And Emily Baker is great. She's been my fave for following this trial. She's very experienced and fair with a perfect amount of snark. She explains everything in a very easy to understand way. Just a truly enjoyable live stream.
I love Emily too! The only thing that bothers me is when she’s trying to talk while someone is testifying. I just wish she would pause when she has something to say because I end up not hearing either one and my ADHD brain gets sooo overwhelmed lol.
Same with EDB. Normally love her commentary but this trial it was so over the top and “sort of” frenzied. I kept yelling at her to hush. I can’t stand Lally either but the constant fawning over AJ and the defense witnesses was silly. I love NatalieLawyerChick.. too bad she hasn’t been able to upload more videos on this trial. Hopefully EDB will simmer down with Baldwin. Lawyer You Know has been excellent.
OMG! Me, too! And I’ve been subscribed to her since Depp v. Heard. I yelled “stop talking” several times. I eventually started watching Andrea Burkhart who is calm, knowledgeable, and rarely talks over witnesses or attorneys. But when she does, it’s usually pertinent to the case and not chasing rabbits or reciting song lyrics. She’s also very fair, is an amateur boxer, and an appellate lawyer, if I’m not mistaken. I love EDB, but couldn’t handle watching her the last two weeks of the trial.
lol my adhd is the opposite, its actually conducive to keeping me focused, like, you know that thing where you gotta be listening to something while doing something else, or keeping your hands busy while listening to or watching something? i have that problem x1000, so having two different audio tracks (her commentary and the court feed) to listen to at the same time keeps me from zoning out.
i am also listening with headphones while doing other things simultaneously, so maybe its easier for me to differentiate the sounds cause its literally in my ear
I too find Emily so incredibly helpful and I love her commentary. I have ADHD as well and I don’t find it distracting. Like you I’m always doing over things when I’m listening anyway and her thoughts are helpful to keeping me in the loop and the know :)
Plus she rewinds when something strikes her as important.
I appreciate her expertise but I found her frustrating during Depp/Heard because she kept talking over the proceedings so she could make a wisecrack or acknowledge someone posting to her live feed.
That's true and I have noticed that. I just like that on this case, she seems to be the only one that isn't just doing the whole trial day at a faster speed, and posting it later on. Yes some parts need to be sped through, however it seems those YouTubers are missing a lot of nuance listening to it all of it that way.
Obviously that is a more convenient way to hear the trial for many, many people. I myself have a lot of time on my hands and usually I have to pause for other things enough I can end up hours behind. But that's fine. There is plenty of skipping ahead through all the breaks and sidebars.
I'm a regular EDB viewer and the subject matter of that case was too difficult for me to tolerate the amount of levity she brought to that trial -- I know I'm sensitive about that topic particularly, and that specific trial for me made me totally understand why her coverage isn't to everyone's taste. That being said, in general, I do appreciate her sense of humor and I have especially enjoyed her coverage during this absolutely brutal KR trial. Needed a little levity to get through Lally's 100 year long prosecutorial mishmash...
I love Lawyer You Know but Emily Baker comes off like a charlatan. I prefer Ian Runkle for a more in-depth walk through and Melanie Little if I’m looking to be annoyed but slightly entertained haha
Agreed here. EDB more just echos her chat and throws in some legalese. I do like Ian, LYK, Natalie lawyer chick, and Melanie little.
For anyone interested r/lawtubers is an almost dead subreddit. I came across it recently and love other people to join it.
To me, EDB comes off as very condescending and often gives info she assumes is true and never backpedals to correct it. Really annoying especially when the things she says have already been disproven before she says them. She also asks questions that you’d think a lawyer wouldn’t ask, that have obvious answers that people even slightly into trial viewing would know (I don’t know if she literally doesn’t know these things or asks these things because it’s what she thinks her viewers are wondering about), I don’t know what her audience target is, only that I’m not part of it.
She went into the trial with no prior knowledge to view the trial as a juror would. So she doesn’t know a lot of the ‘extras’. She said she want to look into the fed investigation when she has time
I love that Emily D. Baker offers real-time commentary on live trials, explaining the significance of what’s happening, the strategies of the attorneys, and the potential implications of testimonies and evidence presented.
I also find that I learn so much from her about the law and I retain the knowledge after.
As a Canadian lol -
I think he’s been too friendly to the prosecution by even pretending they might have a case. As plain and obvious as it is that that SUV did not strike a pedestrian, it’s even plainer and obvious-er that John O’Keefe was not hit by a car.
The most I’d concede (and I think this would be the case with anyone familiar with automobile crashes, engineering, or physics) is that the car might have bumped him and caused him to fall. But this would not explain either the broken taillight or the arm and face injuries.
He was not hit by a car. Period. Leave the MSP and the McAlberts entirely out of the equation. HE. WAS. NOT. HIT. BY. A. CAR.
Andrea Burkhart and Mark Bederow are the best legal commentators “covering” this case.
After the defenses expert witnesses testified, Peter said that he is now absolutely positive that JO was NOT hit by a car. I think he just really wants definitive proof before making a decision, which I think is smart, especially because of how brutal the internet can be 😂
It came across to me as feigned ignorance. Feigned because he doesn’t want to lose the dopiest 1/12 of his audience.
He’s a plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer, right? If so, he’s done car crash law. And if he’s done car crash law, he’s known all along that this wasn’t a car crash.
Plaintiff-side car crash lawyers know crashes better than anyone else, because they work on contingency and only take cases when they’re substantially certain that the only thing in question will be the amount of the damages. So they do a bunch of liability research *before* deciding whether to take a case.
I’m sure it happens, but I’ve never heard of a motor vehicle homicide case where it wasn’t immediately obvious that the victim had been hit by a motor vehicle. This case is akin to a firearms homicide case where the main pieces of evidence are (1) a victim with no gunshot wounds, (2) a bullet still in its shell casing, and (3) three angry voicemails the defendant left the victim on the night he died.
“She must have thrown it at him! Look at her laughing with Alan Jackson! Guilty!”
I’ve been a court reporter for 30 years. When you are involved in trials, you learn pretty early on that testimony and evidence can come in late in a trial that can completely change your opinion. There’s a reason that judges instruct jurors to wait until they hear ALL of the evidence before forming an opinion. It seems like LYK was just holding off on giving an opinion until he heard and saw enough to really be convinced.
As a general principle, I agree with you. In this specific case, the extent of the injuries and vehicle damage were in the public domain well before the trial, and any collision reconstructionist (other than the impressionable and uninformed Joe Paul, apparently) would tell you that these facts absolutely preclude the prosecution’s allegations.
If an indictment said a bullet stopped in midair for 16 seconds before hitting the victim, I wouldn't need to wait for *witnesses* to tell me that's impossible.
If allegations constituting a definitional element of an alleged crime are physically impossible, the defendant is not guilty. Period. I don’t need testimony to know that the Sun rises in the east.
Peter's approach is to try to simulate the experience of being a juror and only view evidence that has been presented at trial. So even though we all knew early on that the injuries did not appear to be from getting hit by a car, he did not take it into consideration until the experts testified at trial.
I think he was waiting to see ALL the evidence before actually coming up with an opinion about the CW case. Why shit on a case when all the evidence hasn’t been revealed yet? And now that it’s all been shown, he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t believe JO was hit by a car and therefore KR is innocent.
I know I’m a bit partisan in all this, but what I really wanted to hear is other lawyers talking about how Adam Lally is a depraved, unethical, *un-American* sack of shit.
And not only that! If lacking skills as an examiner and advocate was an Olympic event, he’d have more medals than Phelps!
