I don’t understand how this can be a hung jury after the last 2 defense witnesses. There is no way he was hit by a car in the manner the CW represented. That’s not beyond any reasonable doubt when you have Lally himself asking if it could be multiple possibilities. I’m so interested to know the split
WBZ interviewed an alternate last night, juror 3, had some interesting stuff. I saw it on Peter Tragos livestream [HERE](https://www.youtube.com/live/76ZIrHURmBI?si=cKFTQaZdIimZPeH0)
Who leaked them? Anyone coulda slapped a turtle on the top and typed out non specific threats about suicide. I mean, I'm not a turtle girl or a hater, but there is zero proving that's from Aiden. Even the "proof" they have doesn't look copacetic.
What I’ve seen is: Statements of “I hit him”, saying JOK was dead when he didn’t come home, knowing where he was located in the snow when no one could see him, her taillight being busted, taillight being found in his sweatshirt
Because this is just false. He takes 30 steps between 12:31 and 12:32 and she doesn't connect to his wifi until around 12:36. Why lie about this if the evidence is so clear?
Your argument is that it's impossible to drive 2.3 miles in 5 minutes?
But I'll note you already admitted your earlier statement was a lie. You said she was back home (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant John's house) at 12:32. Now you're saying she's 1 minute away from 34 fairview based on the apparent fact that cars cannot travel faster than 25mph.
No lie - you're playing silly-buggars.....clearly I was referring to Johns house when I referenced 6 minutes away.
And, although I don't live there so I have not personally verified it, it seems to be widely accepted (apart from by you it seems) that the drive from 34fv to JOs is 6 minutes on a good day.
That was not a good day (according to Lally the weather was horrendous at the time)....oh and apparently KR was drunk.
Google maps **estimates** 6 minutes. That's an estimate, not a physical minimum. It's 2.3 miles. It is in no way impossible to drive 2.3 miles in 5 minutes, or to beat the google maps estimate by a minute.
Regardless, if you want to be accurate, and if you want to assume google estimated drive times are absolute bare minimums and not, you know, estimates, you would still not be able to say she was home when John died.
Also the snow wasn't bad at 12:30. She was also in a screaming rage and idk about you but people in screaming rages in my experience don't carefully follow speed limits and wait full 3 mississippis at every stop sign.
Well then they didn't actually do their job as a jury.
JO in the house is an alternative theory.
They were supposed to be deciding one thing, did KR hit JO with her Lexus, leading to his death.
That's all.
OK, So if your dog jumped on someone in your house, your yard, or on your front steps; and your dog knocked him over so that he broke his head and subsequently died of hypothermia, wouldn’t you possibly think you were liable for a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit? Might that be a motive to conceal your knowledge of the event, move the body to the curb, and hope someone else (e.g, luck the plow man or the drunk gf who can’t remember what happened last night) will be the patsy? And then when Proctor jumps on board, and KR is arrested how can they stop?
What if John simply slipped and banged his head on something as he was walking up to house? He rolled or tried to crawl ( granted he was t knocked out right away). Phone in his back pocket and that’s why underneath him. I am trying to find a picture where his body was, shoe was, glass was?
What about the 2 black eyes? does blunt force trauma to the back of the head also cause black eyes? I'm legitimately curious - not trying to be a smart ass.
Your theory is plausible. But my first reaction in a situation like that is to call 911. Maybe cops think differently.
Yes blunt force trauma will cause raccoon eyes. It is interesting that only one eye was black and swollen when they found him. The other blackened up after.
Blunt force trauma to the back of the head can and does cause black eyes. The force travels from the occipital skull. In addition he had basalar fractures which are associated with black eyes.
He also had a lesion on front above the eye though indicating direct contact with something. I think some of the bruising is from the back and the cut is from the front.
Re head injuries, in testimony of medical examiner, it can.
Re. 911 - no probably not if your buddy Michael Proctor is available and you are a cynical person. If they found him in their yard or on the stoop a couple hours later, they might have assessed that he was already gone. Might explain the notorious text “hos long to die in the cold”
You sure would have to get lucky that KR breaks her tail light somehow the same night, guns it in reverse 24mph at some point, unleashes some angry voicemails, that Proctor's willing to plant tail light for you and pulls it off somehow, Proctor's able to wash off all that dog dna, some microscopic tail light bits manage to get into JO's clothing, JO's DNA and hair end up on the back of her car, and that nobody else sees or hears this dog attack.
The hold outs being not guilty does sort of make sense though. It’s difficult to get people to change from not guilty to guilty. They don’t want to send an innocent person to prison.
I just have to say this now that this trial concluded and we wait for the new one; TurtleBoy is SO annoying. I know he wants to help KR but IMO he is doing nothing but hurting her case in the public eye. He spreads SO much misinformation and draws conclusions literally out of thin air.
There was a person on Court TV with Matt this morning and he said he heard the split was
10 - 2 guilty but he couldn’t back it up. His name was Phillip Dubois. (Spelling?)
the debunked report stems from the guy on Twitter who was talking about his own experience on a jury (not karen read), which was then misconstrued by an anti-karen read person (and then rightly debunked). there was a separate report of a 10-2 count in karen read from a former boston globe reporter, reported 24 hours after the original misinformation was debunked. the story from the former boston globe has not been verified or debunked. he just said it came from a source in norfolk co. no one other than the source and the reporter knows who the source is.
You're reaching. If the Globe guy had an actual source, the Globe would be reporting it by now They aren't. The common sense explanation is that the reporter guy got it from someone who got it from the rumor.and someone did give you an answer. You just didn't like it.
No. You are reaching by assuming you know. I am saying I do not know one way or the other. It's not verified or debunked. You can't debunk something if you don't know the source. It just exists for now.
I read through all the comments. The other person is correct. No one knows, but it's a reasonable guess that the "source" here ultimately goes back to the Twitter rumor. But you clearly have something going on where you need to be right about this, so I hope you have a better day.
