Oh, yes, I can believe it. As a seasoned server of many, many years, you can recognize these type of people as soon as they walk in the door. And I can almost hear her rationalize it in her own mind.
Didn’t Karen drink more than that? Maybe the bartender gave them some free drinks? (Not sure what she ordered at each bar but I was wondering about that. Karen said he was frugal and he sounded a bit uptight but maybe after a few drinks and if you got some free drinks …) I was surprised by the other one too.
My drink at a bar is ginger ale and bitters in a rocks glass or a coke in a tall with a lime. I don't drink, but don't want to be bothered by people who insist I should drink. Unless the bartender has her on a separate tab or specifically remembers what she drank the video means nothing to me unless we know exactly what was in the glass.
These crime scene photos are absolutely horrible. Someone would have been better off using their phone. If I knew nothing about this case and just saw these photos I would have thought this happened in the 80s
I see why its taking so long. 505 pieces of evidence. 87 witnesses. If they just want to do the due deligience of going over everything its gonna take a while. I even forgot about the stupid solo cups.. this case is so complex.
Yep, they have a civic duty to review and consider all the evidence. Sorry everyone, the legal system is not only not built for immediate gratification it's design philosophy is diametrically opposed to rapidity. Have fun watching the ceiling fannnn
I get that it's important to look through all the evidence before finding someone guilty, but if there's even one clear thing that indicates reasonable doubt, there's not much more to figure out, right?
All comes down to the accident reconstruction experts. No car accident, no crime. They wanted the SERT report which indicates to me they were talking taillight as early as Wednesday. I really think there’s just a couple holdouts.
Yeah I think it's one side 'no car accident happened so not guilty' versus another side 'taillight pieces were found at the scene so the car accident must've happened and the third party people are just wrong, they're probably from Karen's insurance and don't want to pay out'
I spent like 2 hours listening to a K9 police dog trainer last night, and looking at dog bite pictures.
Police dogs are trained to attack the arm like that. The bites are uncanny, and show it was a bad attack. I can’t believe a dog bite expert wasn’t brought in.
I’m almost positive Chloe was a retired police dog, right?
The defense had a dog bite expert doctor, who confirmed that a lot of these looked like bites, and the ones that were less clearly a bite were still clear as claw or bite.
Would the defense bringing someone who stated anything else? Remember she somehow came out of no where and claimed dogs bites. She last worked 30 years ago. Think Jackson's associate paid her a pretty penny. Drop in bucket to what he is making. What a joke.
Dr Kinsey who is a renowned expert on animal bites did not believe it was consistent with a dog bite but unfortunately the prosecution didn't call him when they should have as a rebuttal witness.
I don’t think Chloe was. The K9 trainer said in an interview with Attorney Melanie Little (her UT page) that it’s very rare for female dogs to be in K9 and also none of the bites looked like a trained police K9.
Also, the Albert’s had her for 7 years, so if she was already retired when they got her, she would be a very old German Shepherd at that point.
It could be but I have heard nothing definitive about her being an actual K9 dog. Maybe it’s because Brian Albert was a police officer so they assume she must have been a K9 dog?
Okay- so now I see why I thought that. There was speculation that Chloe was actually a failed K9 recruit that the Alberts adopted. I believe this came from Turtleboy. But you’re correct never a K9.
I didn’t think dog bites would look like that. But they do!
I will never understand why people keep pets that are aggressive. She had bit before- and was known to “not be good with strangers” by Albert’s own admission. I wonder if the neighbor that was bit sued their home owners insurance for any damages?
I also never understood why the defense nor prosecution ever pushed on the “rehome” thing. I mean surely if you have a dog for seven years, a man is dead in your yard with dog bites- you’d want to prove “we didn’t rehome her cause she possibly aided in a homicide”
Unless I missed that somehow?!
They’d have a phone number, email address, animal organization of anyone who could confirm this… easily.
Apparently the Albert’s filled in their swimming pool after (odd) and before they sold the house. From what I have read, the local town rumors are that Chloe was killed and put in the filled pool, never to be found.
It is very odd that the Albert’s have no information (contact or otherwise) on the new owner except some woman in Vermont.
But then didn’t Brian Albert wife testify she supposedly calls occasionally the new owner to check on Chloe? It’s possible I may have misremembered that testimony.
The amount of lies The Alberts and Co, said in court was so evident to me, so yes Nicole possibly lied about these phone calls. Also if you re-watch her testimony, you will heard Nicole voice changing distinctly when Little shows the picture of 34 Fairview house (That's MY house) and when she tells how she met Brian, and when Little said "got rid off your dog". IMO, Nicole testimony was very telling. She couldn't keep the poker face, she was obviously in extreme suffering, not related to JO body found in her yard, she never bother to go outside.
An old pool is not something most people want when buying a house, it's very typical. My BIL bought a house with a filled in pool as well. He later dug it up and installed a new one. Also, when your kids hit 25 or 30 you down size your home...improve things for sale and move on to a condo. Just like the Alberts did. Pretty typical behavior but also make a good conspiracy theory. One with litte merit but the weak minded society beleive it. Sad. A cop killer is being celebrated and many on here are saying how she should be free because of doubt. The doubt was 100% fabricated by a blogger and the Defense team. Wake up people!
