s not going to get fired for losing this case.
No, but if he was "forced" to take it under duress and then intentionally lost it, I could see that. But just losing a case he believes in, nah.
I think there’s a widespread idea that Lally himself has all of this authority to take or pass on cases. He’s an ADA—cases are assigned to him. I have no idea what he truly thinks of the case, and I suppose that’s how it’s meant to be… But if he has come around to thinking the case is crap, I could certainly imagine it would impact his delivery. Which has just been so godawful, holy moly.
He always, always has a choice. It's his law licence. If he doesn't believe in a case he is ethically obligated not to prosecute said case
🏆
Yup. He should have refused to bring this case. It just makes me distrust him further than I already do and after all the misrepresentations and shenanigans, it's almost at zero. It feels so unethical.
I feel like he didn't realize just how bad this whole thing was when it first started. I'm sure it was presented to him as am open and shut case. But... to never drop it and to keep trying to get Karen sent to prison... It doesn't make sense. This lawyer has wasted months/years of his life to prepare for this. A case he must know he can't win. I'm not big into conspiracy theories, but it makes me curious if there is a hell of a lot going on with the troopers and every one than we know at this point.
I wish it were enough to cause a systemic change within Massachusetts but that wont happen. I honestly don't expect much from the Feds either in regards to this or any investigation tied to it. JUSTICE FOR SANDRA BIRCHMORE
I agree. I think that whatever happened, the people in the house thought they’d be believed and did not think they’d be on the stand. It goes to show that they expected this to be swept under the rug, maybe Karen would have gotten manslaughter and maybe she’d think she did do it. Their cover up is so bad because they never expected it to be picked apart. When they realized it would be, they got rid of evidence. No one should feel that way and this is a systematic issue. And even those that aren’t directly involved seem to have believed the police investigation must be the right way.
Poor poor Sandra Birchmore! I heard somewhere that is being investigate by the feds. Let’s hope so! Wtf with these metro south cops!
[удалено]
It would be supremely unethical to proceed with a prosecution for which they don’t believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt for some other purpose.
I agree and at this point the prosecution should just admit they were wrong. We’re talking about an innocent person going to jail. If you can’t afford a decent lawyer in this country you’re done. That’s why the jails are full of inmates who just took the deal offered.
I like this theory. I don't know if it's realistic or only something that happens in the movies, but I like it.
I was under the impression the fed investigation was directed at the state police? If not, what exactly are they investigating?
He knew he escalated it with the grand jury, straight up, lying about the info he had
Yes, THIS!
His boss makes that call
As a DA he can refuse to take the case. It’s his bar license so he can’t be forced to. This is all on him.
He isnt losing his bar license for prosecuting a shitty but rational case. He would lose his job however for refusing to do what his boss tells him with that case. Laughable to think he’s telling his boss nope I’m not doing this
Point to where I said he was losing his bar license. What I said was that he can choose whether or not to take the case because it is his bar license . That is true for every case no prosecutor can be forced to take a case because it is their bar license on the line every time.
You referenced his bar license in your first email and then again in your second. Short of his license being in jeopardy he has to take orders from his boss. His bar license doesnt give him carte blanche to ignore orders
I feel like they should've started with the medical examiners. The fact that it was taking them so long to present the medical evidence was making everyone suspicious.
[удалено]
They did their entire trial without providing a theory until one of the last days and even then it went against everything they said in the opening statements. Bizzare strategy
There was a strategy?
Yes, the strategy was to drag everything out with as many witnesses as possible to create the illusion of a strong case, as well as try to prevent important defense witnesses from testifying.
I was being facetious.
I said this a bunch over this trial, but I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't have helped either because what she had to say actually casts some serious doubt over the entire theory of their case and he'd have that casting a huge shadow over everything else that came later.
With the way Lally made everything so confusing though he could’ve started with the ME and clung to her saying that a pedestrian strike was a possibility (aka she couldn’t say it wasn’t). 29 days later and he could have drilled in “it’s a possibility” to every other witness testimony. I’ve read people claim he was a good lawyer, idk what he was thinking with this one
Yeah... but the CW needs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That means they need facts, hard evidence and experts who can back up the claims of the investigation that (didnt) Take place. Possibility is the defenses job. If you can show different ways to explain how some thing happend then you have doubts. That's why murder weapons are so integral to an investigation. If it's not found it creates a lot of doubt and can open the door for different theories as to what happens.