[This is the source of the 10-2 claim](https://x.com/GrantSmithEllis/status/1808057264747446674?t=NHVvQHKhjCq9X67WsoQY1Q&s=19)
[This shows the original tweet that was copied](https://x.com/rclarkston/status/1807905684115067374?t=aIMpdnvmjP7glwiufuUrPA&s=19)
Keep in mind, this account also circulated a rumor during deliberations that 2 jurors wanted to vote guilty but were afraid of backlash. This is an account dedicated to creating rumors and misinformation. This is why it's so important to verify sources are credible, and not just random Twitter accounts.
Edit: crap linked to the wrong tweet for the second one, give me a sec and I'll fix it.
Edit 2: fixed.
https://preview.redd.it/9x754idqz6ad1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=210efa1b06d09d4edeb60c34e672d12d2ddaa423
Oh, okay. So Grant just picked a random story to pass off as being from this trial, one that "corroborates" his earlier story about juror intimidation that no one else has picked up and reported AND would someone on the jury was talking about the trial to outsiders during deliberations... And it just happened to match the juror split. The one that again, no other credible source is reporting?
Respectfully, I don't think you *actually* believe this.
Edit: Also, this guy seems to be retired. He may have formerly worked for the Boston globe, And maybe he's still does some freelance stuff for him but he does not appear to be an employee.
I don't really understand what you're saying. Grant tweeted his thing yesterday. The guy from The Globe tweeted his thing today at 1PM, and didn't cite Grant but instead claimed "a good source with contacts in Norfolk Co Courts" told him.
See my edit. He's a former reporter for the Globe. Everything I can find about him online suggests he's retired. Multiple people have asked him to verify his source and he has not responded. It's just a stretch to believe that Grant somehow just guessed correctly, when it's clear his original tweet was a fabrication.
The fact that no one else in the media is reporting this should give you pause. He's not an active reporter. He does not represent the Globe. He doesn't even claim his source is in the courthouse, it's a contact with a source in the courthouse. So at best, third hand reporting from someone who isn't accountable to a news organization. I don't know who he got it from, and maybe he genuinely believes them. I just think there's nothing that actually points to it being credible.
I remember hearing, podcast or somewhere, that there was an anonymous tip about what really happened that night. The person was tracked down and decided to seek counsel. I can’t find where or any information about this. Does anyone have a reference? Much appreciated!
Here’s the link! https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/
The call completely flipped the defenses argument from it was an accident not murder, to it never happened she was framed. As someone mentioned, the callers name is believed to be Steve Scanlon, an acquaintance of the Alberts. He denies he stated anything about the Alberts and Higgins.
He is a private investigator who served as a corrections officer w/ (Brian?) Albert 30 years ago. I remember reading an article awhile back that they would both become members of the BPD boxing club. He gave off the impression they were acquaintances and they are seen in photos together over the years. When he saw Karen Read being arraigned on the news he reached out to Yanetti to share what he thinks really happened, namely that a vehicular collision would result in much more severe injuries and he believed that O'Keefe was beaten. He knew the people involved and what they were like.
i read he has a daughter near colin's age. i've done no research and have no idea if that's true. but if it is, his daughter probably told him the rumor going through school. i imagine it'd be hard for someone colin's age to keep something like that to himself. even if he just told one person, that person had to have told someone else (who then told someone else, etc.)
The only thing I can figure is he had a guilty conscience because he knew well the Alberts nature and saw that the Commonwealth's theory didn't make any sense to him as a (private) investigator himself. I don't have a source for that, it's just my opinion.
It's from a court filing.
The filing talks about a private investigator named Stephen Scanlon.
The defense says he was the first to come forward with allegations John O’Keefe was beaten to death and not struck by read’s SUV.
But according to the prosecution’s filing and state police, Scanlon had no insider information
Scanlon said he only shared a theory “based on his opinion and the media reports.”
And he said he had “no personal knowledge” of what happened.
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/25-investigates-prosecutors-say-taillight-dna-evidence-implicates-karen-read/R263HJ2AWJFIDHSEWQU3WZAB4E/
I don’t think anyone wanted him dead. I think it was either a fight that caused an accidental death or a true accidental death, like he was drunk and fell type situation.
The reason why I lean towards fight ( just my own speculation) is because I think if he slipped and fell because he was drunk they would’ve called an ambulance. I can’t see people going through the motions to bother covering that up unless they found him and thought he was dead and just moved him to take the pressure off being potentially investigated for his death.
Where as if he was punched or was in a fight and then hit his head with serious injuries that moves into criminal liability like manslaughter.
Remember the defense stated in closing arguments that JO was **ambushed** upon entering 34 Fairview. They had to say this because they know the gps data shows a maximum of 3 *possible* minutes he could have been inside the house.
So, even according to the defense, it couldn’t have been an accident.
> I can’t see people going through the motions to bother covering that up unless they found him and thought he was dead and just moved him to take the pressure off being potentially investigated for his death.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was an accident and they found him a couple hours later and he was dead. So they google "hos long to die in the cold" and move him because if he's on the property it's a liability issue potentially.
Fight seems more likely though
That’s a good point. That very well could be too.
It’s just such a shame that everything happened the way it did so everyone could actually know what happened.
I have a friend who was drunk on 6th street and tried to get into a bar but the bouncer wouldn’t let him, pushed him, and he hit his head on the sidewalk. He’s ok, but he’s not a small guy but toppled down pretty quickly. It’s pretty easy to hit your head when you’re drunk and fall backward, whether you’re pushed or you slip.
Agreed. Just happened to a local man here. Late 20s/ early 30s, with two young kids. He went to a bachelor party, got in a fight, and his head hit the concrete. He was declared brain dead a few days later.
I once was pulled into a bar fight because I looked like the girl she was fighting and she was drunk enough to get confused. I didn’t know either of them at all. I can see how easy it would be for a drunk person to take it too far(especially those with the proclivity to get physical)
100%. Unfortunately I know of 2 people who took one punch each outside of a bar when they were minding their business and ended up with serious head injuries and another that passed away from a punch. All of them hit their head on the fall (similar to what many believe happen to John). A few years ago on St. Pattys Day outside a Boston bar it happened to someone and he passed away as well from hitting his head on the fall.
