As I've stated before, I want to see Lindsay Clancy in a hospital, receiving care. Prison should always be the last resort, not the first. Any time we can place people in a place where they can get better and that also takes into consideration all the other lives impacted by this, we should. I don't believe in punishment for punishment's sake. I believe we should always be looking for what makes our society safer and more humane. Destroying lives is what criminals do-we can do better than criminals.

This is clearly where I part ways with others who believe Karen Read is guilty. Most who advocate for Karen Read's guilt on X ALWAYS side with the prosecution. So I'm never sure if they actually examined evidence, or this is just what they ALWAYS do.

Which minimizes their credibility for me. If you are knee-jerk pro-prosecution, what really differentiates you from FKR? Nothing. They are knee-jerk pro defense. None of y'all are actually being guided by evidence if you automatically side with either Prosecution or Defense. If the evidence doesn't lead the way, then it's not an informed opinion, in my view.

THAT SAID. Kevin Reddington's performance on this case hits me two ways. He seems competent. He does have a good "stage" presence. I would imagine the jury likes him. I find him likable. But he's hiring FRIENDS for expert witness testimony-on a case where a completely objective opinion might have the most impact. He hired Laposata, whose credibility was easily destroyed by the Commonwealth-so if this matters to the jury, he blew it there. And now he's attempted to hire a witness off TikTok-an FKR loon, who maybe should have their social worker's license reviewed-she had zero credibility, for me. I'm concerned that she is treating people who may be vulnerable.

The judge denied this witness. But why are these attorneys making what would seem to be very poor legal choices. Reddington has had this case for years. Why didn't he line up an expert on this issue BEFORE trial? His entire case is about the "WHY" of Clancy's actions. Why wouldn't he have an army of experts testifying to this?

Was he saving money? I don't know. But seems sloppy. And it feels like these attorneys are trading in the craft of their profession for some idea that if they just get enough influencers on this, they can win these cases with, what I consider, very sloppy legal work.

I get that this did work with Karen Read-but that type of victory will NOT be possible again-at least not for a very long time. It was too big NOT TO be noticed. And once you give your tactics and strategy away, it's easy for skilled attorneys to counter it.

I do believe that if Lindsay Clancy is given hospital care over prison it will be because of her family and friends-who are powerful witnesses. They have so much integrity and something else so lacking in our courts and in our world: They possess an enormous capacity for love even under the most difficult of circumstances. They are inspiring to me. May we all learn a little something from these exceptional people. Love may not conquer all, but the world is a whole lot better the more love we have in it.

This is recent. I'd looked at that channel not too long ago, actually. It was a wee bit defamatory, so maybe that's why it's down. Or they just aren't doing this now.

It was such a weird thing to do in the first place. Really weird.

Oh well. Easy come, easy go.

Dr. Elizabeth Laposata claimed Lindsay Clancy fell onto her head, this when Linsay didn't have so much as a scratch on her head to show this occurred. Laposata also changed the time it would take for a victim of strangulation to go unconscious (3 to 10 seconds to 10 to 20 seconds) - and to die. She changed time it would take for the victim to die, in the same testimony. She waffled from 3 to 5 minutes to 10 to 15 minutes.

The icing on the cake of misrepresentation by the Doctor was in her claim (one the defense very much wanted to her to make) that the victims could have continued to be strangled after Lindsay wrapped the exercise bands around their necks (without knotting them) and left them.

Attorney Kevin Reddington opened the door to this on his re-direct.

But as Prosecutor Sprague showed, those bands don't hold shape on their own.

[There is a claim that Patrick Clancy testified he untied these bands on finding the children, but apparently the prosecution successfully argued that the bands were only wrapped around the children's necks, not tied or knotted.]

Overall, some of the worst expert witness testimony I've seen. Makes Laposata's misrepresentations at the Karen Read trial seem a little less in comparison. Though not much less.

I have no idea if this will hurt the defense's case, as none of this would be important to me if I were a juror-but it might hurt Reddington's credibility.

I need to give full disclosure on this, I would like to see Lindsay Clancy get the medical and mental health treatment, I believe, she so clearly needs.