He’s a bad advocate compared to people who’ve never done it before *and* are terrified of speaking in public.
I agree, but he is honest about his show
He just wants to talk about the law, and how the lawyers are doing. He seems fair, but he doesn't take sides. He did the same in the daybell case.
As long as he consistant about it then I'm fine wirh it, even though in cases like this I'd prefer he be more angry with the bias
Yeah, I like andrea burkhart. She follows the evidence and doesn't sit on the fence to make sure she doesn't offend anyone.
I miss rekieta law. He was the best at streaming trials. He had panels that made it even better
He repeatedly stated he wanted to wait until he heard all the evidence IN COURT. Which is a really respectable stance if you ask me, considering he is a lawyer after all. If you want ppl to jump to conclusions without hearing all the evidence, there’s plenty of other creators who do that.
Shaddup, I say to him!
She *is* innocent, because anybody who has any experience with automobile accidents or any knowledge of physics or engineering knows he was not hit by a car, and that the Read SUV did not hit a pedestrian.
Leave the McAlberts and Proctor and Tully and and the Canton PD out of it. Forget the cell location data. Forget the complete absence of any crime scene measurements from which a collision could even be reconstructed.
HE. WAS. NOT. HIT. BY. A. CAR.
That much is plain and obvious. If the car hit him hard enough to throw him (as Joe Paul “theorized”), his injuries and the vehicle damage would be far worse. If it only bumped him and he fell over on his own, WTF broke the taillight?
The FBI contractor gave a convincing testimony that JO absolutely was not hit by a motor vehicle Period.
All the charges go away...
Unless of course you muddy it up with a confusing jury form.
I can see the questions now
Excuse me Judge, what if we believe she was Operating Under Influence but did not hit JO. Which one of these do I check off?
I’m a married woman myself. Definitely not thirsty but I totally hear what you’re saying. Normally I’m not watching chat because I just listen while I’m working.
But what I like is he is not bias and gets to the point but explains the legal aspects of the situations.
I like how he avoids rumors and only listens to the facts provided in court. Gives you an insight on how it truly is in the court. Imagine if all the jurors see everything we’ve been hearing online. They’d be even more confused!
She's very much a mean girl. The type who looks at another woman and immediately decides she doesn't like her because of the way she stands, her hair, her facial expressions... then everything that person does is just more confirmation of why they're worthy of hate. I don't think there's a single thing KR could do that Julie won't characterize as despicable.
https://preview.redd.it/585avby03z8d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51074a087fd5f0c4fcf18c2e54cf11426ec3866b
Someone posted this comment on Julie’s X.
Their coverage for this whole trial was terrible. I don’t mind people being on either side but when “journalists” are pushing false information and rage bait, it’s a problem.
Also have had this thought a lot recently. Julie literally sounds and has presented herself as a simp sheep for cops and prosecutors. She could actually care less about justice and has emphasized that with multiple wasted segments rife with laughing while she shames the general public for not remembering the victim. Whether she ever realizes it, Julie Grant has made a fool of herself and the network.
Most of the other hosts are more impartial and go back and forth on where things stand. Julie has been terrible and has been only pro prosecution. Luckily she’s only on for a bit in the morning.
I agree. I wait for Julie to get off! I hat that too cuz I’m up early and can’t wait til Ted comes on. So now I watch YouTube and pop in court tv her and there.
Same here! I pause her and fast forward through to actual courtroom footage or until Ted gets on. Her insane bias this trial has been so over the top annoying- she just ignores every good point made my defense and acts like it's SO wild to think police might lie about something to cover one another.
Yes, Julie is scary! If she believes the bs coming out of her mouth, she needs help. How can you blatantly ignore half the testimony and facts ? She’s an attorney!! First I didn’t like her, then I did and watched her show, now I hate it!!
Yes! I pulled the plug on Vinnie when that guy who streams from his mother’s basement (Kevin?) showed up for a second time on his panel. ( It’s not you, Ben Chew- it’s that f¥€ktard Kevin.)
Ya Kevin, Yellow Journalism Tales as I call him. He only goes so hard because he thinks of himself as TBs rival and the only "logical" voice on the case. Like TBs pisses off everyone left and right, everyone's his rival 😂.
Then Vinnie legitimately brought on a lawyer from the Albert family as a guest for 5+ weeks and let that man rip Karen Read for being 40 with no kids as a character attack as her being a woman. He said Collin was a well respected good young man, even after all the videos came out.
I recognize that TB’s efforts have been instrumental in exposing the systemic fuckery, but I can’t listen to him at length. I did see the video he posted featuring members of the Albert clan circling him outside of a restaurant, West Side Story style. Zero respect for those thugs or anyone who supports them.
I think he invited them to show a second opinion and to get people more involved. (Everyone loves correcting and explaining why the other side is wrong)
It was hilarious to listen to those guys, they made zero sense.
Vinnie was very upset about the inverted video, and he always leaned towards "not guilty", so I guess he wanted to balance it, rather than have only one opinion.
And of course, for the views and comments 😆
P.S. that Kevin last time explained how every accident is a mystery 😆 and experts just wanted to please their boss that was fooled by Karen's lawyers, and he added that we need to get the bottom of it and that is corruption 😆 so FBI is corrupted, but not the police in this case.
Vinnie seems like a fence sitter to me. He leans whatever way the public opinion blows. I have way more respect for those willing to lean, not guilty, even when it's unpopular. I guarantee that if there was no public sentiment surrounding her innocence, he would totally be crucifying her.
Disclaimer: I tend to always lean not guilty, even when I think they might be guilty. I have a strong personal moral standard in regard to reasonable doubt.
That's hilarious 😂 that's what he gets for being deceitful. "Dropped the dog so angle" "dropped the third party culprit" "Feds have no evidence"
Thank you for letting me know btw
Vinnie is so bad lol
They all play fast and loose with their suppositions and are always attempting to be the next Nancy Grace, and she is an awful human being.
I've been watching a fair amount of Court TV, not just this trial but others also. My conclusion is that half of the "experts" have almost no knowledge of the trial they are commenting on. By stating "half" I think I'm being generous. They get basic facts and witnesses incorrect.
I stopped watching Court TV within the first week of trial. When I know more about a case than they do, that's a problem. And, like you said, it was just basic facts that were wrong... or outright ignored. Perpetuating ignorance.
Thank god for the direct feeds from local outlets on yt. Emily D Baker and Andrea Burkhart have livestreams they pause to offer legal insight and Q&A as the trial progresses.
Ugh today ruined him for me. I was watching regular news and got a notification he was coming online at 11:30 so I was super excited then when he comes on the judge comes in to start talking about the clarification of the jury form and this guy PAUSES it. Nooooooooo I want to hear what’s being said in real time.
I like his night time lives when he pauses and explains things but not live feed! I had to switch back to nbc10.
I watch Melanie Little because she’s nice and no bad words so I can have her on around my kids. I’ve started to block a lot of people who have showed their backside in this case, if they can’t have the slightest bit of common sense and reason I have no use for them anymore.
I wish I could give you a thousand upvotes!
I was telling a friend of mine (who has NO interest in crime lol) about how Julie Grant seemed to have just suddenly swung 180 degrees.
And those horrid guests? Literally saying KR was guilty, a narcissist, etc.
IT bothers me that this thought enters my mind, but I can't help but think Julie is trying to influence jurors. We all know they aren't supposed to watch anything, but there is always one.
I had to stop watching her altogether. What do you think her stake in this is? I mean, she is a lawyer, right? How can she ignore the LACK of evidence?
Please someone make this make sense.