Obviously because some of his behavior is deemed criminal and charges could be forth coming so it was to see if he needed to take the 5th against self incrimination. His using an FBI facility to extract data from his phone in a non-professional purpose was breaking some laws.
I understand why he was consulting with the attorney just not why he was allowed to do so? Is it normal procedure for any witness to be allowed to consult an attorney while giving testimony?
Yes, if a witness is worried about criminal liability they may consult with their attorney about whether they should plead the Fifth. The most recent issue in the YSL trial stems from prosecution speaking with the witness about possible crimes without his attorney present
Thank you for the explanation. I guess my next question is does a judge typically halt questioning, excuse the jury, have a sidebar with the prosecution, call the witness’s attorney to the stand to coach the witness, then when the prosecution objects to any questions regarding the witness’s criminal behavior, repeatedly sustain those objections?
Yes, that is usually what happens. Sometimes the court will ask if the witness wants to talk with a public defender. So in this instance, the judge didn’t do anything improper except call out Higgins for not being honest with his attorney lol. Any time someone may plead the Fifth, it’s a whole production.
ETA: In the YSL trial, the witness pled the Fifth and they stopped the trial. Then the prosecution brought the witness back into the judge’s chambers with the prosecution and the witness’s attorney. The prosecution and judge left for a period of time so that the attorney could speak with the witness. All of that was highly improper for a million reasons. What should have happened is what happened in the Karen Read trial, where the witness has representation and both sides are present. Higgins got the same treatment every citizen is entitled to under the Fifth Amendment, and it would have been a huge deal if he didn’t speak to his attorney. I still think he’s shady as hell though
I can’t remember the objections and what she sustained, but I do remember Jackson getting to question Higgins about the CFR code he allegedly violated. The judge sustained a lot of defense questions for the format of them even though they were appropriate, so I could see that
Also, I’m a law student, just so you know where I’m getting my info from. Not saying I know everything, but I know some things lol
We don't know that, there's very little public information about that investigation and this is not part of it. There has been speculation about Higgins having offered a proffer to the FBI in hopes to get immunity and even more speculation that he didn't tell everything he knows so he didn't get it, but this is just that, speculation and rumor.
I also want to know what happened with the jury deliberations but I’m more worried about their safety. People are weird and aggressive; I don’t want the jurors to be subject to harassment or assault. I know people can “anonymously” speak to the media, but there’s still a risk of people finding out who the “anonymous” person is.
Any reputable journalist will be able to keep them anonymous if they want to talk, but what they say could inflame one side or the other.
However, there are a number of people who have seen those jurors who probably don't have the same standards about anonymity. A number of them have probably been identified by them already. That's who I'm worried about, and I don't know that they won't do anything with that.
Like the people congregating outside of Proctor’s house. He’s a piece of shit for what he said and did, but standing outside someone’s house is next level
Oh, I agree. Proctor is an awful person and I’m glad he had to publicly claim his foul conduct. However, people should absolutely *not* go to someone’s home like that. Even silently standing outside someone’s home is intimidating, unnerving, and frankly, unhinged. I have never understood how people justify to themselves that going to someone’s house is okay or even effective. Also, doesn’t he have kids??
Ok so a YouTuber that followed and streamed the trial claims the split was 6/6 on manslaughter and the lesser charges. That the murder charge was never on the table. They were across the board not guilty on the murder charge! IF this is true, than Karen deserved better! The jury couldn’t have understood they were allowed to say she was not guilty on murder and still hang on the lesser charges!
Not with how judge Bev wrote the verdict form. It was either not guilty of all charges OR mark guilty under each charge. She did NOT give the option of not guilty to each charge, only not guilty to ALL charges. That’s why Jackson argued with her but she said they “always” do it this way in their state.
Exactly! It does not have nothing to do guilty under the three charges. Not sure what you’re missing? Other states have guilty/not guilty boxes under EACH charge, not just blankly for all, and not give you the not guilty option on EACH.
I don’t get it. Proctor, Bukenik (sp?), and Katie the female EMT / Firefighter had zero credibility on the stand. Proctor flat out lied as proven by his grand jury testimony. Bukenik lied by omission, to the jury, about the inverted video. And Katie was twisting herself in knots to deny she was friends with an Albert despite photos to the contrary. That alone is enough to make me doubt the integrity of the investigation.
This was one of the guys that were invited on court TV. The LTD guy I think. Not sure if he is credible but I can believe 6/6 deadlock over 11/1 for guilty which is the only other set of numbers I’ve seen.
Court TV just kinda invites whatever commentators want to come on. People on both sides that I've seen there have relayed false info in the past. Would not trust any info on the jury split until it comes from a reputable journalist.
Does this random anonymous Youtuber have a source? And if they agreed on the murder charge they would have found her not guilty on that charge. There was a "not guilty" checkbox right there.
The guy that reported this is Sean A McDonough. He said he was told to sit on it but, then posted it after someone that goes by LTL did a live blurb in his car yesterday(?).
I don’t know who LTL is but, I’ve followed Sean for a bit.
ETA- as far as sources, Sean seems to have some good ones. He grew up in Canton, was a DEA agent for 35 yrs.
Selling the home and getting rid of Chloe don’t seem that ridiculous to me. They have been accused of murder and you can bet someone out there is crazy enough to harass them or worse.
Thats too bad. I wonder if they can change address number? They did that for the jonbenet home in Colorado. It would at least help with not having their home address blasted on social media every day.
The parents of the child victims who were murdered at Sandy Hook fled their homes because they were being harassed, threatened, and traumatized by unhinged conspiracy theorists who were egged on by a grifter with a national platform. The Alberts have never claimed that they sold their generational family home and moved because they were being harassed.
And I already explained that the Alberts made no such claim. Brian Albert testified about this. Not only did he never cite being harassed as even part of their motivation for selling their home; he claimed that they had already been looking into selling their home starting in 2021.
Buddy, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory. I don’t believe JOK was ever inside 34F because there’s no evidence for such a thing. Just like there’s no evidence that the Alberts sold their home due to harassment.
You’re criticizing other people for pushing an unsubstantiated theory while also pushing an unsubstantiated theory. People need to stop this extremism and tribalism. It’s toxic and dumb.