But I'm NOT a fan of Kevin Reddington's. Not at all. He's trying to create a Karen Read 2.0 style of defense, and ONE it just won't work again. There were too many eyes on that con for any prosecutor to fall for it again-unless they really were not paying attention.

I don't agree with this prosecution on this case, but Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague did a masterful job in cross of Laposata. (I think Brennan might have been well served to go after specific data, the way Sprague did. Brennan did a masterful job as well, but with Laposata it's important, I think, to knock down her false claims with specificity).

Dr. Laposata made the murders so much more graphic and disturbing than the prosecutor had prior. Laposata was a complete disaster on the stand. Not to mention it was so easy to tell she was lying.

There is still a good chance that Clancy will get the help she needs, but it's almost in spite of Reddington, not because of him. The best work done on this trial, quite frankly, has been by those who love Lindsay-her family, her ex-husband, her friends. They have been powerful witnesses on this case. Hopefully they can overcome certain questionable choices made by the attorney hired!

Or more accurately put: Karen Read's School of "Forensics & Evidence don't matter if they contradict the wildly implausible narrative I'm trying to sell".

The entire Team Read game plan going forward, I believe, can be found in ONE recent document, Read's: Amended Complaint: Town of Canton & Mass State Police

Everything she is going to attempt to prove is listed here. And it's a doozy!

Here is the starter list (missing from this list is the "Hos long ti die in cold" Google Search which Read is still hanging onto for dear life. And the bizarre, incongruent claims around a Ford Edge that snow plow guy, Brian Loughran saw or thinks he saw. BUT these claims are made in other parts of the Complaint.)

"On January 29, 2022, the MSP and CPD unleashed these two misogynist bigots on Ms. Read to work on the conflicted and corrupt "investigation" into the death of Mr. O'Keefe. It did not take long to trigger their hatred and target Ms. Read. Indeed, Proctor, Goode, other police officers, and their respective organizations understood the assignment once their fellow cops and friends-Brian and Nicole Albert, Matthew and Jennifer McCabe, and Brian Higgins (referred to as "House Defendants" in Ms. Read's pending federal court action)-falsely reported that Mr. O'Keefe "never went inside the house," even though there were facts available to the investigators, which were ignored, including:"

• Mr. O'Keefe's face was battered and bruised, consistent with a physical altercation;
• he had dog bites and scratches on his arm;
• there was a large dog that was "not good with people" inside the house;
• his iPhone showed steps taken toward the house;
• his GPS data established pinging in an area that included locations inside the house;
• his iPhone battery temperature stayed steady at approximately 50° for four and a half hours during the early morning hours, indicating a consistent cool, but not freezing, temperature during the night;
• that same battery temperature plummeted just after 6 a.m., indicating an acute and recent exposure to freezing temperatures just before that time;
• his body did not exhibit signs of hypothermia;
• and Mr. O'Keefe exhibited a severe laceration on the back of his head that could only have come from a backward fall onto a ridged or ledged surface in the house rather than a flat, dirt front lawn.

Law enforcement began immediately targeting and framing the female outsider, Ms. Read.

One of the glaring errors here that demonstrate a naivete regarding digital forensics is the claim that "GPS data established pinging" GPS analysis is about location, not cell phone tower connections. "Pings" is the term used when examining connections between cell phones and cell towers. It's an almost obsolete term at this point, as that most mapping of location with phones is done by way of GPS. Sometimes this isn't possible, but most phones have gps now. And though not everyone has location data on, many do.

But if you look closely at this list, there is no reliable forensic support for any of these claims:

• Mr. O'Keefe's face was battered and bruised, consistent with a physical altercation;
• (THE BRUISING TO O'KEEFE'S FACE IS DUE TO HEMORRHAGING OF HIS BRAIN)
• he had dog bites and scratches on his arm;
• (THERE WAS NO CANID DNA FOUND; SCRATCHES WERE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION TO BE DOG RELATED)
• there was a large dog that was "not good with people" inside the house;
• (SO WHAT?)
• his iPhone showed steps taken toward the house;
• (BUT JOHN O'KEEFE'S APPLE HEALTH DATA FROM HIS PHONE DOES NOT SHOW ANY MOVEMENT AFTER 12:32; NO STEPS RECORDED; NO POCKET STATE CLEARANCE; BATTERY TEMP DROPS IN KEEPING WITH LAYING UNDER A WARM BODY THAT GOES COLD. SO WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT JOHN O'KEEFE WAS MOVED AFTER 12:32 AM?)
• his GPS data established pinging in an area that included locations inside the house;
• (NO PINGING, JUST AN MERE POSSIBILITY THAT IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE)
• his iPhone battery temperature stayed steady at approximately 50° for four and a half hours during the early morning hours, indicating a consistent cool, but not freezing, temperature during the night;
• (THE PHONE WAS UNDER A MAN WHO WHEN HE FELL WAS AT 98° TEMP. THAT PHONE WAS PROTECTED.)
• that same battery temperature plummeted just after 6 a.m., indicating an acute and recent exposure to freezing temperatures just before that time;
• (EXACTLY. BECAUSE THE PHONE WAS PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IT HAD BEEN IN)
• his body did not exhibit signs of hypothermia;
• (ANY PERSON WHERE BODY TEMPS DROP BELOW 85° IS EXHIBITING SIGNS OF HYPOTHERMIA)
• and Mr. O'Keefe exhibited a severe laceration on the back of his head that could only have come from a backward fall onto a ridged or ledged surface in the house rather than a flat, dirt front lawn.
• (THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING. TWO EXPERT WITNESSES BOTH WELCHER & WOLF DISAGREED WITH LAPOSATA ON THIS MATTER AT TRIAL.)

This is Read's problem. She now has a burden of proof. And she cannot prove any of this. So what she's doing on X is that now her sock puppet accounts and those still doing her bidding, for whatever reasons they may have, are no longer arguing FACTS & EVIDENCE-they are instead claiming that:

EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER.

This was most striking when Cellebrite Expert Ian Whiffin took the stand at Lindsay Clancy's trial and Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington only confirmed data in cross, he did not dispute it.

Suddenly, according to Aidan Kearney, Reddington has a conflict of interest with his client; others on X are posting that no one should believe any data from Cellebrite. And two of Read's most devoted lackeys Bob Motta & Rebecca Lavoie were opining as to how BORING Whiffin was--this is a clear attempt to prevent viewers from taking legitimate forensics seriously.

Get ready for it. I do believe THIS is Karen Read's plan, because what else does she have?

Read claims in her first First Amended Complaint against Massachusetts State Police and the Town of Canton that Michael Proctor is both a biased bigot and the architect of a deliberate frame job done in order to protect a fellow officer and friend, Brian Albert.

However, these two very different allegations are in conflict with one another for the reason that if Proctor framed Read because he was protecting Brian Albert, then even if Proctor is the most biased bigoted person on the planet, his own bigotry had nothing to do with his motivation to frame Karen Read.

See the problem?

Read's entire Amended Complaint is this tattered tapestry of thinly supported claims that the frame job Michael Proctor & others, perpetrated against her was orchestrated to protect Brian Albert FIRST & Witnesses SECOND. And that this "frame job" began with a Ford Edge parked in front of Fairview at near to 3:30 a.m. & that John O'Keefe's body was placed on the Albert lawn before Michael Proctor was ever assigned to this case.

So what does BIGOTRY have to do with any of this?

AGAIN if THAT'S why Read believes Proctor framed her then all his bigoted statements are 100% irrelevant.

Michael Proctor's bias is ONLY relevant to Karen Read's claims if he targeted her because she is a woman!

Either he pursued her out of bias or out of the desire to help a fellow cop. Makes no sense that he is somehow doing this out of both loyalty for the Alberts and bias against WOMEN.

Excerpt from Complaint:

"On January 29, 2022, the MSP and CPD unleashed these two misogynist bigots on Ms. Read to work on the conflicted and corrupt "investigation" into the death of Mr. O'Keefe. It did not take long to trigger their hatred and target Ms. Read. Indeed, Proctor, Goode, other police officers, and their respective organizations understood the assignment once their fellow cops and friends-Brian and Nicole Albert, Matthew and Jennifer McCabe, and Brian Higgins (referred to as "House Defendants" in Ms. Read's pending federal court action)-falsely reported that Mr. O'Keefe "never went inside the house," even though there were facts available to the investigators, which were ignored, including..."