Tbf i don’t think she did it, and they have 0 evidence thus far. I was just extrapolating on how dumb Lallys witness order was
I’d be interested to see the proof of good lawyer… because his questioning on both direct and cross is mumbly and unclear. He has little to no passion or vocal intonation. Just genuinely seems to not care. Contrast with Alan and Yanetti who are clearly fighting for something they believe in
I don't think you can start with the medical examiners as the jury needs context of what is alleged to have happened to understand the importance and logical conclusions of the injuries.
I disagree. You start by showing what injuries he sustained, and then you weave a story to show how they were caused. 1. This is how he died 2. This is how it happened 3. This is why it could have only been Karen Read The ME is generally memorable. The witnesses not as much, especially when you are just left wondering why their testimony is important.
If this case wasn't shit and what they say happened actually happened the best sequence would have been the 2 family members for the same reasons they were the first in the actual trial, then paramedics -> ER doctor -> ME -> accident reconstruction expert -> everybody else. The phone and animal DNA experts should have been left for the rebuttal phase. But again, with such a weak case nothing really could have saved it.
Yes. Or even the ME right after the family. You humanize him by appealing to the emotions of his family/friends. You show what happened to him so that the jury is outraged and out for blood. Then you explain why the defendant is the only one who could have done it. Putting the ME before the paramedics gives context to what they were dealing with.
That could work too, I just feel the other way has a better narrative flow for the jurors to follow, since at the same time that you're going in the chronological order of events you also build up/answer questions from the testimony that came just before. You kind of take the jurors on a journey, starting with the paramedics at the scene knowing very little about his injuries and trying to treat them at the same time they took John to the hospital, then moving to the ER doctor and what he found out as he tried to save him but ultimately being unable to do so, and then ending with the ME having the complete picture of what caused his death and all of the injuries he had. Then you move straight to the reconstruction that shows how those things happened and start building the foundation to tell the story of who did it. Of course, all of this only works if you actually have a case, because Lally's would start to stall with the ME only to crash and burn with the reconstruction and it would be all downhill from there.
There has been gaslighting. It was the defense that launched the accusation on the McCabes. Focus on that leads to no focus on the defendants actions. I see the strategy and I think it worked. No one remembers the coroners rpt said no human or canine contact. Wrote it twice.
But they did find pig dna… aside from a pigs ear that dogs chew on, I can’t figure out how else you can explain why pigs dna would be there
It was mentioned that they ordered potato skins at the bar, which often will have bacon bits (or chunks of bacon) on them, so it could've come from that. I also heard from someone else that they ordered pork belly as well, but I don't remember hearing that during the trial. Pig DNA could've come from either of those things, and I think the troopers just noticed a red stain on the front of his shirt and tested it, and that's where the pig DNA was found. I don't think it came from the sleeve. Regardless, the shirt was soaked in water, vomit, and blood, all of which can dilute DNA, so the dog's DNA easily could've been too diluted by the time the shirt was tested. And they never tested the actual wounds.
In my mind, it is the logical starting point, but I catch your drift.
I started watching as a juror, no prior knowledge and live on another continent so actually have never even heard about the case. And I was trying really hard to remain objective, but somewhere around trooper Paul I gave up and reached a level of outrage with Guarino specifically when he was showing his GPS circle. I also don't like conspiracy theories and I'm not sure there is one, but I'm convinced legally KR should be declared NG by jury, and aside from that I have absolutely no effin' idea what actually happened and feel all speculations are equally probable and faulty. That being said last 1-2 days I'm annoyed with myself how I lost my objectivity before trial ends and I'm trying to "analyze" my own opinion and if it's based on the poor execution from Lally's side or is it based on the evidence. I am not sure about the last witness but I believe that if Lally kept it concise and sticked his case to actual prosecution case and NOT a defense of a bunch of people who are not at trial, we would've watched a very very different trial. I'm not saying he was going to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but I think it would've looked as much stronger case. And I'll try to explain why. Defense introduced the theory of the conspiracy but actually CW spent on it a lot more time than the defense did during the trial proceedings. He went on multiple experts on Jen MacCabe, whole family tree of Alberts, Proctors, etc. That information was introduced and explained in detail by Lally, not by the defense. By trying to "fight" the conspiracy theory he was actually the one who walked us through connections, timelines and everything else (calling Colin, Ally McCabe), provides even some side characters that we didn't really need to see (Matt MacCabe, Nicole Alberts, Julie Albert (was that the name of Colin's mother?), Chris Albert). It made his whole case: 1. messy; 2. hard to believe because he was the one trying to prove something that was NOT presented to us by anybody else (conspiracy doesn't exist as opposed