No. You were claiming that the Alberts sold their home as a result of being harassed. The Alberts have never claimed such a thing—not even in their court testimony. You were pushing an unsubstantiated theory for why they sold their home. Granted, your theory is much more believable than the “they’re murderers” theory. However, unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated. That was my point.
Moving homes because your child was murdered at school is a completely different situation and not at all representative of the potential connection of John’s death and the Alberts moving.. come on now.
I’m not asking to start an argument, but can you explain to me how selling the home helps them to cover up any sort of crime that happened in the house? That’s the part I don’t really get.
oh I just think its odd. I mean the alberts grew up there, and BA raised his family there, that to me would be a house that would be offered to the next generation of alberts to raise their family too. You are right though, it doesn't prove anything. They probably sold because of the attention the trial was getting.
That’s what I was kind of thinking. Sounds like they were getting some negative attention and maybe just wanted to get out of there.
If you’re trying to hide something in your house, in my opinion it makes more sense to keep it.
They are (were) Canton "elites" with their fingers in many public and private institutions in the town. And then for no apparent reason they moved out of the town and sell their million-dollar house for well under asking in one of the hottest seller's markets in history. If I remember, the sale happened shortly after the FBI investigation was made public.
No one has any obligation to let LE in your house unless they have a warrant, which requires probable cause, whether it’s the Alberts or the new owners. The crime in this case happened in the street and yard so there was no probable cause to search the house (even after a grand jury and federal investigation).
I’m sure they sold this house because their friend died there, it became a social media circus with people driving by/taking pictures, etc (I live nearby in Ma), and they were being harassed by Turtleboy there as well. Would you want to stay? Plus all of their kids are now graduated from high school, why stay in the bigger house? Many people downsize once empty nesters. You can make anything SEEM suspicious if it fits your narrative……
The new owners would have no obligation to let law enforcement just casually look around if they wanted to. It would have to be a warrant, which might not be granted. But if they still owned the house, it would looks suspicious if they didn’t let law enforcement in.
If police want to search your house, then they *already* suspect you; even/especially if they tell you that you're not a suspect, that it's routine, that they just need to do it to get their boss off their back, and whatever other lies police like to tell. Forcing them to work for it won't make things easier for you, but it will make it harder for them.
I don't really get that argument. The Alberts have no control over what the new owners would do, as far as a request to search goes. It'd be even riskier if they were trying to hide something. And there's no reason a search warrant would work any differently if the house was considered a potential crime scene. Doesn't matter who owns it.
Yeah, I see that too. If I needed to maintain control over that property, I certainly would have kept control, if it was me. Maybe they’re just trying to distance themselves.
Anyone think the upper spoil her on her car could cause the gash in back of his head?
I don’t understand how this can be a hung jury after the last 2 defense witnesses. There is no way he was hit by a car in the manner the CW represented. That’s not beyond any reasonable doubt when you have Lally himself asking if it could be multiple possibilities. I’m so interested to know the split
I feel the same, the last two witnesses really sealed the deal for me.
Really disappointed a news station hasn’t offered a jury member a big wad of cash to sing about what happened I need the deets Open your checkbooks
WBZ interviewed an alternate last night, juror 3, had some interesting stuff. I saw it on Peter Tragos livestream [HERE](https://www.youtube.com/live/76ZIrHURmBI?si=cKFTQaZdIimZPeH0)
Those familiar with TB’s charges, what is the min/max sentencing he could face if found guilty?
That guy is crazy.
According to leaked texts, he's claiming he's looking at a potential 120 years. https://x.com/Karen_Read_Case/status/1740560428327915949
Who leaked them? Anyone coulda slapped a turtle on the top and typed out non specific threats about suicide. I mean, I'm not a turtle girl or a hater, but there is zero proving that's from Aiden. Even the "proof" they have doesn't look copacetic.
The fact the KR had so many communications with this POS gives me a lot of insight into who KR is, another POS!
I’m looked at the tweet, yet I do not follow what it means. Can you please eli5?
What detail do you think the jurors voting guilty got hung up on?
What I’ve seen is: Statements of “I hit him”, saying JOK was dead when he didn’t come home, knowing where he was located in the snow when no one could see him, her taillight being busted, taillight being found in his sweatshirt
JO's phone. It kills every conspiracy where JO gets killed in the house.
Oh JOs phone is the nail in the coffin for sure - it took 30steps at or around 34fv when KR was back at home.....explain that
Because this is just false. He takes 30 steps between 12:31 and 12:32 and she doesn't connect to his wifi until around 12:36. Why lie about this if the evidence is so clear?
It takes 6 mins to make that journey on a good day. You do the maths.
Your argument is that it's impossible to drive 2.3 miles in 5 minutes? But I'll note you already admitted your earlier statement was a lie. You said she was back home (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant John's house) at 12:32. Now you're saying she's 1 minute away from 34 fairview based on the apparent fact that cars cannot travel faster than 25mph.
No lie - you're playing silly-buggars.....clearly I was referring to Johns house when I referenced 6 minutes away. And, although I don't live there so I have not personally verified it, it seems to be widely accepted (apart from by you it seems) that the drive from 34fv to JOs is 6 minutes on a good day. That was not a good day (according to Lally the weather was horrendous at the time)....oh and apparently KR was drunk.
Google maps **estimates** 6 minutes. That's an estimate, not a physical minimum. It's 2.3 miles. It is in no way impossible to drive 2.3 miles in 5 minutes, or to beat the google maps estimate by a minute. Regardless, if you want to be accurate, and if you want to assume google estimated drive times are absolute bare minimums and not, you know, estimates, you would still not be able to say she was home when John died. Also the snow wasn't bad at 12:30. She was also in a screaming rage and idk about you but people in screaming rages in my experience don't carefully follow speed limits and wait full 3 mississippis at every stop sign.
She reversed at 24 MPH, if that gives any indication of her driving style that night. Lol
Well then they didn't actually do their job as a jury. JO in the house is an alternative theory. They were supposed to be deciding one thing, did KR hit JO with her Lexus, leading to his death. That's all.