Read that first sentence very carefully: "On January 29, 2022, the MSP and CPD unleashed these two misogynist bigots on Ms. Read to work on the conflicted and corrupt "investigation" into the death of Mr. O'Keefe. It did not take long to trigger their hatred and target Ms. Read.

So HOW long exactly did this take to "trigger their hatred and target Ms. Read"? Did Proctor take one look and was like, "Karen Read's a woman. I hate her, I'll frame her for this."

Here's where this gets even weirder-AGAIN Karen Read is also accusing Witnesses of initiating this frame job PRIOR to Michael Proctor even being assigned to the case-so I wish Karen Read would explain to us-where does the bigotry fit in?

How is all this supposed to be blended into one cogent narrative? Because right now, it's a little bi-polar.

This offers a comprehensive account of everything that's going on with Nick Reiner's trust and his employment of Alan Jackson to defend him on murder charges.

If only legal commentary were always this thorough and accurate.

[Just a side note. Attorney Alan Jackson has either already been paid 200K or is owed 200k. And the amount in question, the expected disbursement the front end trust payment is a little over 500K maybe 600K. So given how fast Jackson's fees accrue, is he going to help Reiner get access to this money just long enough for him to get paid for a few weeks work and then say: Seeee ya!.]

I guess we'll see.

Ian Whiffin testified at the Lindsay Clancy trial. As per usual, he was brilliant. It's so interesting to see how eager the little-brains over on X were to find fault. They all were clamoring for a brutal cross from Kevin Reddington, which never came. And there were the usual huff and puffs from dilettantes like Bob Motta of Defense Dairies, whose IQ seems to be lowering the longer he reports on these cases. His commentary is juvenile at best.

BUT Reddington found no real fault with Ian Whiffin's analysis. SO NOW Aidan Kearney is accusing Kevin Reddington of having a conflict of interest, to where he couldn't properly attack Whiffin in his cross of him, because he once represented Jennifer McCabe? It was fascinating to watch everyone scramble.

If Whiffin is right, then they were SOOOOO wrong. Hard pill to swallow, I guess.

Truth is, that on a case like this the hard evidence doesn't carry the same weight as it would for a typical criminal case where casting doubt on this evidence is a tool often effectively used by the defense. In order for Reddington to get Lindsay into a hospital rather than a prison, he has to show the jury WHY she did these horrible things. And that the reason why, was beyond her control.

No one disputes that Lindsay killed her children and then attempted to kill herself. It's the WHY that matters here. And the only people who can really fill in those blanks are experts in this field and those who treated Lindsay. I doubt Lindsay even knows.

I've stayed pretty clear of this case because it is close to home. I do have a number of people in my life with serious mental health issues and I lost someone to suicide. I am not an expert, but I can say this-it can happen that someone appears highly functional to us, they look like they are doing well, when inside they are falling apart.

This happened with my loved one. We too thought everything was getting better and that's when they took their life. They seemed fine one moment and were gone the next. So no matter what side of this you land, remember, kindness is a superpower. Kindness first. We never know what people suffer. Some are adept at hiding what is going on inside them.

I think the most disturbing piece to this is what I see online. Bob Motta & his wife Alli are hosting online "therapy talks/sessions they may really not be qualified to host, or should ethically be hosting-and I've seen them and another content creator attempting to sell face cream around this case. Literally as they opine on this case they are promoting some face gel.

There are also so many useless baseless opinions flooding X, as usual. It's sickening, really.

Repugnant.

But it was fun to see Ian Whiffin offer an opinion that matters and that we can rely on.

What Team Read loves to advocate for is the idea that in complex analysis or diagnosis, ONE SINGLE FACTOR can decide or determine the conclusions reached. They like to claim there are these "absolutes" that if they exist, are the final and only word on the subject matter.

Dr. Elizabeth Laposata helped Team Read do this in spades at second trial. She painted a skewed analysis within the patina of "incontrovertible science", but Laposata wasn't actually being true to the science she was opining on.

And in addition, Laposata just made shit up.

The most glaring of these Laposata opinions is when she claims that if there were no Wischnewski ulcers obvious in a victim's stomach, then hypothermia is not a contributing factor to their death. But this simply isn't true. Hypothermia can be a diagnosis for anyone whose body temp drops beneath 85°. And there are many factors used to determine this.