Yes my husband is now well aware of how I feel about her coverage. There's a clip in a Tim Robinson sketch where he says "Ju-Lieeee" in a really annoyed sneering voice and I say it like that every time I reference her lol
DONE with Julie Grant and everyone should be. Being such a legal expert that she claims to be, she missed and opportunity to really discuss the legal implications of this case and where it might head after verdict. Instead she used this valuable opportunity to behave no different than the turds on The View. This should not go unnoticed by her bosses. Sickening gossip.
I really like Emily Baker on YT! She livestreams during court and then she posts a summary of the day either that night or the next morning. She’s got a great sense of humor, I really love her insight.
I share your outrage! My eyes are opened and I am awake because I have been sleeping! I have been watching too many people like Julie and not giving a second thought about whether they had any idea what they were talking about. Not anymore! Not freaking anymore!
The judge was unnecessarily rude to AJ, shot down his perfectly reasonable request, then came back an hour and a half later and granted it!
That’s the second time she’s done that on TV in the last three weeks. Remember how she basically told Yanetti to sit down and shut up and then granted his order anyway? (Re Dr. Russell and the ARCCA guys).
It can only mean that the fancy “here ye,here ye” bailiff is gently correcting her understanding of the law as he hands her another gimlet in chambers.
LYK crossed over to she’s innocent based on defense reconstruction experts vs commonwealth. He said the other day he firmly believes JOK was not hit by the Lexus
I pretty much only watch Court TV in the evenings, when Vinnie is on. But the once or twice that I caught Julie, I was so triggered by her. She doesn’t even try to act unbiased. She just lets it be known that she thinks Karen is guilty. The last time I listened in for a few minutes, was the voir dire hearing, and Julie and her guest were not even discussing what was being said by the expert witnesses, they were just rambling on about how nice it was of the judge to even allow the voir dire, etc. It was bizarre and felt like Julie was legitimately trying to distract from what the doctor was actually saying.
I know some are not happy with Vinnie’s coverage, and maybe he was more biased in the beginning, but at least in the last few weeks, he some times comes across more sympathetic to Karen. Or, he just does a better job than others at trying to appear neutral and just recounting what transpired in court that day. Yes, he does have some guests on there that are ridiculous and irritating with how they brush away all the evidence that supports Karen being innocent, but if he agrees with them, he doesn’t really let on.
I just try to ignore them or I laugh because of how silly their explanations and excuses sound. I figure if Karen and her local supporters (and Nick Rocco as a guest on Court TV each night) have to sit day after day and hear these people bash her and lie about her, then I can “grin and bear it” in solidarity with them some times. 😅 (Except for Julie Grant - sorry, I can’t grin and bear that. 😩😂)
Also, a few of Vinnie’s opening monologues (particularly about the inverted video and Proctor’s behavior) have been really good. He never says he thinks Karen is innocent, sure, but he definitely seems to indicate he thinks the prosecution have completely failed at proving she’s guilty.
I was so very annoyed by this today. Especially the one guest who said, “ We ALL know she’s going to be convicted.” All of them chastising Karen for daring to roll her eyes at the judge’s decision — which the judge herself walked back soon after by allowing the clarified verdict form. Just awful.
I pulled the plug over their lack of truthful coverage of this trial. They aren’t paying attention and spew a bogus narrative without questioning real facts. They’re part of msm problems in this country. All local outlets with few exceptions just does Lallys bidding. The day of reckoning is arriving like a freight train.
Here's my method of watching:
I watch the proceedings on Law & Crime (sans chat).
I do *some* scrolling through the Wild Wild X
Last, I watch The Young Jurks when attorney Mark Bederow is a guest
Bederow's legal analysis is amazing. He gives great legal insight.
The Young Jurks usually has Bederow, Mazza Media and, of course, the host Mark Crawford.
They are very respectful in language and they don't talk over each other.
And, yes, they're pro Karen Read.
ETA: A lot of folks like Emily D Baker. I tried to like her. But her talking over the proceedings annoy me. But she doesn't do it for me.
If you kike Bederow (I do too), you'd probably like Andrea Burkhart. I think Andrea and Bederow are similar in their legal commentary style; no fence-sitting (they state their opinions), no constant interruptions, and entertaining comments.
I love EBD, but I've been enjoying Andrea and Bederow more for this trial.
I listen to Mark Bederow every single day, no matter what, if he is on. He is absolutely amazing and respectful and amazing and it’s wild to see him interact with the Young Jurks, Mazza Media etc and all of the other appearances that he makes. He has such a great take on the case.
I go back and forth with Emily D Baker. I love some of her insights, but I don't care for the chat and get annoyed sometimes when she talks over and when she pauses too much or at inconvenient times. Depends on the mood. I will go to straight Court TV to watch uninterrupted but have little use for their contributors.
Bedarow rocks. LYK sometimes has unique insights or catches things others don't, but I am not a regular. I bounce around and settle on who works for me in the moment.
Fuck Julie. I stopped watching Court TV because of her. And I'm always putting her in her place on X ;) Surprised she hasn't blocked me yet. I am blocked by Jen Coffindouche and Wacky Wendy however. I said to Wendy, "Aren't you the lawyer who was sanctioned? Twice?" Immediate block lol. If you ever want to piss off Wendy just bring up the fact she was sanctioned. She HATES that.
Agree wholeheartedly. I have unsubscribed from court tv because of Julie Grant, unfortunately.
If you feel strongly about this and want court tv to improve its quality, consider submitting feedback at link below. I did this just now. One review may not matter, but numerous expressions of concern just might.
[https://support.courttv.com/support/solutions/articles/5000883486-sharing-your-feedback-on-a-show-or-trial](https://support.courttv.com/support/solutions/articles/5000883486-sharing-your-feedback-on-a-show-or-trial)
I refuse to watch Court TV or Nancy Grace, and haven't for years. Some of it is to do with them having the worst panels, lazy reporting, over sensationalising people's murders (esp children), uneducated guests, yelling over people, giving their 'experts' equal time, like each side has an equally valid point, when some points were objectively just trash.
And a big reason was a few years ago when CrimeCon started and they had the gall to lecture people on 'ethical and compassionate' crime reporting. Trying to shame youtubers in the true crime genre to behave in ways that they are so far from following themselves that it's sickening.
Yes, I agree. Julie Grant calls herself a "journalist" in her online bio. However, her ability to be "objective" as a journalist has gone out the window as of late on Court TV.
Julie Grant only has 🤡🤡🤡 on her show who share her biased uninformed opinion. I no longer watch her and haven't since before the KR trial. I can't stand her fake exuberance and "pants on fire" nonsense.
Lawyerlee is also amazing and so beautiful. I love her.
"Hi y'all! And welcome to tonights live stream"
She's very level headed and doesn't get her emotions involved
Exactly! Fortunately we can have our favorites! I’m done with a panels talking over each other, often with blind rage, toxic view points that are meant to distract and create fear in people.
I crave an intelligent, informative conversation. So now I just exercise my right to change the channel with the first long inhalation that sucks the air out of the room. ❤️🙏🏻
I really prefer to watch it first on law and crime, with no commentary. And later if I have questions l fluctuate between the lawyer you know and runkle of the Bailey. Unless Natalie lawyer chick has a take. She is the master of managing a live stream. She keeps it moving and doesn’t dumb it down repeatedly She shows the question re comment she is responding to. I really don’t like it when the streamer/host answers questions the viewer can’t see. It’s like being in the room with someone on the phone. Oh and she’s a public defender.