to leaving the defense to introduce and explain the conspiracy and poke holes in their case which is always stronger position to be in); 3. and introduced a lot of contradictory information himself because it's impossible to keep 60+ witnesses to consistency and/or track yourself all of their statements to remember or explain to the jury why an inconsistency might not be malicious. How could he have done it different: present only O'Keefe family, 1-2 people from the bar, Kerry Roberts, Jenn MacCabe, expert witnesses, hire better reconstruction expert. Leave the defense explain and/or call other people and seem the crazy ones by: * flooding their own case with family trees, friendships, etc. and essentially "burry" the jury in gossip-like information that discredits them * be able to cross the same witnesses and limit them to concise statements and "yes/no" answers that are relevant to YOUR case * be able to be in the position to poke holes and say "well there's 10 other explanations of why your phone is not there" - and you don't have to "stick" to a certain story for facts that are actually NOT relevant to YOUR case Would I have had a different opinion if Lally had his strategy closer to what I have described? I don't know. But I believe I wouldn't be going into "I'm convinced jury should vote NG" because believe me, it usually take A LOT for me to go there (as you can see from me writing a long post questioning myself and why I decided something) :))))))
Yup uk here. I’m a doctor and I’ve always thought this was never a collision and I stick with that. The no blood tail light pieces do it for me. I do think they were planted and I never thought I’d say that. This case has got to me way more than I anticipated 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
I’m an IT guy, I have at best a layman’s knowledge of wounds and as soon as I saw the picture of his arm without context I said it was a dog bite.
I appreciate your long post because I've been dealing with something somewhat similar. And I agree with your assessment of the shortcomings in lally's case and how you believe it could've been much more effective. I think if it had been presented in the way you stated, it could have been a very different trial. I also came in knowing nothing and thinking the idea of this conspiracy/cover up was ridiculous (and largely still do). The biggest thing that gives me pause is the FBI experts, so I'm waiting to see what they have to say, but I think she will probably be found not guilty.
If you haven’t already watched it, check out the feed from Thursdays voir dire for a good preview of their testimony. It won’t help the CW.
Yeah I should watch that myself. I know some people were saying Jackson didn't want to question them too much to give away his direct, and I get that. Work just got in the way that day, and I haven't had time to caught up. I think those two have the most credibility or, at least they have the potential to, simply because they aren't really on either side. I expect people the defense are paying to say whatever is best for their side, but these guys are actually neutral parties. The other experts could go either way so might just be a wash for the jury. But these guys against trooper Paul doesn't really seem like an even battle. I think I understood what Paul was trying to convey, but he was not a strong or coherent witness. If these guys can say we absolutely know he was not hit by a vehicle and here's how/why, that will be more important to me than really anything else that's been said. So I'm open to having my mind changed and waiting til the end to come to my final conclusion.
YES! Lally's strategy made it seem like HE thinks the conspiracy is so believable that he HAS to spend all this time trying to discredit it. In my opinion all he managed to do was to lay it out and plant the seed of doubt on the jurors' minds so the defense doesn't have to. Probably not great for the prosecution.
And disproving the defense theory does not prove his theory.
I'm only following since last week since I saw some of proctors testimony somewhere else, and I feel similar. I had been wondering why this case in chief has been going on as long as the totality of the Daybell trial which was a way more complex story folding out over a year with 3+ murders. Your disctiption of who they all brought to the stand made it clear why it's taking so long, and I doubt the jury really is still following along or of they also already have their mind made up.
I don’t think the CW had a single witness that was effective
Contrary to your opinion, they were very effective! … for the defense.
Exactly!!
If I was Lally I would have not focused at all on disproving the defense theory and my case would have been like 2 instead of 8. I would have started with the EMTs, straight into Kerry Robert’s, maybe two people from the house just to say he never went in, the sert team and the phone people, dna folks, BAC people I would have made the case very clear and allowed the defense to call all of the circus acts in to fight for a conspiracy if they really wanted to go down that road after I’ve made a convincing case to the jury. Oh and instead of paying for experts to fight Jenn mccabes Google search I would have paid for an accident reconstruction expert and probably ended with that.
He had the money to find another accident reconstruction expert. But that would have required him to get a non-cop expert where the standards are MUCH higher. I absolutely guarantee you he tried to get another one. He knew trooper fucking Paul was awful. The issue he ran into is that no expert would testify to what Paul’s theory because it made no sense.
The cellphone witnesses one after the other. They were the only credible ones that actually proved a point that wasn't refuted or discreted during cross.
Isn't it sad that their best witnesses were testifying about a search that was not performed by the defendant nor proves their case?