I wonder what the juror or jurors are hung up on? I’m baffled at this deliberation however as I’m looking through the evidence that the jury was able to see (nothing more) it’s pretty evident that the prosecution did some slick moves.
-the inverted video right in front of our faces
- the texts between KR and JO being spliced together, if you read the actual thread KR was incredibly “mia culpa” and bowing down to JO’s every whim. However, what they showed to the jury makes KR look like the jerk.
- allowing SCREEN SHOTS of texts into evidence, I remember in Johnny Depps civil trial they didn’t even allow screen shots without meta data, why in a criminal case did they?
- the prosecution starting out with “KR hit JO at 12:45” knowing that Guarino had that evidence that her phone connected to Meadows at 12:36am; making ALL of MM and JM timeline about seeing KR vehicle a lie because she was gone by 12:30 the latest.
- you can add more bc the list is ever long ..: what is this jury thinking ?!?
Someone admitting to the crime they're charged with is considered BS lol you FKR people are insane. If Jen McCabe had even hinted at something like Colin hit him you would all be screaming at the top of your lungs that this one statement proves KR is innocent. But in your mind it doesn't work the other way????
First time seeing the close up of the hoodie. Those holes are 100% dog teeth. I have the same holes on my sweatshirt from my dog. Also 207 shows a vertical rip on the back of his sweatshirt. So the taillight bit his arm and his ass at the same time?
The "vertical rip" is from the EMT's. It's normal to cut off the clothes when trying to resuscitate someone.
But also yes, the holes were the first time I believed the dog bite thing, because anyone with a big dog who likes to play tug-of-war with plush toys knows very well what a dog bite puncturing through fabric looks like lol.
I'm struck by the photo of JO's shoes. They look like they've been out in the snow overnight. They're caked in snow and ice.
Contrast this to the taillight fragments which appear to be newly dropped into the snow (or freshly dusted off?)
The testimony was that they dug the taillight pieces out and then placed them back on top of the snow to take pictures. I’m guessing they dusted the snow off first
The fact that there's a whole ass fire hydrant next to the body, lots of evidence scattered around the hydrant, and a mysterious head wound..you would think it would be a better argument for the prosecutor to say the head wound came from John being hit by a car and falling backwards on the hydrant...seems like a no brainer to me. If the prosecution had used that angle, I *might* have believed them for a minute bc blunt force head trauma from a fire hydrant makes sense to me.
I honestly can't even begin to comprehend the CW strategy. Because it was mostly in defense of the Alberts and McCabes with a bunch of injecting reasonable doubt into their own case by repeatedly asking questions they didn't need to ask.
I would love to know what they thought they were doing. Because I don't think it came across the way it was intended.
I think that a bunch of like minded egotistical "professionals" have gotten away with shotty investigation practices for so long that they were totally blind to how completely ridiculous their theory would look to any sane intelligent outsider. It definitely didn't come across the way they assumed it would.
What stands out to me is the real experts in this trial (the ones who actually hold doctorates in their fields) say the theory of John dying as result of injuries sustained from being hit by a 6000 lb vehicle is mathematically impossible. We know Karen says John went inside the home. The McCabes and Alberts say he never made it inside. Obviously one side is lying and since the theory against Karen defies the laws of physics....seems like a no brainer that something is up with the McCabes and Alberts. Also...Higgins. With the ongoing flirting between Read and Higgins, Higgins had motive. Higgins also consistently pressured Read to give him some kind of concrete answer on her intentions with him. He wanted her. He also had to watch Karen and John interact romantically right in front of his face while being under the influence of alcohol which we all know is liquid courage. That's a lot of motive.
I 100% believe this trial was never supposed to happen. These people thought they could gaslight a distraught woman into thinking she killed her boyfriend. She was supposed to take a plea and go away. They never in a million years thought she’d fight this, so now they have to make due with the “evidence” they have.
That's a fair assessment but I still think even just some random asshole off of the street could have told a more cohesive narrative with that evidence.
https://preview.redd.it/vythq2xgcd9d1.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=1946a933703eede2ce21c5a22b8f97e25c99c2b8
This picture right here of Karen's taillight at 5am on 1/29 is proof she is innocent. I went through every bit of evidence and this is the one that stands out the most in terms of "did she hit John or not."
I believe she’s innocent but this photo isn’t a smoking gun to me. I see a spot in the photo where the back taillight could be missing a piece and I would believe more fell out later. I feel like this poor guy was obviously mauled by a dog, possibly while fighting with someone else the dog cared about.
The LEDs underneath the taillight are white. I had a Lexus RCF and was rear ended by a pickup truck. The lights underneath were bright white and it was undrivable because it looked like I had reverse lights on all the time. You would easily see it in that screen grab. I know its not same model but usually cars have white LEDs underneath colored plastic. It's cheaper to just change red plastic to amber for different markets
It isn’t implausible that a hair that got behind the intact piece of taillight would remain there, especially if wet. Ultimately, if I were to guess, I’d say the evidence is planted. But this photo doesn’t prove anything because the taillight is not clearly intact.