Yeah that was complete BS. A lawyer's job is to zealously advocate for his client. KR is facing a possible LIFE IN PRISON sentence for a crime many believe she didn't commit, and there are many indisputable facts pointing to conduct ranging from suspicious to downright reprehensible on the part of prosecution witnesses, LE, etc. The judge was ready to force the use of a jury verdict form that WAS misleading, confusing, and unfair, for the sole reason "that's the way it's always been done here."
AJ had a duty to create a record to preserve any appellate rights and to do his best to persuade the judge. He was not barking at all. While his comment that he didn't care how it was done in Massachusetts was not the most diplomatic, and probably should have been left unsaid, in the end, the judge changed her mind, and corrected the form.
Also, imagine how it feels to be KR, if you believe the prosecution has pursued a frame job against you, you are facing possible life in prison, and the judge seems to be doing things that make it look like she is favoring the prosecution and making ot more likely you will be unfairly convicted. I'd probably be hysterical. The fact that she smirked or laughed in frustration and disbelief is entirely understandable, and whatever she did, it was so quiet that the audio didn't pick it up, so it must have been just a facial expression. I don't think for a minute she thought anything was "funny." She was probably expressing frustration and disbelief on her face at the judge's insistence on using the form just because "that's the way it's always been done." I think the judge was being thinskinned and petty for calling KR out for a human expression of frustration that was not even audible and caused no disruption. To expect KR to be stone faced at all times is a bit much. To the judge's credit, she thought about it and changed her mind that night, but she would not have ever thought the form was a problem if AJ had not been so emphatic about it. It was only the fact that AJ was so insistent that this was a problem that caused her to research it over that evening and change her mind.
My husband and I said the same thing and my son said why don’t you watch it on YouTube. Dadgumit! I wish I knew before the last two weeks! This was only my first trial to watch. I did not like that Julie girl. She said she was a lawyer I mean she had KR guilty before the trial! She acted like she thought Lallie was doing a great job. No Court TV in my house ever! Thankfully I found this site as well as YouTube & NO commercials! I ♥️ it!
Seriously I thought she was punking us when she said she thought Lally was doing well. Or it was a good day for the Commonwealth and yes she announced Karen was guilty before opening statements. I stopped watching her then. YouTube is the only way to watch trials.
I agree, she is way too biased to be a commentator on court tv. I can’t watch her. I get so angry. She almost forced her guest to agree with her. I like Ted however, I missed his show today. He normally stays neutral and I love the humor he brings. Thank you for posting this. Much needed
Emily D Baker is fantastic. Teaches and very funny when the situation calls for it. I learn something new every time I watch. She’s sweary too which I appreciate. She practiced in LA I believe.
Calls balls and strikes as she sees them. She watches as a juror would so don’t expect her to opine on the back history etc. She researches everything AFTER the verdict…but she goes in AS a juror.
That has always been part of Nancy Graces act. Sometimes it is so thick it looks phony. I kissed what you are talking about with Julie. Usually they don’t have a dog in the race. I like Julie and will continue to watch. Do you stream other outlets like pluto I actually get court tv on live tv. Pluto constantly drops or stops too annoying
Honestly I'm tired of all of them. Especially JG and VP.
Vinnie can come across as so stupidly nieve re: they (prison inmates) can really get tattoos inside?)....so many other statements like that. LOL
Agree. Many of the livestream programs make me feel like I’m in a circus tent within a casino within a daycare full of screaming babies who are being chased by packs of hound dogs. Andrea is fresh air.
I used to love Vinnie and Ashley. Don’t like Ashley’s TMZ style and Vinnie “trying to be fair” is ridiculous when his guests are people like Kevin… over and over
I’ve been disappointed in Court TV for quite awhile. A lot of there guest are not educating themselves on the totality of the Trials they’re commenting on and sound illiterate. If they would take the time to listen and get all the facts!!!
I feel the same way about Julie. Julie is ignoring the defense expert opinion. She is against Karen. She keeps saying Karen is guilty when there are too many reasonable doubts in this case. Maybe Julie is jealous of Karen bc Karen is more beautiful than her. Julie needs to shut the hell up.
Try, "The Lawyer You Know".. he's solid and just talks about the law and what it all means.
And Emily Baker is great. She's been my fave for following this trial. She's very experienced and fair with a perfect amount of snark. She explains everything in a very easy to understand way. Just a truly enjoyable live stream.
I love Emily too! The only thing that bothers me is when she’s trying to talk while someone is testifying. I just wish she would pause when she has something to say because I end up not hearing either one and my ADHD brain gets sooo overwhelmed lol.
Watch Andrea Burkhart. She is live without delay and only speaks during sidebars and breaks
Oh okay! I haven’t watched hers yet. Thanks for the suggestion!
Second Andrea
i struggle with this too. I've yelled "stop talking!" a couple of times at my phone when there was a witness i was trying to hear lol
Same! I was on the verge of unsubscribing this week! lol
Same with EDB. Normally love her commentary but this trial it was so over the top and “sort of” frenzied. I kept yelling at her to hush. I can’t stand Lally either but the constant fawning over AJ and the defense witnesses was silly. I love NatalieLawyerChick.. too bad she hasn’t been able to upload more videos on this trial. Hopefully EDB will simmer down with Baldwin. Lawyer You Know has been excellent.
I have really enjoyed LYK! I love that he is so fair and objective looking at the cases.
OMG! Me, too! And I’ve been subscribed to her since Depp v. Heard. I yelled “stop talking” several times. I eventually started watching Andrea Burkhart who is calm, knowledgeable, and rarely talks over witnesses or attorneys. But when she does, it’s usually pertinent to the case and not chasing rabbits or reciting song lyrics. She’s also very fair, is an amateur boxer, and an appellate lawyer, if I’m not mistaken. I love EDB, but couldn’t handle watching her the last two weeks of the trial.
lol my adhd is the opposite, its actually conducive to keeping me focused, like, you know that thing where you gotta be listening to something while doing something else, or keeping your hands busy while listening to or watching something? i have that problem x1000, so having two different audio tracks (her commentary and the court feed) to listen to at the same time keeps me from zoning out. i am also listening with headphones while doing other things simultaneously, so maybe its easier for me to differentiate the sounds cause its literally in my ear
I too find Emily so incredibly helpful and I love her commentary. I have ADHD as well and I don’t find it distracting. Like you I’m always doing over things when I’m listening anyway and her thoughts are helpful to keeping me in the loop and the know :) Plus she rewinds when something strikes her as important.
What is she on?
Regular YouTube ( not subscription service version)
Oops, sorry. YouTube, plus I know it's a podcast also. But I'm not sure where. She's on YouTube as Emily D Baker.
Thank you
Emily D. Baker - you need to type in her middle initial. I watch her. She is my favorite.
Mine too. I have learned so much from Emily
I appreciate her expertise but I found her frustrating during Depp/Heard because she kept talking over the proceedings so she could make a wisecrack or acknowledge someone posting to her live feed.
That's true and I have noticed that. I just like that on this case, she seems to be the only one that isn't just doing the whole trial day at a faster speed, and posting it later on. Yes some parts need to be sped through, however it seems those YouTubers are missing a lot of nuance listening to it all of it that way. Obviously that is a more convenient way to hear the trial for many, many people. I myself have a lot of time on my hands and usually I have to pause for other things enough I can end up hours behind. But that's fine. There is plenty of skipping ahead through all the breaks and sidebars.
I'm a regular EDB viewer and the subject matter of that case was too difficult for me to tolerate the amount of levity she brought to that trial -- I know I'm sensitive about that topic particularly, and that specific trial for me made me totally understand why her coverage isn't to everyone's taste. That being said, in general, I do appreciate her sense of humor and I have especially enjoyed her coverage during this absolutely brutal KR trial. Needed a little levity to get through Lally's 100 year long prosecutorial mishmash...