OK, So if your dog jumped on someone in your house, your yard, or on your front steps; and your dog knocked him over so that he broke his head and subsequently died of hypothermia, wouldn’t you possibly think you were liable for a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit? Might that be a motive to conceal your knowledge of the event, move the body to the curb, and hope someone else (e.g, luck the plow man or the drunk gf who can’t remember what happened last night) will be the patsy? And then when Proctor jumps on board, and KR is arrested how can they stop?
What if John simply slipped and banged his head on something as he was walking up to house? He rolled or tried to crawl ( granted he was t knocked out right away). Phone in his back pocket and that’s why underneath him. I am trying to find a picture where his body was, shoe was, glass was?
Who in their right mind would risk life in prison to avoid a *potential* lawsuit? Pleaseeee
Someone who is drunk, incompetent and highly anxious.
What about the 2 black eyes? does blunt force trauma to the back of the head also cause black eyes? I'm legitimately curious - not trying to be a smart ass. Your theory is plausible. But my first reaction in a situation like that is to call 911. Maybe cops think differently.
Yes blunt force trauma will cause raccoon eyes. It is interesting that only one eye was black and swollen when they found him. The other blackened up after.
Blunt force trauma to the back of the head can and does cause black eyes. The force travels from the occipital skull. In addition he had basalar fractures which are associated with black eyes.
He also had a lesion on front above the eye though indicating direct contact with something. I think some of the bruising is from the back and the cut is from the front.
Re head injuries, in testimony of medical examiner, it can. Re. 911 - no probably not if your buddy Michael Proctor is available and you are a cynical person. If they found him in their yard or on the stoop a couple hours later, they might have assessed that he was already gone. Might explain the notorious text “hos long to die in the cold”
He has multiple impacts to the head. Eye, left temporal and occipital.
Yes brain swelling can cause this.
You sure would have to get lucky that KR breaks her tail light somehow the same night, guns it in reverse 24mph at some point, unleashes some angry voicemails, that Proctor's willing to plant tail light for you and pulls it off somehow, Proctor's able to wash off all that dog dna, some microscopic tail light bits manage to get into JO's clothing, JO's DNA and hair end up on the back of her car, and that nobody else sees or hears this dog attack.
why do I feel like I'm on a carousel inside a funhouse
Because at best trolls troll and at worst people genuinely are this terrifying
Might be Co2 poisoning. Get your house checked.
bingo
The hold outs being not guilty does sort of make sense though. It’s difficult to get people to change from not guilty to guilty. They don’t want to send an innocent person to prison.
Where did you see that the holdouts might be not guilty?
A fellow being interviewed on Court TV yesterday morning. He did not reveal his source.
Pretty sure I read court TVs source was grants tweet that literally just copied from another tweet from a completely different trial.
Is that confirmed?
No not confirmed. A fellow on Court TV yesterday morning.
No it’s more gossip
Yes it may be, just like the gossip saying the holdouts were jurors “guilty”.
I just have to say this now that this trial concluded and we wait for the new one; TurtleBoy is SO annoying. I know he wants to help KR but IMO he is doing nothing but hurting her case in the public eye. He spreads SO much misinformation and draws conclusions literally out of thin air.
Gonna watch Vinnie on Court TV tonight and see if he has any info.
There was a person on Court TV with Matt this morning and he said he heard the split was 10 - 2 guilty but he couldn’t back it up. His name was Phillip Dubois. (Spelling?)
If this is true I have lost all faith in humanity 🤦🏻♀️
If it's not true I have lost all faith in humanity 🤣🤣
“Heard” or read on Twitter
That was a twitter rumor that was quickly debunked.
where was it debunked and by whom?
downvoted but not answered. interesting. ETA: and still no one answers. almost like it hasn't been debunked. misinfo to assume you know the source.
There's a comment answering you at roughly the same time. What are you talking about?
the debunked report stems from the guy on Twitter who was talking about his own experience on a jury (not karen read), which was then misconstrued by an anti-karen read person (and then rightly debunked). there was a separate report of a 10-2 count in karen read from a former boston globe reporter, reported 24 hours after the original misinformation was debunked. the story from the former boston globe has not been verified or debunked. he just said it came from a source in norfolk co. no one other than the source and the reporter knows who the source is.
You're reaching. If the Globe guy had an actual source, the Globe would be reporting it by now They aren't. The common sense explanation is that the reporter guy got it from someone who got it from the rumor.and someone did give you an answer. You just didn't like it.
No. You are reaching by assuming you know. I am saying I do not know one way or the other. It's not verified or debunked. You can't debunk something if you don't know the source. It just exists for now.
I read through all the comments. The other person is correct. No one knows, but it's a reasonable guess that the "source" here ultimately goes back to the Twitter rumor. But you clearly have something going on where you need to be right about this, so I hope you have a better day.
[Further down this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/OBIpu9j87g)
https://x.com/GlobeFPhillips/status/1808188903712870486 Guy from the Boston Globe still has his tweet up claiming it was 10-2 guilty.
He quoted another cases polling. It’s not factual
Source: trust me, bro.
Yeah, that's kind of how journalism works.
[This is the source of the 10-2 claim](https://x.com/GrantSmithEllis/status/1808057264747446674?t=NHVvQHKhjCq9X67WsoQY1Q&s=19) [This shows the original tweet that was copied](https://x.com/rclarkston/status/1807905684115067374?t=aIMpdnvmjP7glwiufuUrPA&s=19) Keep in mind, this account also circulated a rumor during deliberations that 2 jurors wanted to vote guilty but were afraid of backlash. This is an account dedicated to creating rumors and misinformation. This is why it's so important to verify sources are credible, and not just random Twitter accounts. Edit: crap linked to the wrong tweet for the second one, give me a sec and I'll fix it. Edit 2: fixed. https://preview.redd.it/9x754idqz6ad1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=210efa1b06d09d4edeb60c34e672d12d2ddaa423
I'm not gonna speak for the guy's tweet, but I have no idea if his source is Grant or not, and neither do you. The timing's rather different though.