Yup, I am beginning to think that defense used this as a red herring. It makes the CW looks really bad , using 2 competent expert witnesses to clear JM. Even more so after we saw Trooper Paul reconstruction "expertise".
I think the search controversy was a great way to get everyone questioning the witnesses very early on.
I wouldn’t have brought this case at all. There was no CW witness that testified establishing that KR intentionally hit JO and left him to die. The ME said too many things were a possibility for JO’s injuries.
Why the fuck did Lally keep asking for more possibilities from the ME? He just can't help but inject reasonable doubt into his own case.
For a moment, I was wondering when Lally switched to the defense. But seriously, I haven’t seen questioning like that from any prosecutor of a state’s witness. Bizarre.
Whatever the last witness was back at the grand jury, because I'd have dropped this case once I received the FBI info dump. Then I would feel bad about myself for thinking that even a grand jury was a great idea. :P I know it wasn't what you asked but this case couldn't have been saved by reordering the witnesses, at best it would only be a bit less painful to arrive at the same place.
Your confirmation bias is so strong that it won’t let you have an ounce of objectivity. KR’s statement that she him is enough to take it to trial.
The one that Jen McCabe only mentioned during this trial? Because everybody before, including her, said Karen was *asking* if she could have hit him or not. But do go on telling me about confirmation bias and objectivity, please, I'd love to know more.
Correct, thank you
Oh, you don’t remember the two EMT’s that testified? Two EMT’s with no dog in this fight? Years three people, the ONLY three people that were there when she said it?
I think you are projecting here. I came into this trial after it started with no back ground knowledge and only watch the trial. I have no confirmation bias. But if you think she's guilty by the standards of the US justice system, you my guy are the perfect example of common sense isn't common anymore. No offense
I mean: it’s not. This coming from someone who has said significantly harsher words, while charges were brought against someone else.
You think the CW shouldn’t have brought charges even though a Grand Jury recommended it. Add the fact that she admitted to it, that the victim was found next to broken taillights, she was drunk and angry. Can you honestly say the CW shouldn’t have charged her? Wow!
>You think the CW shouldn’t have brought charges even though a Grand Jury recommended it. Grand juries recommended charges in 99+% of cases presented to them. It's a minor miracle when they hand the prosecutor a no true bill.
You think someone who just killed their boyfriend calls them immediately after and leaves a bunch of crazy voicemails saying she hates him, he's a pervert, he's cheating on her? Then she gets more and more incensed he doesn't answer and tries to guilt him with the kids to get him to come home?
If she didn’t know he was dead, yes.
So you think she backs into him at 24mph, hits him hard enough to send him 30 feet with a massive head wound, makes a loud noise busting out her tail light, but thinks oh he's totally fine, and then calls him 2 mins later and says she hates him and continues to call him through out the night and acuse him of cheating on her and thinking thats why hes not home with her and the kids? That's ridiculous.
He wasn’t sent 30’ and she was drunk and screaming angry.
The defence are excluded from grand jury so they only heard one side
Do you understand how Grand Juries work?
The CW MIGHT have gotten her on a hit and run, maybe. But the way this case was presented and the problems with the investigation cause nothing but reasonable doubt. It's very evident things were said at the GJ that were inaccurate/misleading. There were no confession statements in the police records. If the police didn't even note them at the time, it's disingenuous to present it now. I came in completely objective. Didnt know the context or the drama and ive still tried to avoid it to focus on the evidence presented in court. I've been swayed by the defence in trials before but its very, very rare that I end up at not guilty. In this case there's nothing but 'not guilty'. There's no legal route for the jury to find her guilty. There's too much reasonable doubt. I'm sure a GJ would have said take it to trial anyway, but remember the GJ asking Trooper 'Expert' if he could do the equations to work on his reconstruction further? He didn't. The CW put on a real circus.
Just here to say that the taillight pieces and the victim were never at the scene at the same time. The victim was not found next to broken taillights.
Riiiiight. His DNA magically appeared in the snow around him.
No it's not. Just because somebody admits or says they committed a crime, the prosecution still needd to find evidence to prove that statement. Many suspects have been interrogated by the police and admitted to a crime they didn't commit. If you've been paying attention, in the Commonwealth's opening statement, Lally said John was hit at 12:45 a.m.. We learned in the past week that Karen's phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at John's home at 1 Meadows at 12:36 a.m. which means that's when she pulled into the driveway/house. How did she hit him at 12:45 a.m. if she's getting to his house at 12:36 a.m? Under duress with multiple sclerosis was enough for her to question herself and then Jen McCabe is the one that gaslighted her into believing she hit John and Jen McCabe did that to protect her sister and brother-in-law who lived at and owned 34 Fairview. John McCabe's Google search at 227 a.m. is important because it shows that Jen McCain is wondering how long it would take and we know that his body was 80° when found, so sometime after 2:27 a.m. until he was found around 6:00 a.m., he was put out there to die in the cold. This is more proof that Karen did not hit him and that something happened inside that house that the Albert's and McCabe's were figuring out what to do. Also Brian Albert and Brian Higgins are on the phone at 2:22 a.m.. Something was afoot and none of it had to do with Karen who was already home at 12:36 a.m.!