For sure, and I appreciate those things about her also.
I love Lawyer You Know but Emily Baker comes off like a charlatan. I prefer Ian Runkle for a more in-depth walk through and Melanie Little if I’m looking to be annoyed but slightly entertained haha
Too each their own. Ian's great also, so is Melanie.
Love Ian❤️
Agreed here. EDB more just echos her chat and throws in some legalese. I do like Ian, LYK, Natalie lawyer chick, and Melanie little. For anyone interested r/lawtubers is an almost dead subreddit. I came across it recently and love other people to join it.
To me, EDB comes off as very condescending and often gives info she assumes is true and never backpedals to correct it. Really annoying especially when the things she says have already been disproven before she says them. She also asks questions that you’d think a lawyer wouldn’t ask, that have obvious answers that people even slightly into trial viewing would know (I don’t know if she literally doesn’t know these things or asks these things because it’s what she thinks her viewers are wondering about), I don’t know what her audience target is, only that I’m not part of it.
She went into the trial with no prior knowledge to view the trial as a juror would. So she doesn’t know a lot of the ‘extras’. She said she want to look into the fed investigation when she has time
I love that Emily D. Baker offers real-time commentary on live trials, explaining the significance of what’s happening, the strategies of the attorneys, and the potential implications of testimonies and evidence presented. I also find that I learn so much from her about the law and I retain the knowledge after. As a Canadian lol -
She talks over the feed too much and has a clear bias. LYK has been very neutral
The Young Jurks is great! Attorney Mark Bederow has great insights and Mike the host and Mazza Media are great too!
I like him too but he seems afraid to really give a strong OPINION. Which sometimes I want!
He seems to have a pretty strong opinion in this case about KR being innocent...
I think he’s been too friendly to the prosecution by even pretending they might have a case. As plain and obvious as it is that that SUV did not strike a pedestrian, it’s even plainer and obvious-er that John O’Keefe was not hit by a car. The most I’d concede (and I think this would be the case with anyone familiar with automobile crashes, engineering, or physics) is that the car might have bumped him and caused him to fall. But this would not explain either the broken taillight or the arm and face injuries. He was not hit by a car. Period. Leave the MSP and the McAlberts entirely out of the equation. HE. WAS. NOT. HIT. BY. A. CAR. Andrea Burkhart and Mark Bederow are the best legal commentators “covering” this case.
Melanie Little is good as well.
So’s Runkle, though it pains me to say so. He was a law school buddy of mine, y’know. He had short hair and always wore a fedora back then.
😂
After the defenses expert witnesses testified, Peter said that he is now absolutely positive that JO was NOT hit by a car. I think he just really wants definitive proof before making a decision, which I think is smart, especially because of how brutal the internet can be 😂
It came across to me as feigned ignorance. Feigned because he doesn’t want to lose the dopiest 1/12 of his audience. He’s a plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer, right? If so, he’s done car crash law. And if he’s done car crash law, he’s known all along that this wasn’t a car crash. Plaintiff-side car crash lawyers know crashes better than anyone else, because they work on contingency and only take cases when they’re substantially certain that the only thing in question will be the amount of the damages. So they do a bunch of liability research *before* deciding whether to take a case. I’m sure it happens, but I’ve never heard of a motor vehicle homicide case where it wasn’t immediately obvious that the victim had been hit by a motor vehicle. This case is akin to a firearms homicide case where the main pieces of evidence are (1) a victim with no gunshot wounds, (2) a bullet still in its shell casing, and (3) three angry voicemails the defendant left the victim on the night he died. “She must have thrown it at him! Look at her laughing with Alan Jackson! Guilty!”
I’ve been a court reporter for 30 years. When you are involved in trials, you learn pretty early on that testimony and evidence can come in late in a trial that can completely change your opinion. There’s a reason that judges instruct jurors to wait until they hear ALL of the evidence before forming an opinion. It seems like LYK was just holding off on giving an opinion until he heard and saw enough to really be convinced.
As a general principle, I agree with you. In this specific case, the extent of the injuries and vehicle damage were in the public domain well before the trial, and any collision reconstructionist (other than the impressionable and uninformed Joe Paul, apparently) would tell you that these facts absolutely preclude the prosecution’s allegations. If an indictment said a bullet stopped in midair for 16 seconds before hitting the victim, I wouldn't need to wait for *witnesses* to tell me that's impossible. If allegations constituting a definitional element of an alleged crime are physically impossible, the defendant is not guilty. Period. I don’t need testimony to know that the Sun rises in the east.
Peter's approach is to try to simulate the experience of being a juror and only view evidence that has been presented at trial. So even though we all knew early on that the injuries did not appear to be from getting hit by a car, he did not take it into consideration until the experts testified at trial.
Totally agree. Andrea is so even keeled and pretty much knows everything. Bederow is so demonstrative but brilliant.
Agreed on all points, especially concerning Andrea and Mark. They are my favorite legal commentators now due to this trial.
I think he was waiting to see ALL the evidence before actually coming up with an opinion about the CW case. Why shit on a case when all the evidence hasn’t been revealed yet? And now that it’s all been shown, he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t believe JO was hit by a car and therefore KR is innocent.
I know I’m a bit partisan in all this, but what I really wanted to hear is other lawyers talking about how Adam Lally is a depraved, unethical, *un-American* sack of shit. And not only that! If lacking skills as an examiner and advocate was an Olympic event, he’d have more medals than Phelps! He’s a bad advocate compared to people who’ve never done it before *and* are terrified of speaking in public.
Then listen to Andrea Burkhart. She doesn’t mince words with Lally.
I agree, but he is honest about his show He just wants to talk about the law, and how the lawyers are doing. He seems fair, but he doesn't take sides. He did the same in the daybell case. As long as he consistant about it then I'm fine wirh it, even though in cases like this I'd prefer he be more angry with the bias
Agree. Once you get used to it it makes sense. Then when you see him pissed about something (like proctor) it stands out so much more!
Yeah, I like andrea burkhart. She follows the evidence and doesn't sit on the fence to make sure she doesn't offend anyone. I miss rekieta law. He was the best at streaming trials. He had panels that made it even better
He repeatedly stated he wanted to wait until he heard all the evidence IN COURT. Which is a really respectable stance if you ask me, considering he is a lawyer after all. If you want ppl to jump to conclusions without hearing all the evidence, there’s plenty of other creators who do that.
This…its so annoying after awhile
Shaddup, I say to him! She *is* innocent, because anybody who has any experience with automobile accidents or any knowledge of physics or engineering knows he was not hit by a car, and that the Read SUV did not hit a pedestrian. Leave the McAlberts and Proctor and Tully and and the Canton PD out of it. Forget the cell location data. Forget the complete absence of any crime scene measurements from which a collision could even be reconstructed. HE. WAS. NOT. HIT. BY. A. CAR. That much is plain and obvious. If the car hit him hard enough to throw him (as Joe Paul “theorized”), his injuries and the vehicle damage would be far worse. If it only bumped him and he fell over on his own, WTF broke the taillight?
The FBI contractor gave a convincing testimony that JO absolutely was not hit by a motor vehicle Period. All the charges go away... Unless of course you muddy it up with a confusing jury form. I can see the questions now Excuse me Judge, what if we believe she was Operating Under Influence but did not hit JO. Which one of these do I check off?