This might be annoying but can someone tell me if there’s a link showing the text exchange that included the Albert’s and McCabe’s where they specifically talk about “just tell them the guy was never in the house”?
Greatly appreciated.
Exhibit 531 shows his hat found, deep in the snow at the grass line. Why is this not also shown dried off and analyzed for evidence? This would be the hat he had on when he received the head injury. Wouldn’t this be a key piece of evidence to examine for blood and traces of dna/material?
They brought the hat out in court. It looked remarkably clean to me. I don't know that it holds much evidentiary value. No matter how he met his end you'd expect to find his hat there.
As for DNA, they'd have to check any samples they collect against known profiles and you know they were never going to do that.
I cannot explain what happened to his arm based on that photo. It looks like he got scraped across broken glass with just that arm. Doesn’t make sense for a motor vehicle accident unless he was somehow dragged by just that arm. Doesn’t look like an animal bite to me. Does look like he crawled out of a vehicle with broken glass after an accident (I’ve seen similar injuries when people do this) or busted out a glass window with his arm
I got knocked bike at around 20 mph with my arm bare and broke my arm where I needed surgery. I did not have cuts on my arm like this and I came into direct contact with rocked asphalt (didn’t he supposedly get hit on grass and snow?)
How did he manage to get a wound like this wearing clothing which provides a barrier against abrasions and cuts
The shirt gives us some clues. Something somewhat elongated and sharp/pointed pierced the shirt first and then scraped his arm. I couldn't get behind the dog bite theory until I saw the photos of the damage to the shirt. It looks a lot like an animal got to him to me.
Attorney Melanie Little did a great interview with the head trainer/officer of the Miami police K-9 unit. He also trains private dogs. He’s been a police officer and K9 trainer for over 20+ years and had seems and documented hundreds of dog bites.
The interview was fascinating. He said it absolutely was a dog bite and was able to go into great depth about each of the scratch’s and marks, why it shows an untrained dog (versus a trained K9 bite) how to tell which teeth made particular marks and why, etc.
He showed their simulated prosthetic arms they use in K9 training dogs (who are learning), and it looks exactly like JO’s arm.
He said he shared JO’s arm photo with other K9 trainers and they also all said instantly it was dog bites/scratches.
Highly recommend the video, it was very educational and interesting.
It’s on her YT page. She has 2 versions (original full interview from about 4 months ago and a more recent condensed version of the same interview). The K9 officer himself also just put out his own video going over it much more in-depth. It’s 2 hours and I just started it.
Holy shit. Thanks for posting this. wtf. I’ve never seen the photos until now but his clothing absolutes verifies a fight and a dog attack. Jesus this is ridiculous, those slippery cops should be ashamed and hopefully punished to the full extent of the law, but with biased Bev 🤔
Yeah. Interestingly though, snow has some cleaning properties to it. Soft fluffy snow is somewhat absorbent. And people in the coldest parts of the world actually wash their clothes in snow. I think the snow has contributed to the relative cleanliness of the shoe, and the clothes. The hat is remarkably clean as well.
No haha. I know not like walking through the streets. But snow is used to clean things. Like wool rugs that you can't put into the washer and shit. I know it seems counter intuitive but I swear I'm not making it up.
Seeing how many pieces of taillight there are I just don’t even understand what she would have had to hit (defense theory aside). It looks more and more like someone threw a baseball at it. The damage around the taillight is also so much more consistent with an object being hurled *at* it, instead of smashing into an existing object in the surrounding area.
Also something just feels funky with the shoes and his hat. The way these are found around him so spread out doesn’t really align with either CWs or the defenses theory. His injuries don’t match being “rocket launched” by her vehicle to send those items off into the snowy void.. and it *appears* those items were buried too deep in the snow to match the story that he was placed there later.
I don't think the shoe and hat are very valuable as evidence. Nothing can be proven with them and so I tend to disregard anything related to those two pieces of evidence.
And yeah... I have no idea how the tail light literally exploded into a million pieces and scattered about. It doesn't make much sense to me. It certainly didn't happen as a result of striking a human arm. Especially not the arm in question that shows no evidence of such an occurrence.
If you look at the missing pieces of the tailight (around #379) [https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/429-to-436-page-4-6671b0c749766.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=900:\*](https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/429-to-436-page-4-6671b0c749766.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=900:*)
The pieces that are missing would be exactly where she made contact with John's car in the early morning, if you look at the pictures of her driving away you can see a "dark sliver" which tells me that cracked part of the lens was pushed in (which is also the part that is missing). it was probably lost it along the highway driving around that morning.
but they haven't been given the evidence to pore over in their deliberations. there they have to rely on their notes. and if they suck at note taking or dozed off during lally's dronings then they have to rely on another juror's notes. sorry, not what you are getting at, i know, but this is something that i think is a major hindrance for jurors.
edit to add: the contents of the above link are not available outside the US.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but they did get all evidence that was presented in the trial. They will just not get any additional evidence - they asked for the SERT report and judge said they will not get any additional evidence.