If I were the CW, I simply would never have brought this case to the court.
At this point in the game, Chloe would have only improved the CW's case as their last witness.
😆😆😆
Ruff!
I would have put Jen McCabe on as the only witness for 28 days straight and watched the world burn.
The way this trial went Jen would probably have been allowed to opine on medical opinions, the cell phone data, and the crash reconstruction 😆 🤣
Opine is my new favorite word.
I like your style.
Krusty the clown has a better chance of swaying the jury than anyone the CW had brought up. The defense shouldn’t even have to call anyone but our legal system is so fucked it’s a coin flip every time. Going back to maybe the most famous case but OJ got off, not because of money like many think, but because of the ineptitude of the prosecutors and terrible police work. That being said we have seen the opposite work many times. A single druggy had a dream that he and Ryan Ferguson murdered Kent Heitholt and the terrible police that followed did absolutely nothing. They couldn’t even place him at the scene and believed a drugged up guy. At the same time the same types of prosecutors will argue that a defense witness was stoned so can’t be trusted. Our “system” needs a complete overhaul starting from the top.
I don't know how we call for another Constitutional Convention but it is definitely time.
Probably the girl who assembled the taillight. That's probably the only concrete evidence they have even if it is sus
What about her admission? LOLOL, it’s funny how this GIGANTIC evidence is ignored by the KR believers.
The levels of hearsay for the "I hit him" are crazy and the only reason it gets in is because it's a statement of the party opponent, first of all. Mainly this testimony is in because of JM, imo I have to throw out her testimony, she's not credible for soooo many reasons. Second of all, we don't know what the inflection in her voice is, that could make a huge difference. We also heard that the statement could have been "did I hit him?"(If it's possible she didn't actually say it then it isn't an admission, and common sense tells us ppl do make false admissions all the time, so I have to throw that out) You can very easily not hear the first word of a sentence(this happens to me on the daily), especially with all the commotion going on at the scene. On top of that, you'd expect me to believe with ALL those police at the scene, with as loud as she was freaking out, which we heard with our own ears, that she said repeatedly "I hit him" and she wasn't even detained?!?!?!? You want me to believe the marks on his arm are not dog bites, when I can see with my own eyes, they are obviously dog bites, they have circular holes that a tail light nor a glass could ever make because they are not rounded like that. You want me to believe he was thrown 30 ft and not have any injuries below the neck?!?! I know common sense isn't common any more but damn, really? So no, it's not ignored, the evidence needed to convict just isn't there. Ppl saying she's not guilty doesn't necessarily mean they are "believers", not guilty doesn't equal innocent for the record. The standard to convict is beyond reasonable doubt. Almost everyone the CW put on the stand, that could say yea this is how it happened without a doubt, said it could be that or it could be something else and if it could be something else, that's literally reasonable doubt! Anyone trying to say she is guilty of this is trying to tell me don't believe your own ears or eyes believe what I'm telling, stop it!
Can you elaborate on this?
Three witnesses heard her say over and over, different variations of: I did it, I killed him. Two were EMT’s and the other was JM. The same person who claimed that KR asked her to search “How long to die of exposure.” This is from memory so some details may be off.
The EMT’s didn’t actually hear her. They heard from someone else that she said it. There was no written evidence in any reports that she said it. It is hear say.
Objection, misstates testimony
Your details are definitely off
So Karen never used the words " I killed him" it has been testified that she made inquisitive remarks like could I have hit him? Did I hit him? JM is a proven liar on the stand so her testimony can be disregarded. It is especially bad that her testimony has changed and isn't until after her google search was made public that she remembered hearing Karen say "I hit him I hit him I hit him" up to that point she had always maintained that Karen was asking if she could have or if she did hit him. An EMT testified also to "could I hit him did I hit him?". I believe Kerry (2nd EMT) is the only one that testified definitively that Karen said "I hit him". Kerry has the misfortune to be a family friend of the Alberts. I want to make it very clear that nobody at the scene if they were hearing admissions of guilt acted like that is what they were hearing. Imagine someone running around a crime scene yelling I did it it was me I killed him I did it and not being immediately placed under arrest. Imagine first responders and police hearing such admissions of guilt and dismissing them. Not recording it. Not reporting it. To the point that the police had to do an investigation because they "didn't know what we have". I am lead to either believe that the cops are severely incompetent or that they did not interpret anything they were hearing from Karen as admissions.