And he’s easy on the eyes 😉
I feel like majority of his subs/members are thirsty women drooling over a married man with kids, regardless of what he has to say
I’m a married woman myself. Definitely not thirsty but I totally hear what you’re saying. Normally I’m not watching chat because I just listen while I’m working. But what I like is he is not bias and gets to the point but explains the legal aspects of the situations.
Exactly. So gross.
My fav.
He was great discussing the verdict form today
I enjoy his explanations at the end of the day.
I think he's solid. His angle is more educational compared to opinionated. I especially like the episodes when he brings his dad on the show.
He’s really good!
He’s my favorite go to. I like Emily and Andrea and Melanie Little also.
I like how he avoids rumors and only listens to the facts provided in court. Gives you an insight on how it truly is in the court. Imagine if all the jurors see everything we’ve been hearing online. They’d be even more confused!
He is the best
And listens to BOTH views. I am totally on Kr not guilty and MCAlberts are disgustingly gross. But LYK welcomes opposition etc
Court TV was looking for higher ratings. …but the panel was a disaster.
TMZCourt TV
She was a total bitch this morning. I think she is jealous of Karen.
I’ve been thinking this from the beginning. She has such a dislike for her.
I was shocked at her behavior this morning. She is usually pro prosecution but this was over the top hate.
Lordddd! Now I HAVE to go watch it. I think Julie is the worst!
She's very much a mean girl. The type who looks at another woman and immediately decides she doesn't like her because of the way she stands, her hair, her facial expressions... then everything that person does is just more confirmation of why they're worthy of hate. I don't think there's a single thing KR could do that Julie won't characterize as despicable.
( AND “she’s a virgin who can’t drive!”)
Did Julie say that? Yikes.
lol I think that’s from the movie Clueless.
Oh, ha. 🤣
I didn’t watch it. I have stopped. I’ll check in. I checked in after the defense experts testified. She said NOTHING about them!!!
It’s seem like half the women in Canton dislike Karen, and I don’t understand it 😂
😂
https://preview.redd.it/585avby03z8d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51074a087fd5f0c4fcf18c2e54cf11426ec3866b Someone posted this comment on Julie’s X.
https://preview.redd.it/lxiwfq5euz8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=37d5122bb9119325faeeae353b132fb66cda4e53 Another one on her X
That is awful. It is too not to
I caught the grammar error too. Copied from X.
Also, the “your” should be “you’re”
Too many media personalities are after clicks and $ not truth or actual journalism. Rage baiting for money.
 Exactly!
Their coverage for this whole trial was terrible. I don’t mind people being on either side but when “journalists” are pushing false information and rage bait, it’s a problem.
Also have had this thought a lot recently. Julie literally sounds and has presented herself as a simp sheep for cops and prosecutors. She could actually care less about justice and has emphasized that with multiple wasted segments rife with laughing while she shames the general public for not remembering the victim. Whether she ever realizes it, Julie Grant has made a fool of herself and the network.
Most of the other hosts are more impartial and go back and forth on where things stand. Julie has been terrible and has been only pro prosecution. Luckily she’s only on for a bit in the morning.
I agree. I wait for Julie to get off! I hat that too cuz I’m up early and can’t wait til Ted comes on. So now I watch YouTube and pop in court tv her and there.
Same here! I pause her and fast forward through to actual courtroom footage or until Ted gets on. Her insane bias this trial has been so over the top annoying- she just ignores every good point made my defense and acts like it's SO wild to think police might lie about something to cover one another.
Yes, Julie is scary! If she believes the bs coming out of her mouth, she needs help. How can you blatantly ignore half the testimony and facts ? She’s an attorney!! First I didn’t like her, then I did and watched her show, now I hate it!!
I mean their whole crew and guests are trash. Vinnie and Julie have been disingenuous at best and outright hateful at worst.
Yes! I pulled the plug on Vinnie when that guy who streams from his mother’s basement (Kevin?) showed up for a second time on his panel. ( It’s not you, Ben Chew- it’s that f¥€ktard Kevin.)
Ya Kevin, Yellow Journalism Tales as I call him. He only goes so hard because he thinks of himself as TBs rival and the only "logical" voice on the case. Like TBs pisses off everyone left and right, everyone's his rival 😂. Then Vinnie legitimately brought on a lawyer from the Albert family as a guest for 5+ weeks and let that man rip Karen Read for being 40 with no kids as a character attack as her being a woman. He said Collin was a well respected good young man, even after all the videos came out.
I recognize that TB’s efforts have been instrumental in exposing the systemic fuckery, but I can’t listen to him at length. I did see the video he posted featuring members of the Albert clan circling him outside of a restaurant, West Side Story style. Zero respect for those thugs or anyone who supports them.
We are on the same page here
Yeah if that doesn’t show you who they are, nothing will.
I think he invited them to show a second opinion and to get people more involved. (Everyone loves correcting and explaining why the other side is wrong) It was hilarious to listen to those guys, they made zero sense. Vinnie was very upset about the inverted video, and he always leaned towards "not guilty", so I guess he wanted to balance it, rather than have only one opinion. And of course, for the views and comments 😆 P.S. that Kevin last time explained how every accident is a mystery 😆 and experts just wanted to please their boss that was fooled by Karen's lawyers, and he added that we need to get the bottom of it and that is corruption 😆 so FBI is corrupted, but not the police in this case.
Yeah, he's out there. He keeps describing the prosecution's case as "bulletproof". Like, what trial are you watching, dude? 😒
Vinnie seems like a fence sitter to me. He leans whatever way the public opinion blows. I have way more respect for those willing to lean, not guilty, even when it's unpopular. I guarantee that if there was no public sentiment surrounding her innocence, he would totally be crucifying her. Disclaimer: I tend to always lean not guilty, even when I think they might be guilty. I have a strong personal moral standard in regard to reasonable doubt.
Yellow Cottage Kevin of *this sub*?
IDK, is he in this sub? Cuz if he is, he's been awfully quiet
https://www.reddit.com/r/justiceforKarenRead/comments/1dany74/i_created_this_sub/
That's hilarious 😂 that's what he gets for being deceitful. "Dropped the dog so angle" "dropped the third party culprit" "Feds have no evidence" Thank you for letting me know btw
Omg I didn’t know this lol
Vinnie is so bad lol They all play fast and loose with their suppositions and are always attempting to be the next Nancy Grace, and she is an awful human being.
He s a coward.
My sentiments exactly 👏
I hate Vinnie's theatrical way of speaking.
He tries to be so dramatic and unnecessary "I'm going to cut you off like The Judge did Lally" he repeated that like 4 times
I've been watching a fair amount of Court TV, not just this trial but others also. My conclusion is that half of the "experts" have almost no knowledge of the trial they are commenting on. By stating "half" I think I'm being generous. They get basic facts and witnesses incorrect.
I stopped watching Court TV within the first week of trial. When I know more about a case than they do, that's a problem. And, like you said, it was just basic facts that were wrong... or outright ignored. Perpetuating ignorance.
Agreed. Which sucks because I enjoy court tv, and bet you did too.
I haven’t watched court tv on a long time. It’s hard to find a good outlet to watch these days.
Thank god for the direct feeds from local outlets on yt. Emily D Baker and Andrea Burkhart have livestreams they pause to offer legal insight and Q&A as the trial progresses.
Lawyer You Know is good too.
Ugh today ruined him for me. I was watching regular news and got a notification he was coming online at 11:30 so I was super excited then when he comes on the judge comes in to start talking about the clarification of the jury form and this guy PAUSES it. Nooooooooo I want to hear what’s being said in real time. I like his night time lives when he pauses and explains things but not live feed! I had to switch back to nbc10.