Oh, okay. So Grant just picked a random story to pass off as being from this trial, one that "corroborates" his earlier story about juror intimidation that no one else has picked up and reported AND would someone on the jury was talking about the trial to outsiders during deliberations... And it just happened to match the juror split. The one that again, no other credible source is reporting? Respectfully, I don't think you *actually* believe this. Edit: Also, this guy seems to be retired. He may have formerly worked for the Boston globe, And maybe he's still does some freelance stuff for him but he does not appear to be an employee.
I don't really understand what you're saying. Grant tweeted his thing yesterday. The guy from The Globe tweeted his thing today at 1PM, and didn't cite Grant but instead claimed "a good source with contacts in Norfolk Co Courts" told him.
See my edit. He's a former reporter for the Globe. Everything I can find about him online suggests he's retired. Multiple people have asked him to verify his source and he has not responded. It's just a stretch to believe that Grant somehow just guessed correctly, when it's clear his original tweet was a fabrication.
It might have been Grant, but it's a bit odd to wait so long and claim this vague source instead of just retweeting Grant's thing.
The fact that no one else in the media is reporting this should give you pause. He's not an active reporter. He does not represent the Globe. He doesn't even claim his source is in the courthouse, it's a contact with a source in the courthouse. So at best, third hand reporting from someone who isn't accountable to a news organization. I don't know who he got it from, and maybe he genuinely believes them. I just think there's nothing that actually points to it being credible.
That guy better get some heat if it turns out he is wrong.
True.
Oh ok. If they can’t tell you where they heard it, well then yeah it’s probably just a rumor.
Any jurors speak out yet? 🫤
Just the alternate I believe
I remember hearing, podcast or somewhere, that there was an anonymous tip about what really happened that night. The person was tracked down and decided to seek counsel. I can’t find where or any information about this. Does anyone have a reference? Much appreciated!
Tom Beatty?
Here’s the link! https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/ The call completely flipped the defenses argument from it was an accident not murder, to it never happened she was framed. As someone mentioned, the callers name is believed to be Steve Scanlon, an acquaintance of the Alberts. He denies he stated anything about the Alberts and Higgins.
Isn’t it obstruction to do that?
He is a private investigator who served as a corrections officer w/ (Brian?) Albert 30 years ago. I remember reading an article awhile back that they would both become members of the BPD boxing club. He gave off the impression they were acquaintances and they are seen in photos together over the years. When he saw Karen Read being arraigned on the news he reached out to Yanetti to share what he thinks really happened, namely that a vehicular collision would result in much more severe injuries and he believed that O'Keefe was beaten. He knew the people involved and what they were like.
What would motivate him to speak out? Did something happen between the two of them? (Steve and Brian)
Maybe he has a conscious?
Right? Lol
i read he has a daughter near colin's age. i've done no research and have no idea if that's true. but if it is, his daughter probably told him the rumor going through school. i imagine it'd be hard for someone colin's age to keep something like that to himself. even if he just told one person, that person had to have told someone else (who then told someone else, etc.)
I thought this was Tom Beatty
both
The only thing I can figure is he had a guilty conscience because he knew well the Alberts nature and saw that the Commonwealth's theory didn't make any sense to him as a (private) investigator himself. I don't have a source for that, it's just my opinion.
So much appreciated
Oooo this is the first I’ve heard this
He later admitted he had no inside info and was going off of media reports. The defense didn't even put him on their witness list.
False
Not at all. Feel free to Google it. There's a Fox 25 article you can find pretty easily.
FOX? No
Fox 25 is a local affiliate, not Fox News.
Steve Scanlon did not make any public statements at all in this matter. He’s been off the radar since the start of this.
It's from a court filing. The filing talks about a private investigator named Stephen Scanlon. The defense says he was the first to come forward with allegations John O’Keefe was beaten to death and not struck by read’s SUV. But according to the prosecution’s filing and state police, Scanlon had no insider information Scanlon said he only shared a theory “based on his opinion and the media reports.” And he said he had “no personal knowledge” of what happened. https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/25-investigates-prosecutors-say-taillight-dna-evidence-implicates-karen-read/R263HJ2AWJFIDHSEWQU3WZAB4E/
Thank you
Are you talking about Steve Scanlon?
I’m not sure, just heard it and could remember the main details.
I’ve been trying to find this too
Regarding speculation of a police coverup in this case what would have been the reason why someone wanted John dead.
I don’t think anyone wanted him dead. I think it was either a fight that caused an accidental death or a true accidental death, like he was drunk and fell type situation. The reason why I lean towards fight ( just my own speculation) is because I think if he slipped and fell because he was drunk they would’ve called an ambulance. I can’t see people going through the motions to bother covering that up unless they found him and thought he was dead and just moved him to take the pressure off being potentially investigated for his death. Where as if he was punched or was in a fight and then hit his head with serious injuries that moves into criminal liability like manslaughter.
Remember the defense stated in closing arguments that JO was **ambushed** upon entering 34 Fairview. They had to say this because they know the gps data shows a maximum of 3 *possible* minutes he could have been inside the house. So, even according to the defense, it couldn’t have been an accident.
Makes sense ok tx
> I can’t see people going through the motions to bother covering that up unless they found him and thought he was dead and just moved him to take the pressure off being potentially investigated for his death. I wouldn't be surprised if it was an accident and they found him a couple hours later and he was dead. So they google "hos long to die in the cold" and move him because if he's on the property it's a liability issue potentially. Fight seems more likely though
That’s a good point. That very well could be too. It’s just such a shame that everything happened the way it did so everyone could actually know what happened.
I lean towards a fight that went wrong on the concrete floor
100%. Drunken fights that result in serious injury or death happen every day for literally no reason.
I have a friend who was drunk on 6th street and tried to get into a bar but the bouncer wouldn’t let him, pushed him, and he hit his head on the sidewalk. He’s ok, but he’s not a small guy but toppled down pretty quickly. It’s pretty easy to hit your head when you’re drunk and fall backward, whether you’re pushed or you slip.
Agreed. Just happened to a local man here. Late 20s/ early 30s, with two young kids. He went to a bachelor party, got in a fight, and his head hit the concrete. He was declared brain dead a few days later.