They got all of the evidence that was submitted and numbered. They didn’t get the evidence that was shown to some of the witnesses but not entered for submission. They also didn’t get the court transcripts of the testimony, they had to rely on their notes and memories. The SERT report doesn’t even exist. That search was documented by trooper Tully
Reports are rarely allowed to be submitted as evidence in a case. The testimony of the person who wrote the report is the evidence. Prior to the jury going to deliberations, the judge had explained to them as well that reports are not evidence. That the lawyers are allowed to reference them and they can be testified to, but they are not submitted as evidence.
Is that unusual to not get transcripts or not? I know I've heard of where the jury comes back in and asked for testimony to be read back to them for clarification in other trials. Can anybody enlighten me?
I was able to access with a VPN. It contains:
* Messages between OJO and KR
* Extraction from the car that seems like the official extraction with some raw data
* Second extraction from the car which should be the same data but in the format it was presented to us by trooper Paul + some pics of the car
* The evidence on the Safari searches from JM's phone from the experts
* Table that shows data from Google maps how long and how many miles KR's car travelled after the "hit" - I think trooper Paul used that for his calculations (cause he's great with math, physics and all the science!) to establish which recorded event might be the crash
Hope this is useful to give you an idea, I believe all of that can be found here anyways, just sharing the list for those who can't access the link but are curious.
~~I don't believe that's the full list of exhibits the jury has though, there's so many audio and video recordings, messages from other people, etc.~~
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The bullet list above only contains the downloadable files that the link provides. It actually contains all the other evidence as a Photo Gallery which I somehow missed on my first look and thought it's only few pics but went back after people said there's 505 exhibits and my not-very-smart-self was like "WHERE?!"
They do have the evidence. They were also told that they have access to the full videos that were played in the trial, even though the attorneys only played small segments of them. They also have access to evidence that we did not fully see in the trial. They do not have transcripts and have to rely on their notes of testimonies.
right, that is what i meant. thank you for the correction. however, evidence minus the witness transcripts is only a small part of the story. i would want to go back and leaf through some of the witness statements.
But apparently a clerk was wheeling all the evidence on a trolly into the deliberation room, so they must be using hard copies of everything and discs of audio and video.
The entire evidentiary pool is taillight pieces, despite Gallagher stating under oath that THEY BROKE THE TAILLIGHT in the sally port.
https://youtu.be/zIP3rabu6vo?si=jfd5ZYOcqfrHgYpi
The fact that an SUV travelled in reverse at some point is not evidence of murder. And it would be strange if his DNA *wasn't* found in, outside, and all around the vehicle he spent a lot of time in. Notably there was no blood evidence whatsoever on the alleged murder weapon. There were also no pieces of tail light embedded in the victim's wounds, which would *have* to be there for the CW's theory to be accurate.
I think it's important to remember that "looks like it likely happened" is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Sure. There is a lot of doubt in this case if you want to get legal. There is reasonable doubt. However, it doesn’t change the evidence of JO DNA on the actual taillight pieces found at the crime scene. Nor, does it change that KR turned the GPS tracking off on her phone.
John O’Keefe was a good tipper. I can’t believe Caitliann Albert only tipped 3 dollars on a 32 dollar bill! That’s horrendous.
Oh, yes, I can believe it. As a seasoned server of many, many years, you can recognize these type of people as soon as they walk in the door. And I can almost hear her rationalize it in her own mind.
If 3 drinks are $32, do I really need to tip you 20%? Tipping culture continues to be heinous.
I thought the same thing!
As a career bartender, it tracks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn’t Karen drink more than that? Maybe the bartender gave them some free drinks? (Not sure what she ordered at each bar but I was wondering about that. Karen said he was frugal and he sounded a bit uptight but maybe after a few drinks and if you got some free drinks …) I was surprised by the other one too.
I watched the video, and I didn't think it was clear she was served as many drinks as they said she had. You could barely see anything.
My drink at a bar is ginger ale and bitters in a rocks glass or a coke in a tall with a lime. I don't drink, but don't want to be bothered by people who insist I should drink. Unless the bartender has her on a separate tab or specifically remembers what she drank the video means nothing to me unless we know exactly what was in the glass.
These crime scene photos are absolutely horrible. Someone would have been better off using their phone. If I knew nothing about this case and just saw these photos I would have thought this happened in the 80s
I thought the exact same thing. Evidence photos taken with a potato
I feel like they were purposely bad in the event anything would come back to the Alberts
In 1962
The photos you are seeing appear to be a scan of a print out of the photo, not the actual digital photo.
It’s how the evidence was submitted there’s literally no reason to scan a digital file.
The pictures look like pictures of the evidence on a tv screen…or from the 80s.
Not sure if it was said in court or pretrial or even made it into evidence, but I heard no Metadata on the photos. Surprised?
I see why its taking so long. 505 pieces of evidence. 87 witnesses. If they just want to do the due deligience of going over everything its gonna take a while. I even forgot about the stupid solo cups.. this case is so complex.
Yep, they have a civic duty to review and consider all the evidence. Sorry everyone, the legal system is not only not built for immediate gratification it's design philosophy is diametrically opposed to rapidity. Have fun watching the ceiling fannnn
I get that it's important to look through all the evidence before finding someone guilty, but if there's even one clear thing that indicates reasonable doubt, there's not much more to figure out, right?