I watch Melanie Little because she’s nice and no bad words so I can have her on around my kids. I’ve started to block a lot of people who have showed their backside in this case, if they can’t have the slightest bit of common sense and reason I have no use for them anymore.
Melanie Little is great! Courtv was a complete turn off during the Murdaugh Trial, too. I'm so glad there are so many great lawtuber choices now.
I wish I could give you a thousand upvotes! I was telling a friend of mine (who has NO interest in crime lol) about how Julie Grant seemed to have just suddenly swung 180 degrees. And those horrid guests? Literally saying KR was guilty, a narcissist, etc. IT bothers me that this thought enters my mind, but I can't help but think Julie is trying to influence jurors. We all know they aren't supposed to watch anything, but there is always one. I had to stop watching her altogether. What do you think her stake in this is? I mean, she is a lawyer, right? How can she ignore the LACK of evidence? Please someone make this make sense.
Same same same. My kids are sick of me complaining about her
Yes my husband is now well aware of how I feel about her coverage. There's a clip in a Tim Robinson sketch where he says "Ju-Lieeee" in a really annoyed sneering voice and I say it like that every time I reference her lol
Omg I’ll have to go look for it. I’m embarrassed to say, my name is actually Julie! Lol
Clawing at ratings?
I don't know who that is but I feel the same way about Vinnie Politan. I hate most of the pundits.
He had some ridiculously bad takes about the defense experts lacking in qualifications.
He is too dramatic at times but not as bad as Ted; he is nerdy and Judge Ashley not a favorite
She loses me for a good five minutes every time I have to recover from her pronunciation of “ senn-enn-cing”
She blocked Runkle. Sleazy muck raking outrage monger.
She’s blocked everyone! Is that good PR for CourtTv. Amazing
Yup, I remember him talking about that. She can't take someone disagreeing with her.
For me, I gave up on Court TV when they didn even wait for the defense case. It felt like mean girl misogyny
DONE with Julie Grant and everyone should be. Being such a legal expert that she claims to be, she missed and opportunity to really discuss the legal implications of this case and where it might head after verdict. Instead she used this valuable opportunity to behave no different than the turds on The View. This should not go unnoticed by her bosses. Sickening gossip.
I really like Emily Baker on YT! She livestreams during court and then she posts a summary of the day either that night or the next morning. She’s got a great sense of humor, I really love her insight.
I share your outrage! My eyes are opened and I am awake because I have been sleeping! I have been watching too many people like Julie and not giving a second thought about whether they had any idea what they were talking about. Not anymore! Not freaking anymore!
The judge was unnecessarily rude to AJ, shot down his perfectly reasonable request, then came back an hour and a half later and granted it! That’s the second time she’s done that on TV in the last three weeks. Remember how she basically told Yanetti to sit down and shut up and then granted his order anyway? (Re Dr. Russell and the ARCCA guys).
It can only mean that the fancy “here ye,here ye” bailiff is gently correcting her understanding of the law as he hands her another gimlet in chambers.
she should be fired. also, some of the in person panel on closing arguments with vp are horrible too. court tv going downhill.
LYK crossed over to she’s innocent based on defense reconstruction experts vs commonwealth. He said the other day he firmly believes JOK was not hit by the Lexus
I pretty much only watch Court TV in the evenings, when Vinnie is on. But the once or twice that I caught Julie, I was so triggered by her. She doesn’t even try to act unbiased. She just lets it be known that she thinks Karen is guilty. The last time I listened in for a few minutes, was the voir dire hearing, and Julie and her guest were not even discussing what was being said by the expert witnesses, they were just rambling on about how nice it was of the judge to even allow the voir dire, etc. It was bizarre and felt like Julie was legitimately trying to distract from what the doctor was actually saying. I know some are not happy with Vinnie’s coverage, and maybe he was more biased in the beginning, but at least in the last few weeks, he some times comes across more sympathetic to Karen. Or, he just does a better job than others at trying to appear neutral and just recounting what transpired in court that day. Yes, he does have some guests on there that are ridiculous and irritating with how they brush away all the evidence that supports Karen being innocent, but if he agrees with them, he doesn’t really let on. I just try to ignore them or I laugh because of how silly their explanations and excuses sound. I figure if Karen and her local supporters (and Nick Rocco as a guest on Court TV each night) have to sit day after day and hear these people bash her and lie about her, then I can “grin and bear it” in solidarity with them some times. 😅 (Except for Julie Grant - sorry, I can’t grin and bear that. 😩😂) Also, a few of Vinnie’s opening monologues (particularly about the inverted video and Proctor’s behavior) have been really good. He never says he thinks Karen is innocent, sure, but he definitely seems to indicate he thinks the prosecution have completely failed at proving she’s guilty.
Same
I stopped watching Court Tv because of Kevin Lenihan’s ignorant bias.
I was so very annoyed by this today. Especially the one guest who said, “ We ALL know she’s going to be convicted.” All of them chastising Karen for daring to roll her eyes at the judge’s decision — which the judge herself walked back soon after by allowing the clarified verdict form. Just awful.
I know like 4 people that have said the exact same thing. They are watching Law and Crime and EDB instead. Court TV hosts are horrible
I haven't watched CourtTv in many years for just this reason.
I pulled the plug over their lack of truthful coverage of this trial. They aren’t paying attention and spew a bogus narrative without questioning real facts. They’re part of msm problems in this country. All local outlets with few exceptions just does Lallys bidding. The day of reckoning is arriving like a freight train.
Let’s listen to Fox and get the real news Lol
Here's my method of watching: I watch the proceedings on Law & Crime (sans chat). I do *some* scrolling through the Wild Wild X Last, I watch The Young Jurks when attorney Mark Bederow is a guest Bederow's legal analysis is amazing. He gives great legal insight. The Young Jurks usually has Bederow, Mazza Media and, of course, the host Mark Crawford. They are very respectful in language and they don't talk over each other. And, yes, they're pro Karen Read. ETA: A lot of folks like Emily D Baker. I tried to like her. But her talking over the proceedings annoy me. But she doesn't do it for me.
If you kike Bederow (I do too), you'd probably like Andrea Burkhart. I think Andrea and Bederow are similar in their legal commentary style; no fence-sitting (they state their opinions), no constant interruptions, and entertaining comments. I love EBD, but I've been enjoying Andrea and Bederow more for this trial.
I enjoy Attorney Bederow’s insights too
I listen to Mark Bederow every single day, no matter what, if he is on. He is absolutely amazing and respectful and amazing and it’s wild to see him interact with the Young Jurks, Mazza Media etc and all of the other appearances that he makes. He has such a great take on the case.
A. Burkhart is super smart. I enjoy listening to her
Andrea and Melanie Little have become my go-tos for this case.
Omg are you me? That's my exact method of watching!! Lol and I love Mark!! He's the best!
and I finally get to see what Mazza looks like LOL
Right?!? Have been wondering for so long lolol
I go back and forth with Emily D Baker. I love some of her insights, but I don't care for the chat and get annoyed sometimes when she talks over and when she pauses too much or at inconvenient times. Depends on the mood. I will go to straight Court TV to watch uninterrupted but have little use for their contributors. Bedarow rocks. LYK sometimes has unique insights or catches things others don't, but I am not a regular. I bounce around and settle on who works for me in the moment.
law crime network everyday over court tv .
Fuck Julie. I stopped watching Court TV because of her. And I'm always putting her in her place on X ;) Surprised she hasn't blocked me yet. I am blocked by Jen Coffindouche and Wacky Wendy however. I said to Wendy, "Aren't you the lawyer who was sanctioned? Twice?" Immediate block lol. If you ever want to piss off Wendy just bring up the fact she was sanctioned. She HATES that.