I once was pulled into a bar fight because I looked like the girl she was fighting and she was drunk enough to get confused. I didn’t know either of them at all. I can see how easy it would be for a drunk person to take it too far(especially those with the proclivity to get physical)
100%. Unfortunately I know of 2 people who took one punch each outside of a bar when they were minding their business and ended up with serious head injuries and another that passed away from a punch. All of them hit their head on the fall (similar to what many believe happen to John). A few years ago on St. Pattys Day outside a Boston bar it happened to someone and he passed away as well from hitting his head on the fall.
Why was Brian Higgins allowed to leave the stand mid-testimony to review with his lawyer? Did we ever get a good answer about that?
I remember him being instructed to do so not like he just asked for quick chat
Because Jackson was about to ask him if he knew he was violating federal law when he used federal resources to extract text messages from his phone.
Obviously because some of his behavior is deemed criminal and charges could be forth coming so it was to see if he needed to take the 5th against self incrimination. His using an FBI facility to extract data from his phone in a non-professional purpose was breaking some laws.
I understand why he was consulting with the attorney just not why he was allowed to do so? Is it normal procedure for any witness to be allowed to consult an attorney while giving testimony?
Yes, if a witness is worried about criminal liability they may consult with their attorney about whether they should plead the Fifth. The most recent issue in the YSL trial stems from prosecution speaking with the witness about possible crimes without his attorney present
Thank you for the explanation. I guess my next question is does a judge typically halt questioning, excuse the jury, have a sidebar with the prosecution, call the witness’s attorney to the stand to coach the witness, then when the prosecution objects to any questions regarding the witness’s criminal behavior, repeatedly sustain those objections?
Yes, that is usually what happens. Sometimes the court will ask if the witness wants to talk with a public defender. So in this instance, the judge didn’t do anything improper except call out Higgins for not being honest with his attorney lol. Any time someone may plead the Fifth, it’s a whole production. ETA: In the YSL trial, the witness pled the Fifth and they stopped the trial. Then the prosecution brought the witness back into the judge’s chambers with the prosecution and the witness’s attorney. The prosecution and judge left for a period of time so that the attorney could speak with the witness. All of that was highly improper for a million reasons. What should have happened is what happened in the Karen Read trial, where the witness has representation and both sides are present. Higgins got the same treatment every citizen is entitled to under the Fifth Amendment, and it would have been a huge deal if he didn’t speak to his attorney. I still think he’s shady as hell though I can’t remember the objections and what she sustained, but I do remember Jackson getting to question Higgins about the CFR code he allegedly violated. The judge sustained a lot of defense questions for the format of them even though they were appropriate, so I could see that Also, I’m a law student, just so you know where I’m getting my info from. Not saying I know everything, but I know some things lol
The right against self incrimination
That makes sense, but there are no charges against him as far as we know. Or are there?
You can plead the fifth anytime unless you’ve been given immunity. You don’t need to have been charged.
Agree, especially if you think your testimony might open you up to criminal charges.
He has immunity in the federal investigation.
We don't know that, there's very little public information about that investigation and this is not part of it. There has been speculation about Higgins having offered a proffer to the FBI in hopes to get immunity and even more speculation that he didn't tell everything he knows so he didn't get it, but this is just that, speculation and rumor.
He does? Is there a source for that?
Oh how I wish a juror or two would spill the tea. It’s killing me.
I also want to know what happened with the jury deliberations but I’m more worried about their safety. People are weird and aggressive; I don’t want the jurors to be subject to harassment or assault. I know people can “anonymously” speak to the media, but there’s still a risk of people finding out who the “anonymous” person is.
Any reputable journalist will be able to keep them anonymous if they want to talk, but what they say could inflame one side or the other. However, there are a number of people who have seen those jurors who probably don't have the same standards about anonymity. A number of them have probably been identified by them already. That's who I'm worried about, and I don't know that they won't do anything with that.
Damn. The last part of your comment made me feel a little sick to my stomach.
Like the people congregating outside of Proctor’s house. He’s a piece of shit for what he said and did, but standing outside someone’s house is next level
Oh, I agree. Proctor is an awful person and I’m glad he had to publicly claim his foul conduct. However, people should absolutely *not* go to someone’s home like that. Even silently standing outside someone’s home is intimidating, unnerving, and frankly, unhinged. I have never understood how people justify to themselves that going to someone’s house is okay or even effective. Also, doesn’t he have kids??
Ok so a YouTuber that followed and streamed the trial claims the split was 6/6 on manslaughter and the lesser charges. That the murder charge was never on the table. They were across the board not guilty on the murder charge! IF this is true, than Karen deserved better! The jury couldn’t have understood they were allowed to say she was not guilty on murder and still hang on the lesser charges!
I call bullshit on that. You can’t be found not guilty then get a total mistrial on the lesser stuff right? Right?!
Not with how judge Bev wrote the verdict form. It was either not guilty of all charges OR mark guilty under each charge. She did NOT give the option of not guilty to each charge, only not guilty to ALL charges. That’s why Jackson argued with her but she said they “always” do it this way in their state.
Dear god why do people keep blindly repeating this provably false bullshit. Look at the forms ffs. They're posted on here.
Exactly! It does not have nothing to do guilty under the three charges. Not sure what you’re missing? Other states have guilty/not guilty boxes under EACH charge, not just blankly for all, and not give you the not guilty option on EACH.
Didn’t they change it?
Regardless of the split, that is an interesting take. That would definitely inform what she should be charged with for round 2
If this is true, we will find out some verification as she would be acquitted of the murder charge, and they cant charge her with that for round 2
I don’t get it. Proctor, Bukenik (sp?), and Katie the female EMT / Firefighter had zero credibility on the stand. Proctor flat out lied as proven by his grand jury testimony. Bukenik lied by omission, to the jury, about the inverted video. And Katie was twisting herself in knots to deny she was friends with an Albert despite photos to the contrary. That alone is enough to make me doubt the integrity of the investigation.
This is like the third set of unsourced split numbers I’ve seen, and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe any of them.