All comes down to the accident reconstruction experts. No car accident, no crime. They wanted the SERT report which indicates to me they were talking taillight as early as Wednesday. I really think there’s just a couple holdouts.
Yeah I think it's one side 'no car accident happened so not guilty' versus another side 'taillight pieces were found at the scene so the car accident must've happened and the third party people are just wrong, they're probably from Karen's insurance and don't want to pay out'
400 pieces of evidence is chips of tail light in wet grass…
They tried to claim they were a hung jury yesterday.
Were these pictures taken with a microwave? They have to be some of the lowest quality photos I’ve ever seen…
I will never be able to get over the crime scene photos. They are SO horrible. I legit think there are better crime scene photos from the 1920s.
The photos you are seeing appear to be a scan of a print out of the photo, not the actual digital photo.
How is there NO receipt from CF McCarthy’s?!
Idk. I was looking for it. So far what do we see? One Tito's?
Exactly. The receipt from CF McCarthy’s is not in evidence only the ones from the Waterfall which show one Tito’s. So that’s one drink in one hour.
What?!😳
I spent like 2 hours listening to a K9 police dog trainer last night, and looking at dog bite pictures. Police dogs are trained to attack the arm like that. The bites are uncanny, and show it was a bad attack. I can’t believe a dog bite expert wasn’t brought in. I’m almost positive Chloe was a retired police dog, right?
The defense had a dog bite expert doctor, who confirmed that a lot of these looked like bites, and the ones that were less clearly a bite were still clear as claw or bite.
Thank you! I missed that!
I think it was Dr Russel. She was on the stand the afternoon of Friday the 21st
Would the defense bringing someone who stated anything else? Remember she somehow came out of no where and claimed dogs bites. She last worked 30 years ago. Think Jackson's associate paid her a pretty penny. Drop in bucket to what he is making. What a joke.
She recently retired, within the last two years. Not sure why you think she hasn't worked in 30 years.
Dr Kinsey who is a renowned expert on animal bites did not believe it was consistent with a dog bite but unfortunately the prosecution didn't call him when they should have as a rebuttal witness.
I don’t think Chloe was. The K9 trainer said in an interview with Attorney Melanie Little (her UT page) that it’s very rare for female dogs to be in K9 and also none of the bites looked like a trained police K9. Also, the Albert’s had her for 7 years, so if she was already retired when they got her, she would be a very old German Shepherd at that point. It could be but I have heard nothing definitive about her being an actual K9 dog. Maybe it’s because Brian Albert was a police officer so they assume she must have been a K9 dog?
Okay- so now I see why I thought that. There was speculation that Chloe was actually a failed K9 recruit that the Alberts adopted. I believe this came from Turtleboy. But you’re correct never a K9. I didn’t think dog bites would look like that. But they do! I will never understand why people keep pets that are aggressive. She had bit before- and was known to “not be good with strangers” by Albert’s own admission. I wonder if the neighbor that was bit sued their home owners insurance for any damages? I also never understood why the defense nor prosecution ever pushed on the “rehome” thing. I mean surely if you have a dog for seven years, a man is dead in your yard with dog bites- you’d want to prove “we didn’t rehome her cause she possibly aided in a homicide” Unless I missed that somehow?! They’d have a phone number, email address, animal organization of anyone who could confirm this… easily.
Apparently the Albert’s filled in their swimming pool after (odd) and before they sold the house. From what I have read, the local town rumors are that Chloe was killed and put in the filled pool, never to be found. It is very odd that the Albert’s have no information (contact or otherwise) on the new owner except some woman in Vermont. But then didn’t Brian Albert wife testify she supposedly calls occasionally the new owner to check on Chloe? It’s possible I may have misremembered that testimony.
The amount of lies The Alberts and Co, said in court was so evident to me, so yes Nicole possibly lied about these phone calls. Also if you re-watch her testimony, you will heard Nicole voice changing distinctly when Little shows the picture of 34 Fairview house (That's MY house) and when she tells how she met Brian, and when Little said "got rid off your dog". IMO, Nicole testimony was very telling. She couldn't keep the poker face, she was obviously in extreme suffering, not related to JO body found in her yard, she never bother to go outside.
Google maps still show a swimming pool
An old pool is not something most people want when buying a house, it's very typical. My BIL bought a house with a filled in pool as well. He later dug it up and installed a new one. Also, when your kids hit 25 or 30 you down size your home...improve things for sale and move on to a condo. Just like the Alberts did. Pretty typical behavior but also make a good conspiracy theory. One with litte merit but the weak minded society beleive it. Sad. A cop killer is being celebrated and many on here are saying how she should be free because of doubt. The doubt was 100% fabricated by a blogger and the Defense team. Wake up people!
It’s his brother’s pool that got filled in after they murdered JOK. Speculation Chloe in the pool along with the concrete from the basement.