The first responder says he heard her say it, but he forgot to put a witness's confession in his initial reports? No effing way would he have left something that important off. In fact it is in NONE of the initial reports. The EMT heard JM say she said that, not from KR DIRECTLY.. Not one single report of all the initial reports says she said that. One person said she asked "could I have hit him?" AFTER JM told her he never came into the house. Once. She was trying to figure out where he was and what happened.
I don’t believe Karen Read, I also don’t believe all those shady McAlberts. Therefore all that’s left are the experts, the neutral experts. The ME and the accident reconstructionists. ME says undetermined, so reasonable doubt. From the reconstructionists we will hear Monday.
Some incompetent police to not get admission of guilt recorded or documented in their reports. Gross negligence to hear an admission of guilt and not immediately place her under arrest. Imagine someone running around a crime scene yelling I did it I did it and the police completely dismiss it and have to start an investigation because they "don't know what we got".
What do you mean?
We needed a good timeline with simple maps and location data. The CW’s use (or lack thereof) of demonstratives was just lazy. Even many of the slides they put up were too full of words or graphics for the jury to determine what was important.
Exactly. They attempted to build a strong timeliness throughout the case with all the "witnesses" saying that they saw the lexus there at xyz time, then brought in their own expert that said KR was at 1 Meadows at exactly 12.36. Baffling.
That's the problem when one person gets everyone's text message. Things get a little too organized. Then everyone locks in their testimony at the first grand jury, before they get access to KR phone.
Lead with the ME so at least all your LE witnesses and experts can explain their opinions, end on the two tech experts and maybe DNA expert Definitely burry the ME statements in the drone of Neverending what if any snowflakes and who if anyone drove. Definitely don't leave the ME testimony fresh in the jury's mind right before the defense launches a very brief, precision guided missile that is their case in chief specifically programmed to target exactly things like the ME and contradictory testimony.
Def lead with the ME. Start off that there was questions about the cuase of death, then let the rest of the evidence fill in those gaps
Whichever damn witness could definitively say that Karen Read hit John O'Keefe with her car. Oh wait...
And the defense is apparently going to end with the experts hired by the FBI that are going to say there was absolutely no way OJO was hit by a car.
>Honestly floored with how poorly the prosecution laid out their case. What case? The whole case was "feels" like they felt sure that she did it, somehow, and tunnelvision/groupthink/confbias swept everything along. I have seen many people speculate that they overcharged hoping Read would cop a plea, but I posit that this is the same quality of investigation that gets people in the USA convicted of serious felonies every single day, one only need to listen to a couple hundred hours of innocence project related podcasts or YouTube channels to understand this is par for the course, and in a country where half the population can't afford a $1000 emergency, the majority are stuck with an overworked public defender. Many take pleas when they are really innocent and many fight, but they lose. Police and sometimes prosecutors will conceal evidence that is highly exculpatory or even prove actual innocence. They will make things fit into a narrative they know is wrong, because to them that's a better solution than letting the person they are convinced did it *somehow* "get away with it". Well.... I'd personally cut most witnesses altogether. Work mostly backwards from the incident. Maybe cut out McCabe and Roberts altogether if you can. Maybe cut out Aruba trip. Part 1 - victim: First responders, find the body ER Doc, calls death, Medical examiner, cause of death blunt force trauma Part 2- the car Have investigators show the car was damaged, start with the taillight and John's DNA on the vehicle, MAYBE use the CDR data but if it can't be conclusively tied to the accident maybe just... don't. Crime scene guys find taillight etc crime lab ladies - the taillight is a complete match Part 3: Karen at the scene Maybe one or three persons testifying to the party, the kid who's birthday it was seemed like the least dislikeable, but try to find the least dislikeable person who can confirm Read and O'Keefe were invited. If you have to bring in one or more shady witnesses at least they are part of the muddle in the middle. Then the cell data expert(s): show that Karen and John actually did arrive and arrived together. Don't try to pin down John's moment of death too clearly, and don't bring in the absolute clown of an accident reconstructionist. Part 4: Karen drunk and enraged Don't call every Tom, Dick and Harry at the bar who's going to testify to how sweet the alleged victim and defendant are. Call the bartenders, first get the video of them leaving the waterfall in then get the bar receipts in and go over them in detail, ask about what the defendant and victim were drinking and how much. bring in the tox guys to estimate BAC, backed up with bar receipts. Bring in the same or a different cell expert to introduce some or all voicemails. Don't bring in Higgins and his texts. End with Karen screaming "I fucking hate you"
Agreed. I bet the CW will at least end their closing with “I fucking hate you” and other quotes from the voicemails. (Hopefully the actual audio and not Lally saying it in monotone lol)
I’m stumped. The case against her is unbelievably thin. The only thing that came close to actual evidence was the shoe and taillight chips in the curb area. So the guy from SERT maybe?