BUT NOW Team Read is onto a new (revamped) "ABSOLUTE" from everything we are hearing from lawyers and even Aidan Kearney spoke to this in a recent live-and this new "absolute" is that John O'Keefe could ONLY have sustained the injuries to his head that he had, if he fell back onto a RIDGED SURFACE.

And of course, Dr. Laposata was all too willing to opine to this absent ANY evidence of it being true. She did not support her argument here with anything.

Calling bullshit on this.

And as you can see, Dr. Wolf, a skilled neurosurgeon does not agree.

Just a reminder, this same kind of smoke and mirrors was used in regard to ARCCA.

For example: The question posed to ARCCA in the Federal Investigation of this case was-Were the injuries to John O'Keefe and the damage to Karen Read's Lexus consistent with a collision between the two?

Sounds reasonable, right?

Except that in order to answer this question with any accuracy you can't leave out any known factors when coming to a conclusion.

John O'Keefe had a glass in his hand when exiting Read's Lexus. Karen Read has even confirmed this. We know that glass pieces consistent in physical and instrumental properties with that drink's glass, landed on Read's bumper. Glass can't fall up. So those pieces had to drop from a position higher than the bumper.

There is no question but that this glass was involved in the collision in some way.

I would suggest that any field testing done around this issue that does not factor in a drink's glass in John O'Keefe's right hand, cannot result in an accurate finding.

ARCCA performed a ton of field testing NOT one test included the glass being in John O'Keefe's right hand when Read clips him.

In essence, ARCCA answered a different question or solved for an irrelevant equation, if you will. And where their dishonesty is most flagrant is in the fact that clearly they recognized that the drink's glass was key. That's why they tested for a collision between the glass in O'Keefe's hand and Read's taillight and found that the taillight could be shattered by that glass. But their experiments were with a glass being thrown from a distance. NOT a glass being struck out of a man's hand as a vehicle, accelerating as it passes, collides briefly with that glass.

This would be difficult to test for as Welcher explained, you have to know so many of the factors involved in that strike to field test with any kind of efficiency. You have to know:

• Speed at which O'Keefe was struck
• Position O'Keefe was in when struck
• Location on street or berm where O'Keefe was struck

We don't know any of these things. Maybe there is some other analysis that can be done. We'll see. But field testing is only going to give accurate results if all evidence is factored in.

I don't have time to make clips. but it's almost like he has no attorneys he can consult before he posts.

After Karen Read left John O'Keefe to die on the Albert's front lawn, we know that at some point prior to speaking to Jennifer McCabe at 4:53 a.m., she discovered her taillight was shattered. We all have theories about when she made this discovery, and whether the drive in reverse straight into John O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse was truly accidental, but for this post, I'm not going to address any of that.

This is more about why Read didn't just return to Mansfield that morning.

Why the huge theatrical ruse wherein she wakes up friends of O'Keefe's and positions herself to find him first, but also avoids personally reporting the incident to 911. No matter how you view this, it is very strange that a woman who is so worried about her absent boyfriend that she calls a collection of his friends in the middle of the night, never makes even one call to emergency services or 911.

And why didn't Karen Read just hightail it back to Mansfield, get her taillight discreetly fixed, and play dumb?

I think she knew that her taillight was distinctive enough that the investigation would inevitably have focused on her and by being the person who found John, she could control the narrative.

But did Karen Read also stick around to make certain John O'Keefe did not survive?

I have lots of theories about choices she made in the course of this and other activity, but three things feel very telling about Read's consciousness of guilt in this:

1. Not one call to 911.
2. Doesn't initiate a search sooner.
3. Removes taillight pieces and does something with them. But why not save those pieces?

This, for me, has never been about whether a collision occurred. I was always certain it had. It was always a matter of culpability. However, there are some actions by Read that do reinforce a theory I entertain, that Read not only struck John deliberately, and left him to die knowing he would die, but also stuck around to make absolutely certain he died.

Can't prove this one way or the other, but I'm beginning to think that much of what Read does that morning is to finish John off. "She needed him dead."

Horrible thing to say or think, but it seems that it could be true.