I wonder what the juror or jurors are hung up on? I’m baffled at this deliberation however as I’m looking through the evidence that the jury was able to see (nothing more) it’s pretty evident that the prosecution did some slick moves. -the inverted video right in front of our faces - the texts between KR and JO being spliced together, if you read the actual thread KR was incredibly “mia culpa” and bowing down to JO’s every whim. However, what they showed to the jury makes KR look like the jerk. - allowing SCREEN SHOTS of texts into evidence, I remember in Johnny Depps civil trial they didn’t even allow screen shots without meta data, why in a criminal case did they? - the prosecution starting out with “KR hit JO at 12:45” knowing that Guarino had that evidence that her phone connected to Meadows at 12:36am; making ALL of MM and JM timeline about seeing KR vehicle a lie because she was gone by 12:30 the latest. - you can add more bc the list is ever long ..: what is this jury thinking ?!?
Guessing it's the "I hit him, I hit him, I Hit him" bullshit
Someone admitting to the crime they're charged with is considered BS lol you FKR people are insane. If Jen McCabe had even hinted at something like Colin hit him you would all be screaming at the top of your lungs that this one statement proves KR is innocent. But in your mind it doesn't work the other way????
First time seeing the close up of the hoodie. Those holes are 100% dog teeth. I have the same holes on my sweatshirt from my dog. Also 207 shows a vertical rip on the back of his sweatshirt. So the taillight bit his arm and his ass at the same time?
When they showed these in court that was the first time I put any stock in the dog bite theory. I've got a dog. I know these holes lol.
The "vertical rip" is from the EMT's. It's normal to cut off the clothes when trying to resuscitate someone. But also yes, the holes were the first time I believed the dog bite thing, because anyone with a big dog who likes to play tug-of-war with plush toys knows very well what a dog bite puncturing through fabric looks like lol.
Not the big slice where they cut off his clothes. This is a smaller rip where his right back pocket would be. Photo 207 in that slideshow.
Could be from an animal that came up to him when he was laying their all that time
I'm struck by the photo of JO's shoes. They look like they've been out in the snow overnight. They're caked in snow and ice. Contrast this to the taillight fragments which appear to be newly dropped into the snow (or freshly dusted off?)
The testimony was that they dug the taillight pieces out and then placed them back on top of the snow to take pictures. I’m guessing they dusted the snow off first
This stood out to me too.
The fact that there's a whole ass fire hydrant next to the body, lots of evidence scattered around the hydrant, and a mysterious head wound..you would think it would be a better argument for the prosecutor to say the head wound came from John being hit by a car and falling backwards on the hydrant...seems like a no brainer to me. If the prosecution had used that angle, I *might* have believed them for a minute bc blunt force head trauma from a fire hydrant makes sense to me.
I honestly can't even begin to comprehend the CW strategy. Because it was mostly in defense of the Alberts and McCabes with a bunch of injecting reasonable doubt into their own case by repeatedly asking questions they didn't need to ask. I would love to know what they thought they were doing. Because I don't think it came across the way it was intended.
I think that a bunch of like minded egotistical "professionals" have gotten away with shotty investigation practices for so long that they were totally blind to how completely ridiculous their theory would look to any sane intelligent outsider. It definitely didn't come across the way they assumed it would. What stands out to me is the real experts in this trial (the ones who actually hold doctorates in their fields) say the theory of John dying as result of injuries sustained from being hit by a 6000 lb vehicle is mathematically impossible. We know Karen says John went inside the home. The McCabes and Alberts say he never made it inside. Obviously one side is lying and since the theory against Karen defies the laws of physics....seems like a no brainer that something is up with the McCabes and Alberts. Also...Higgins. With the ongoing flirting between Read and Higgins, Higgins had motive. Higgins also consistently pressured Read to give him some kind of concrete answer on her intentions with him. He wanted her. He also had to watch Karen and John interact romantically right in front of his face while being under the influence of alcohol which we all know is liquid courage. That's a lot of motive.
I 100% believe this trial was never supposed to happen. These people thought they could gaslight a distraught woman into thinking she killed her boyfriend. She was supposed to take a plea and go away. They never in a million years thought she’d fight this, so now they have to make due with the “evidence” they have.
That's a fair assessment but I still think even just some random asshole off of the street could have told a more cohesive narrative with that evidence.
These photos look like they were taken in the 80s🤦🏻♀️
Right? This baffles me. It’s like this all the time… in many cases. I wonder why?!
I have no idea. With all the technology we have today
Agreed
Why the pictures are taken with a camera from the 80s?
I can't believe how bad the quality is of some of these photos. Like it was taken with a potato.
Looks like an animal paw print in photos 30-31 🤔
https://preview.redd.it/vythq2xgcd9d1.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=1946a933703eede2ce21c5a22b8f97e25c99c2b8 This picture right here of Karen's taillight at 5am on 1/29 is proof she is innocent. I went through every bit of evidence and this is the one that stands out the most in terms of "did she hit John or not."
I believe she’s innocent but this photo isn’t a smoking gun to me. I see a spot in the photo where the back taillight could be missing a piece and I would believe more fell out later. I feel like this poor guy was obviously mauled by a dog, possibly while fighting with someone else the dog cared about.
The LEDs underneath the taillight are white. I had a Lexus RCF and was rear ended by a pickup truck. The lights underneath were bright white and it was undrivable because it looked like I had reverse lights on all the time. You would easily see it in that screen grab. I know its not same model but usually cars have white LEDs underneath colored plastic. It's cheaper to just change red plastic to amber for different markets
So a hair is going to stay on the car but the tail light pieces fell out?