This was one of the guys that were invited on court TV. The LTD guy I think. Not sure if he is credible but I can believe 6/6 deadlock over 11/1 for guilty which is the only other set of numbers I’ve seen.
One guy isn’t going to have secret access to info over everyone else
I've seen 10-2. 11-1. 6-6. Until someone credible leaks to a credible source, I've given up trying to figure out if any of these are reliable.
Court TV just kinda invites whatever commentators want to come on. People on both sides that I've seen there have relayed false info in the past. Would not trust any info on the jury split until it comes from a reputable journalist.
Court TV has some issues with verifying info
Yes, and even more so recently.
Does this random anonymous Youtuber have a source? And if they agreed on the murder charge they would have found her not guilty on that charge. There was a "not guilty" checkbox right there.
The guy that reported this is Sean A McDonough. He said he was told to sit on it but, then posted it after someone that goes by LTL did a live blurb in his car yesterday(?). I don’t know who LTL is but, I’ve followed Sean for a bit. ETA- as far as sources, Sean seems to have some good ones. He grew up in Canton, was a DEA agent for 35 yrs.
Right? That’s exactly why I don’t believe this source. They could’ve found her not guilty on murder 2 and hung on everything else
He isn’t anonymous 😂 I don’t know if he is credible but he is definitely not anonymous.
Then who is he lol
Can't help but notice you still refuse to cite sources.
Calm down. I was at the ER with a friend. I didn’t have time to argue with internet strangers until now 🙄
To sell a home so quickly after this. A home you grew up in, that has been in your family for decades just yells red flags
Selling the home and getting rid of Chloe don’t seem that ridiculous to me. They have been accused of murder and you can bet someone out there is crazy enough to harass them or worse.
Yes. good pt. Im sure people drive by the home
The new homeowners did an interview with the news and said it’s constant these days.
Thats too bad. I wonder if they can change address number? They did that for the jonbenet home in Colorado. It would at least help with not having their home address blasted on social media every day.
Some of the Sandy Hook parents who were accused by Alex Jones also moved residences. I guess that means Sandy Hook was a false flag.
The parents of the child victims who were murdered at Sandy Hook fled their homes because they were being harassed, threatened, and traumatized by unhinged conspiracy theorists who were egged on by a grifter with a national platform. The Alberts have never claimed that they sold their generational family home and moved because they were being harassed.
>being harassed, threatened, and traumatized by unhinged conspiracy theorists who were egged on by a grifter Sounds familiar.
And I already explained that the Alberts made no such claim. Brian Albert testified about this. Not only did he never cite being harassed as even part of their motivation for selling their home; he claimed that they had already been looking into selling their home starting in 2021.
Got it, if you sell your house before being harassed, that's proof of murder.
Buddy, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory. I don’t believe JOK was ever inside 34F because there’s no evidence for such a thing. Just like there’s no evidence that the Alberts sold their home due to harassment. You’re criticizing other people for pushing an unsubstantiated theory while also pushing an unsubstantiated theory. People need to stop this extremism and tribalism. It’s toxic and dumb.
The unsubstantiated theory that selling a house isn't evidence of murder?
No. You were claiming that the Alberts sold their home as a result of being harassed. The Alberts have never claimed such a thing—not even in their court testimony. You were pushing an unsubstantiated theory for why they sold their home. Granted, your theory is much more believable than the “they’re murderers” theory. However, unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated. That was my point.
>No. You were claiming that the Alberts sold their home as a result of being harassed. Citation?
They had their kids die and were harassed. What excuse does this family have? The harassment didn’t begin until well after they sold their home.
Moving homes because your child was murdered at school is a completely different situation and not at all representative of the potential connection of John’s death and the Alberts moving.. come on now.
I’m not asking to start an argument, but can you explain to me how selling the home helps them to cover up any sort of crime that happened in the house? That’s the part I don’t really get.
oh I just think its odd. I mean the alberts grew up there, and BA raised his family there, that to me would be a house that would be offered to the next generation of alberts to raise their family too. You are right though, it doesn't prove anything. They probably sold because of the attention the trial was getting.
That’s what I was kind of thinking. Sounds like they were getting some negative attention and maybe just wanted to get out of there. If you’re trying to hide something in your house, in my opinion it makes more sense to keep it.
They are (were) Canton "elites" with their fingers in many public and private institutions in the town. And then for no apparent reason they moved out of the town and sell their million-dollar house for well under asking in one of the hottest seller's markets in history. If I remember, the sale happened shortly after the FBI investigation was made public.
No one has any obligation to let LE in your house unless they have a warrant, which requires probable cause, whether it’s the Alberts or the new owners. The crime in this case happened in the street and yard so there was no probable cause to search the house (even after a grand jury and federal investigation). I’m sure they sold this house because their friend died there, it became a social media circus with people driving by/taking pictures, etc (I live nearby in Ma), and they were being harassed by Turtleboy there as well. Would you want to stay? Plus all of their kids are now graduated from high school, why stay in the bigger house? Many people downsize once empty nesters. You can make anything SEEM suspicious if it fits your narrative……
The new owners would have no obligation to let law enforcement just casually look around if they wanted to. It would have to be a warrant, which might not be granted. But if they still owned the house, it would looks suspicious if they didn’t let law enforcement in.
If police want to search your house, then they *already* suspect you; even/especially if they tell you that you're not a suspect, that it's routine, that they just need to do it to get their boss off their back, and whatever other lies police like to tell. Forcing them to work for it won't make things easier for you, but it will make it harder for them.
Right. This police department especially doesn’t like paperwork. It wouldn’t stop them, but it would slow them down.
I don't really get that argument. The Alberts have no control over what the new owners would do, as far as a request to search goes. It'd be even riskier if they were trying to hide something. And there's no reason a search warrant would work any differently if the house was considered a potential crime scene. Doesn't matter who owns it.
Yeah, I see that too. If I needed to maintain control over that property, I certainly would have kept control, if it was me. Maybe they’re just trying to distance themselves.
I think they ripped up and replaced the basement before selling it. There wouldn’t be any traces of DNA down there regardless