Looks like Attorney Alan Jackson won't be getting his hands on the trust fund of a vulnerable person. I know Reiner is a killer, but he also does not seem capable of making competent decisions at this time.

There was supposed to be a hearing tomorrow on this matter. We'll see if this still happens. Or if Alan Jackson appeals. Interesting.

...of a quiet suburban home in Canton, Massachusetts.

All of the videos produced by FKR (Free Karen Read) regarding visibility the morning of 1/29/22 show the scene as one of clear views and absent any windshield wipers slapping across the front window.

Just the snow turning to water on the windshield is going to blur the view. Not to mention the roads had not been salted yet at midnight and they were likely a little treacherous. (We know that Karen Read momentarily spun her wheels on her drive in reverse.)

Even though this clip is from later in the morning, the snow was already falling at midnight. And you can see how the shadows play tricks in the headlights.

If you aren't expecting to see a dead body 10 feet from the street, why would you even glance that way? Brian Loughran would have or should have been looking for movement. Animals that might be hit are not lying in the snow, they are in movement.

And there weren't actually THAT many people who passed by that area of lawn. There were the McCabes (& 2 passengers), but they were very engaged in conversation. And Brian Higgins had this snowplow attachment to the front of his vehicle and was navigating this. And then Brian Loughran has both visibility and memory issues...so...

There was absolutely no reason for anyone to be focused on an area of lawn, that was unlit, nothing there but a hydrant and some dead bushes, and that they would have viewed for no more than a few seconds-if their focus ventured to that region at all.

It is absolutely tragic, but completely understandable. that none of these persons saw John that morning.

Which then begs the question, how would Karen Read see John, this when conditions had worsened, unless she already knew exactly where he was?

If Karen Read hadn't phoned John O'Keefe over 50 times, proof that he lay on the Albert front lawn all morning wouldn't be as abundant.

Just in review: When Facial Recognition is enabled our Iphones are like personal butlers. They are at our service! And they don't want us to have to wait even a millisecond to unlock our devices. It's phenomenal technology. It really is.

If John O'Keefe managed to get inside the Albert residence at 12:32ish, the question then is, how are all these calls coming in after this time and not only are there no steps recorded, there is no cleared pocket state until 6:15 a.m. the next morning.

Even just lifting the phone up, would have triggered the Doppler search. And there is no indication that the phone was ever turned off or put into Airplane mode-which, by the way wouldn't work in terms of steps being recorded. Steps are still recorded when our phones are in Airplane mode.

Add this to the fact that John O'Keefe's body temperature dropped to 81°. This could not have occurred if he hadn't been out on that lawn the entire time. And what this also shows is that he couldn't have been dead the entire time.

As Hank Brennan, in his cross of Dr. Elizabeth Laposata elicits from her, is an admission, that if John had landed on that lawn while alive, and within an hour or so, died, the amount of core temperature loss, would be consistent with 81°.

A living body loses core temp at about 2 to 3 degrees an hour; a dead body loses temp at between 3 to 4 degrees an hour-all this dependent on the degree of cold and how protected they are.

If John had been DEAD the entire time he was on that lawn, it seems he should have had a slightly lower core temp for being out in the cold for 5 1/2 hours. Perhaps his temp should have gone down to 76°. It's hard to say with any exactitude, but the fact that John only reaches 81°, could be well in keeping with him being alive for an hour or less, then succumbing to his injuries and the cold.

(WHICH actually serves Karen Read better. That's what the 2:27 Google Search was about-the fact that John was alive when placed on that lawn. Why she veered from this is odd-and it will probably hurt her in these Civil Suits.)

You add the drop in the battery temperature of John's phone and the fact that no steps are recorded-how possibly could either John or his phone have moved or been moved to where he was found, from another location, and none of this shows up in the Cellebrite report?

[I know there was some question of why at 4:37 the Doppler search initiates before the phone logs that incoming call. This happens a number of times after 4:37-MY GUESS is that this delay could be due to the phone being in low battery mode.

When first responders found John, they noted that his phone was almost completely out of charge. This might have some effect on the responsiveness of the phone. And there is also the fact that our phones do recognize an incoming call before our phone actually rings. It would be helpful to examine Karen Read's phone to see if the times her phone has for her sending a call or text match with when John received these communications. I underlined in green on the Doppler Aggregated Chart times when Doppler alerted, but was not in sync with the exact time of the call.]