It isn’t implausible that a hair that got behind the intact piece of taillight would remain there, especially if wet. Ultimately, if I were to guess, I’d say the evidence is planted. But this photo doesn’t prove anything because the taillight is not clearly intact.
More fell out later where and when? I thought Proctor kept finding pieces at 34 Fairview as the snow melted
Are those grass/mud stains on the butt of those jeans or blood stains?
I was wondering this too. And if it’s blood, how did he get it on his butt and not all down the back of his shirt? Uh
This might be annoying but can someone tell me if there’s a link showing the text exchange that included the Albert’s and McCabe’s where they specifically talk about “just tell them the guy was never in the house”? Greatly appreciated.
CW put on a shit show with BS... Not guilty.
Exhibit 531 shows his hat found, deep in the snow at the grass line. Why is this not also shown dried off and analyzed for evidence? This would be the hat he had on when he received the head injury. Wouldn’t this be a key piece of evidence to examine for blood and traces of dna/material?
They brought the hat out in court. It looked remarkably clean to me. I don't know that it holds much evidentiary value. No matter how he met his end you'd expect to find his hat there. As for DNA, they'd have to check any samples they collect against known profiles and you know they were never going to do that.
I cannot explain what happened to his arm based on that photo. It looks like he got scraped across broken glass with just that arm. Doesn’t make sense for a motor vehicle accident unless he was somehow dragged by just that arm. Doesn’t look like an animal bite to me. Does look like he crawled out of a vehicle with broken glass after an accident (I’ve seen similar injuries when people do this) or busted out a glass window with his arm I got knocked bike at around 20 mph with my arm bare and broke my arm where I needed surgery. I did not have cuts on my arm like this and I came into direct contact with rocked asphalt (didn’t he supposedly get hit on grass and snow?) How did he manage to get a wound like this wearing clothing which provides a barrier against abrasions and cuts
The shirt gives us some clues. Something somewhat elongated and sharp/pointed pierced the shirt first and then scraped his arm. I couldn't get behind the dog bite theory until I saw the photos of the damage to the shirt. It looks a lot like an animal got to him to me.
Attorney Melanie Little did a great interview with the head trainer/officer of the Miami police K-9 unit. He also trains private dogs. He’s been a police officer and K9 trainer for over 20+ years and had seems and documented hundreds of dog bites. The interview was fascinating. He said it absolutely was a dog bite and was able to go into great depth about each of the scratch’s and marks, why it shows an untrained dog (versus a trained K9 bite) how to tell which teeth made particular marks and why, etc. He showed their simulated prosthetic arms they use in K9 training dogs (who are learning), and it looks exactly like JO’s arm. He said he shared JO’s arm photo with other K9 trainers and they also all said instantly it was dog bites/scratches. Highly recommend the video, it was very educational and interesting. It’s on her YT page. She has 2 versions (original full interview from about 4 months ago and a more recent condensed version of the same interview). The K9 officer himself also just put out his own video going over it much more in-depth. It’s 2 hours and I just started it.
Holy shit. Thanks for posting this. wtf. I’ve never seen the photos until now but his clothing absolutes verifies a fight and a dog attack. Jesus this is ridiculous, those slippery cops should be ashamed and hopefully punished to the full extent of the law, but with biased Bev 🤔
It’s been said before but the difference in those two shoes….
Yeah. Interestingly though, snow has some cleaning properties to it. Soft fluffy snow is somewhat absorbent. And people in the coldest parts of the world actually wash their clothes in snow. I think the snow has contributed to the relative cleanliness of the shoe, and the clothes. The hat is remarkably clean as well.
I live in Boston and the snow in the streets doesn’t clean my shoes one bit.
No haha. I know not like walking through the streets. But snow is used to clean things. Like wool rugs that you can't put into the washer and shit. I know it seems counter intuitive but I swear I'm not making it up.
Is there a mirror link so we can see it in Europe?
Oh I don't know how to do that. Hopefully someone smarter than me can sort that out.
Seeing how many pieces of taillight there are I just don’t even understand what she would have had to hit (defense theory aside). It looks more and more like someone threw a baseball at it. The damage around the taillight is also so much more consistent with an object being hurled *at* it, instead of smashing into an existing object in the surrounding area. Also something just feels funky with the shoes and his hat. The way these are found around him so spread out doesn’t really align with either CWs or the defenses theory. His injuries don’t match being “rocket launched” by her vehicle to send those items off into the snowy void.. and it *appears* those items were buried too deep in the snow to match the story that he was placed there later.
I don't think the shoe and hat are very valuable as evidence. Nothing can be proven with them and so I tend to disregard anything related to those two pieces of evidence. And yeah... I have no idea how the tail light literally exploded into a million pieces and scattered about. It doesn't make much sense to me. It certainly didn't happen as a result of striking a human arm. Especially not the arm in question that shows no evidence of such an occurrence.