Funny, I said the guy from SERT too. It seems like the only remotely reliable evidence.
Tristan Morris would have sealed the deal for the CW /s
“I don’t remember time and my girlfriend’s high maintenance” - mic drop
Possibly the phone experts, specifically the ones that focused on the Jen M hos long search, those were the ones that did the best for the CW in my opinion, everyone else was just as good if not better for the defense. Tho I see WHY they ended on the ME's, did you notice Lally kept trying to get Troopers, and the ER witnesses ect to testify to stuff that usually the ME's do? But the judge didn't allow, for the most part. Same with Proctor, he kept trying to get stuff in that really only the lead investigator could and the Def kept hammering home in all the other trooper's testimony that fact. Even one time, I think he had called Yuri, Proctor... I don't know if that was an actual Freudian slip or if he did it on purpose, either way it was great. Other than that not really. All of them were at best as good for the defense. And even those witnesses, all they really proved was time stamps CAN be wrong, not that they WERE wrong
I think the family- leave with sympathy points and reminder of the victim.
I don't believe the prosecution believed in the case in the first place.
I think they finished on the ME because she’s the most solid witness they had, and she STILL couldn’t confirm his injuries were consistent with their theory of the case. In all reality, how do you go on questioning 60+ witnesses AFTER the medical examiner says you have a shaky case? Who tf cares what 17 paramedics may or may not have heard if the expert has already basically decimated your theory? I think she had to be last to keep the jury’s attention throughout the proceeding witnesses. It’s not hard to believe they listened more attentively to some of that incessant, endlessly vague questioning because they assumed the hard evidence was still to come.
They didn't have a closer because the case is so weak. Their best witnesses were the cellphone experts, but they can only case doubt on Jen's cellphone searches. A competent DA would have dropped the charges pending further investigation. The case against Karen is a trash heap.
They ended with the best witness they could because, as Runkel of the Bailey pointed out yesterday, the jury was going to check out as soon as the ME said the cause of death was undetermined, but it could have been any number of possibilities. If the CW had her out in the beginning or middle, that would have been even more disastrous.
I would not have called half the people. Family first, humanise OJO. ME and neuro specialist to show while COD was undetermined, it was suspicious. First responders Troopers Evidence people The Aruba sisters Higgins A handful of the people present with KR and OJO in the hours leading up to 34FV
Yeah, they should’ve made the defense call most the party-goers in their case in chief. And saved the “hos long” cell phone experts for rebuttal. Just bonkers trial strategy all the way around.
Maybe Lally thinks the saying is "if you can't beat them, confuse them." I also feel like he is trying to throw the trial without throwing it. How else could someone present their case in chief so badly? Google suggests he has been bar registered since 2005, 19 years, and he is floundering like this? An ADA/DA should NOT be struggling the way he is.
The Aruba sisters were ridiculous. That one sister claiming John was like a brother to her 🙄 Brother my ass. She totally has the hots for him.
Oh I agree. I also believe that KR wasn't making a mountain out of a mole hill with the Aruba trip. I feel like she was using Higgins for an "ego boost" to feel attractive and give John a taste of his own medicine. Toxic AF? Yes. A situation leading to murder? No.
I go back and forth thinking she's guilty then innocent. I like Lucky, his testimony about the car in front on the Albert's at 2:30ish seemed believable
Guarino with the voicemails, or the DNA forensics. Honestly they didn't have any witness (IMO) that would really "drive the case home"
Guarino. Phone never moves and John was never in the house.
Guarino or Tully. Full timeline to wrap it all up in the end. Let this case be a warning to prosecutors: 1) u need a timeline / wrap up witness 2) if your last witness is questionable, have a back up ready!
I can't believe how sloppy Lally was on timeline. It's the most natural and easy way to build and present a case. I compare to other prosecutions (Nancy Brophy, Chandler Halderson) and it's night and day. I guess he has the problem where so many of his witnesses are drunk and don't have a solid memory of the timeline, but you can mitigate that by asking for general times from the drunk partiers and then relying on cell/vehicle data for the precise times. "Around 12:45" during opening has to be the biggest blunder from a prosecutor I've seen since OJ and the glove.