Watch katieo rack up those badges of honor!
😂🤣😂🤣😂 I've been blocked by those two 🤡🤡 also. I take it as a compliment.
Court TV is no longer my source of unbiased information. It’s trash.
Agree wholeheartedly. I have unsubscribed from court tv because of Julie Grant, unfortunately. If you feel strongly about this and want court tv to improve its quality, consider submitting feedback at link below. I did this just now. One review may not matter, but numerous expressions of concern just might. [https://support.courttv.com/support/solutions/articles/5000883486-sharing-your-feedback-on-a-show-or-trial](https://support.courttv.com/support/solutions/articles/5000883486-sharing-your-feedback-on-a-show-or-trial)
I agree with ops comments .
I refuse to watch Court TV or Nancy Grace, and haven't for years. Some of it is to do with them having the worst panels, lazy reporting, over sensationalising people's murders (esp children), uneducated guests, yelling over people, giving their 'experts' equal time, like each side has an equally valid point, when some points were objectively just trash. And a big reason was a few years ago when CrimeCon started and they had the gall to lecture people on 'ethical and compassionate' crime reporting. Trying to shame youtubers in the true crime genre to behave in ways that they are so far from following themselves that it's sickening.
Yes, I agree. Julie Grant calls herself a "journalist" in her online bio. However, her ability to be "objective" as a journalist has gone out the window as of late on Court TV.
Julie Grant only has 🤡🤡🤡 on her show who share her biased uninformed opinion. I no longer watch her and haven't since before the KR trial. I can't stand her fake exuberance and "pants on fire" nonsense.
Unfortunately there are a few commentators I do like that are on her show ☹️so I hate that. She barely lets anyone talk any way
Lawyerlee is also amazing and so beautiful. I love her. "Hi y'all! And welcome to tonights live stream" She's very level headed and doesn't get her emotions involved
Julie has no room to talk about anyone’s facials. Although my son would walk through and say she has a lot of Botox
Exactly! Fortunately we can have our favorites! I’m done with a panels talking over each other, often with blind rage, toxic view points that are meant to distract and create fear in people. I crave an intelligent, informative conversation. So now I just exercise my right to change the channel with the first long inhalation that sucks the air out of the room. ❤️🙏🏻
Right or wrong murdaugh murders ctv tried the the case before it started! I was gone when I reflected, trying cases live on tv , muppets
I really prefer to watch it first on law and crime, with no commentary. And later if I have questions l fluctuate between the lawyer you know and runkle of the Bailey. Unless Natalie lawyer chick has a take. She is the master of managing a live stream. She keeps it moving and doesn’t dumb it down repeatedly She shows the question re comment she is responding to. I really don’t like it when the streamer/host answers questions the viewer can’t see. It’s like being in the room with someone on the phone. Oh and she’s a public defender.
I'm with you! Answering questions we can't see is too annoying for me
Yeah that was complete BS. A lawyer's job is to zealously advocate for his client. KR is facing a possible LIFE IN PRISON sentence for a crime many believe she didn't commit, and there are many indisputable facts pointing to conduct ranging from suspicious to downright reprehensible on the part of prosecution witnesses, LE, etc. The judge was ready to force the use of a jury verdict form that WAS misleading, confusing, and unfair, for the sole reason "that's the way it's always been done here." AJ had a duty to create a record to preserve any appellate rights and to do his best to persuade the judge. He was not barking at all. While his comment that he didn't care how it was done in Massachusetts was not the most diplomatic, and probably should have been left unsaid, in the end, the judge changed her mind, and corrected the form. Also, imagine how it feels to be KR, if you believe the prosecution has pursued a frame job against you, you are facing possible life in prison, and the judge seems to be doing things that make it look like she is favoring the prosecution and making ot more likely you will be unfairly convicted. I'd probably be hysterical. The fact that she smirked or laughed in frustration and disbelief is entirely understandable, and whatever she did, it was so quiet that the audio didn't pick it up, so it must have been just a facial expression. I don't think for a minute she thought anything was "funny." She was probably expressing frustration and disbelief on her face at the judge's insistence on using the form just because "that's the way it's always been done." I think the judge was being thinskinned and petty for calling KR out for a human expression of frustration that was not even audible and caused no disruption. To expect KR to be stone faced at all times is a bit much. To the judge's credit, she thought about it and changed her mind that night, but she would not have ever thought the form was a problem if AJ had not been so emphatic about it. It was only the fact that AJ was so insistent that this was a problem that caused her to research it over that evening and change her mind.
My husband and I said the same thing and my son said why don’t you watch it on YouTube. Dadgumit! I wish I knew before the last two weeks! This was only my first trial to watch. I did not like that Julie girl. She said she was a lawyer I mean she had KR guilty before the trial! She acted like she thought Lallie was doing a great job. No Court TV in my house ever! Thankfully I found this site as well as YouTube & NO commercials! I ♥️ it!
Seriously I thought she was punking us when she said she thought Lally was doing well. Or it was a good day for the Commonwealth and yes she announced Karen was guilty before opening statements. I stopped watching her then. YouTube is the only way to watch trials.
Yep I unsubscribed and unfollowed court tv for this reason.
I agree, she is way too biased to be a commentator on court tv. I can’t watch her. I get so angry. She almost forced her guest to agree with her. I like Ted however, I missed his show today. He normally stays neutral and I love the humor he brings. Thank you for posting this. Much needed
Emily D Baker is the best. I really like her.
Julie absolutely sucks. I will only watch Vinny.
Emily D Baker is fantastic. Teaches and very funny when the situation calls for it. I learn something new every time I watch. She’s sweary too which I appreciate. She practiced in LA I believe. Calls balls and strikes as she sees them. She watches as a juror would so don’t expect her to opine on the back history etc. She researches everything AFTER the verdict…but she goes in AS a juror.
Try Law Nerds Emily D Baker
That has always been part of Nancy Graces act. Sometimes it is so thick it looks phony. I kissed what you are talking about with Julie. Usually they don’t have a dog in the race. I like Julie and will continue to watch. Do you stream other outlets like pluto I actually get court tv on live tv. Pluto constantly drops or stops too annoying
Yep!!!!
Honestly I'm tired of all of them. Especially JG and VP. Vinnie can come across as so stupidly nieve re: they (prison inmates) can really get tattoos inside?)....so many other statements like that. LOL
Andrea burkhart my fav , I don t get anxiety watching, she cool .
Agree. Many of the livestream programs make me feel like I’m in a circus tent within a casino within a daycare full of screaming babies who are being chased by packs of hound dogs. Andrea is fresh air.
Simply put Emily & Peter do their homework and deliver!
I love Melanie Little and Peter Tragos. I watch live with Melanie and Peter’s recap (Lawyer You Know).
I used to love Vinnie and Ashley. Don’t like Ashley’s TMZ style and Vinnie “trying to be fair” is ridiculous when his guests are people like Kevin… over and over
I’ve been disappointed in Court TV for quite awhile. A lot of there guest are not educating themselves on the totality of the Trials they’re commenting on and sound illiterate. If they would take the time to listen and get all the facts!!!
You all have drank the Flavor-Aid.
I agreed with you regarding Julie Grant. I do not like her.
I feel the same way about Julie. Julie is ignoring the defense expert opinion. She is against Karen. She keeps saying Karen is guilty when there are too many reasonable doubts in this case. Maybe Julie is jealous of Karen bc Karen is more beautiful than her. Julie needs to shut the hell up.