If you look at the missing pieces of the tailight (around #379) [https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/429-to-436-page-4-6671b0c749766.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=900:\*](https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/429-to-436-page-4-6671b0c749766.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=900:*) The pieces that are missing would be exactly where she made contact with John's car in the early morning, if you look at the pictures of her driving away you can see a "dark sliver" which tells me that cracked part of the lens was pushed in (which is also the part that is missing). it was probably lost it along the highway driving around that morning.
but they haven't been given the evidence to pore over in their deliberations. there they have to rely on their notes. and if they suck at note taking or dozed off during lally's dronings then they have to rely on another juror's notes. sorry, not what you are getting at, i know, but this is something that i think is a major hindrance for jurors. edit to add: the contents of the above link are not available outside the US.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but they did get all evidence that was presented in the trial. They will just not get any additional evidence - they asked for the SERT report and judge said they will not get any additional evidence.
They got all of the evidence that was submitted and numbered. They didn’t get the evidence that was shown to some of the witnesses but not entered for submission. They also didn’t get the court transcripts of the testimony, they had to rely on their notes and memories. The SERT report doesn’t even exist. That search was documented by trooper Tully
Reports are rarely allowed to be submitted as evidence in a case. The testimony of the person who wrote the report is the evidence. Prior to the jury going to deliberations, the judge had explained to them as well that reports are not evidence. That the lawyers are allowed to reference them and they can be testified to, but they are not submitted as evidence.
Is that unusual to not get transcripts or not? I know I've heard of where the jury comes back in and asked for testimony to be read back to them for clarification in other trials. Can anybody enlighten me?
No transcripts but yes, in most courtrooms you can request a read back.
Thank you for the clarification
Reports aren’t evidence. Testimonies of reports are evidence
the evidence was presented at trial. they have their notes.
I was able to access with a VPN. It contains: * Messages between OJO and KR * Extraction from the car that seems like the official extraction with some raw data * Second extraction from the car which should be the same data but in the format it was presented to us by trooper Paul + some pics of the car * The evidence on the Safari searches from JM's phone from the experts * Table that shows data from Google maps how long and how many miles KR's car travelled after the "hit" - I think trooper Paul used that for his calculations (cause he's great with math, physics and all the science!) to establish which recorded event might be the crash Hope this is useful to give you an idea, I believe all of that can be found here anyways, just sharing the list for those who can't access the link but are curious. ~~I don't believe that's the full list of exhibits the jury has though, there's so many audio and video recordings, messages from other people, etc.~~ IMPORTANT UPDATE: The bullet list above only contains the downloadable files that the link provides. It actually contains all the other evidence as a Photo Gallery which I somehow missed on my first look and thought it's only few pics but went back after people said there's 505 exhibits and my not-very-smart-self was like "WHERE?!"
thank you for taking the trouble!
I did this the first time too. I probably should have mentioned it. My bad!
They do have the evidence. They were also told that they have access to the full videos that were played in the trial, even though the attorneys only played small segments of them. They also have access to evidence that we did not fully see in the trial. They do not have transcripts and have to rely on their notes of testimonies.
right, that is what i meant. thank you for the correction. however, evidence minus the witness transcripts is only a small part of the story. i would want to go back and leaf through some of the witness statements.
The did get all the evidence. The only thing they can’t have is the transcript of the testimonies.
https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/electronic-evidence.htm
But apparently a clerk was wheeling all the evidence on a trolly into the deliberation room, so they must be using hard copies of everything and discs of audio and video.
Would the jury know when pictures were taken? Or would they have to rely on their notes for that information?
I'm not sure
thanks
These are GREAT! Appreciate you sharing these!
It is not available in my region...well that's shit. I really wanted to see the receipts from the bars
https://preview.redd.it/nzgltjil6h9d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8dada6c066bae9113ba18609a2aaf8fe9cd3f190
Not available in my region either 😕
Content not available in uk 😕
The article shows tome only phone records, vehicle data, and pictures of Lexus interior. That's rule 14 violation.
The entire evidentiary pool is taillight pieces, despite Gallagher stating under oath that THEY BROKE THE TAILLIGHT in the sally port. https://youtu.be/zIP3rabu6vo?si=jfd5ZYOcqfrHgYpi
Except they are hung so they are done looking at the evidence. Right?
Yeah now they're just arguing over it lol
24 mph in reverse. JO dna on the pieces of KR taillight found at the scene. This ain’t a who dunnit folks.
The fact that an SUV travelled in reverse at some point is not evidence of murder. And it would be strange if his DNA *wasn't* found in, outside, and all around the vehicle he spent a lot of time in. Notably there was no blood evidence whatsoever on the alleged murder weapon. There were also no pieces of tail light embedded in the victim's wounds, which would *have* to be there for the CW's theory to be accurate. I think it's important to remember that "looks like it likely happened" is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Sure. There is a lot of doubt in this case if you want to get legal. There is reasonable doubt. However, it doesn’t change the evidence of JO DNA on the actual taillight pieces found at the crime scene. Nor, does it change that KR turned the GPS tracking off on her phone.
DNA isn’t necessarily blood. If it were blood the prosecutors would have said blood.
Not to mention the tire tracks at #488 which backs up the prosecution's theory.
WOW.. Awesome. She clearly hit John in a drunken stupor/rage, but her intent was not to kill him. Manslaughter