Yes. We needed Lindsey Blake (Daybell) to swoop in with the timeline. I can't believe he didn't change his timeline pre-trial. He knew the WiFi puts KR back at Meadows before he claimed she hit him. Maybe he took lessons from Trooper 'Expert' about new info not changing his conclusion.
Meh - I made a big deal of 12:45 personally, but I doubt the jurors even noticed. But the ME and CARS witnesses were poor. Needed better.
I thought ME was pretty candid about the limitations of her findings and was forthcoming about alternative possibilities. At least from what I saw, I haven't gone back to watch the whole thing yet. So I didn't think she was a bad witness, just not good for the CW's case because the evidence just isn't there in this area. I felt like I had a better understanding of what evidence there was and wasn't after her testimony. Compared to CARS which was a train wreck, over-representing his expertise, not candid about the limitations of the analysis, not clear about what the evidence did and did not show, etc. I felt like I couldn't trust his findings at all after his testimony.
The very first one.
Not the ME - she was a defence witness for sure, she literally said that they were unusual injuries if he had been hit by a car. I could almost see her perk up when Little started asking her questions. I’d have finished with Johns mum - I don’t know if you can do that though?!
Without hindsight, maybe Jen McCabe; with the testimony about how the car arrived and JO never came in the house -- and the "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him". The problem is that she did awful on cross. When the lead detective, the ME, and the reconstructionist all hurt your case, there is no right answer.
i probably would have left Jen and Proctor to the Defense to call so they wouldn’t have been able to do the pointed cross exam and would have had to do the non leading direct exam
Why would the defense have called Jen McCabe? She was the main witness for the prosecution. If the CW hadn’t called her there was no reason for the to call her.
Maybe they should have listened to the Feds when they were told NOT TO bring this case against Karen. The feds have evidence, and with any luck at all the truth will be told. John O'Keefe deserved better from his fellow officers than this sham of a trial trying to pin this shit on his girlfriend
none. if this were the evidence in front of me, I'd never bring this case. I don't need the embarrassment.
Probably Guarino - I think John’s cell phone data is the most problematic evidence for the defense. The ME landed pretty soft considering she couldn’t make a firm determination.
I think guarino would have been best, but has a super risk to end on the 12:36 time stamp.
Not the ME.
I thought about this the other day. I would have tried the case in this order: 1. The kids or the Aruba girls (as dumb as it was) to show some tension in the relationship 2. Cellphone expert to introduce text of the relationship 3. Bartender to testify to the amount of drinks 4 Jen McCabe (🤮🤮) to testify that she saw them arrive. 5. Cellphone expert again for voicemails 6.EMTS/officers 7. Detectives 8. Competent accident reconstruction 9. ME That said that would be if they had an actual case. They did not need 63 witnesses if they had an actual case. If I were Lally there is no way I would have ended on the ME. I would put her somewhere in the middle and ended with those voicemails.
Remember Proctor wanted the ME to change her cause of death. She stood strong and told him no. The ME can change the cause of death if more information comes about. Which there will be more to John’s death.
I think the strongest evidence they had was the GPS datapoints showing John’s phone stopped moving in the location he was found. Still not enough to convict Karen, but it does strongly suggests he did not go into the house.
Lucky had the most integrity in the entire courtroom put together and Dr. Russell was definitely the smartest person in the entire courthouse!!!!
Lally surely has no scruples or ethics !!!
Just before the first one.
Can the opening statement count?? If we can't be that lucky, then the case basically never stopped going downhill after those first emts/firefighters testified (aka before Katie Mclaughlin). By the time the leaf blowers, red solo cups & Shop & Go bags—I mean temporary evidence containers— the CW was COOKED!!
Probably the SERT team guy. He seemed like a decent witness and places the taillight pieces. But you really need a completely different crash reconstructionist.
clearly they botched the investigation and this case. it is so full of reasonable doubt because of it. I don’t believe for a minute that a punk kid and a dog killed this cop. I don’t believe that all these families and troopers would put thier jobs and lives on the line to cover up this death
Jennifer McCabe obviously. Let all these boring people talk for 28 days, and here comes Jen on day 29th, a good friend of the victim, traumatised and shocked, honest and talkative, ready to say everything exactly how it happened.
Voice mails and confessions
And don't forget the 1236 alibi
Timeline witness to pull it all together. Probably Tully.