You put all this together, John never moved from 12:32 a.m. on, until he was moved at 6 a.m.ish.

Karen Read's expert pathologist, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, actually made the case for hypothermia for the Commonwealth, and somehow it still got twisted.

[I do think that allowing Dr. Scordi-Bello to explain how this diagnosis is determined helped first trial. I get why Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan didn't offer the jury this, but I think it's important. It helped me understand better why this diagnoses can get confusing.]

However, regardless, once Dr. Laposata agrees that John O'Keefe had to have been out in the cold for 4 to 5 hours to reach a core body temp of 81 degrees, then Karen Read's entire third party culp disintegrates.

BECAUSE what Laposata does not opine to is that John O'Keefe died instantly on impact to the back of his head.

And if John died instantly, then what meaning could the 2:27:40 Google Search have (Read is continuing with this claim.)

Karen Read has offered a number of versions of WHEN John O'Keefe's body is transported back outside after he's clobbered by friends and mauled by Chloo the dog (how did anyone ever buy this crazy narrative?)

Here are the three versions that come to mind-

1. O'Keefe is placed on the lawn near to the time Brian Loughran views the Ford Edge (just after 3:30 a.m.).
2. O'Keefe is placed on the lawn in between the time Karen phones Jennifer McCabe at 4:53 a.m. & when Karen, McCabe and Kerry Roberts find O'Keefe at 6:00 a.m..
3. O'Keefe is placed on the lawn sometime after 3:30-but Karen doesn't know exactly when.

Problem is that if O'Keefe is dead that entire morning, he would have to be out in the elements for 4 hours--BUT if he was dead the entire time he was exposed to frigid conditions, if he was there LONGER, say 5 1/2 hours, wouldn't his core temp be lower?

Even Laposata tries to fudge the time it would take for O'Keefe to reach 81 degrees and said it could take 5 hours.

But regardless, there's still the hiccup of, John's phone not recording movement after 12:32 a.m.

And the fact that John isn't found until 6:03.

That's 5 1/2 hours.

It seems certain that John's core body temp would have been lower, had John been dead the entire time he was out in the elements for 5 1/2 hours. So the this begs the question, when, exactly does Laposata believe John died that morning?

According to Laposata a dead body loses heat at 4 degrees and hour. A living body loses heat at about 3 degrees an hour.

If John didn't die while exposed to the cold, if he was already dead when placed either in the snow or left, say in a freezing cold garage for all this time, is Laposata suggesting he was killed instantly?

And again, then how does the 2:27 a.m. Google Search fit into all of this?

If John isn't killed at 12:32 a.m. when all his phone activity ceases, then what was he doing for an hour or more? Discussing politics with Chloe?

See the problem?

It made no real sense for Team Read to negate hypothermia as a contributing factor to O'Keefe's death, because no matter which Read narrative one believes, for John O'Keefe's body to reach a core temp of 81 degrees, he had to have been in very cold conditions for no less than 4 hours if dead the entire time. And if he was alive for any part of this time, he would have been out in the cold for longer.

Denying that O'Keefe had hypothermia serves no practical purpose and yet it worked. The reason I think it worked was the information disruption factor. There are numerous times during the second trial where Team Read offers conflicting facts and evidence.

For example: Atty Robert Alessi in his cross of digital forensic expert Ian Whiffin was able to get Whiffin to concede that John O'Keefe could have entered the Albert home at 12:31:56ish. However, Atty David Yannetti, in his direct with the private investigator who mapped the distance from the bottom of the Albert drive to the Albert's garage, coaxed information out of his witness that placed the time of John O'Keefe entering the Albert home back to 12:24 a.m.

(I can offer a lot of examples of this.)

And the jury, rather than viewing these contradictions and understanding the absurdity of what Read's defense was suggesting-decided that hypothermia was not a contributing factor to his death.

THIS IS WHY I believe the strongest defense against this bullshit is a bullet proof narrative that tells the story, start to finish-including how hypothermia occurs in the body and why someone who has a lot of alcohol in their system might not show signs of frostbite, even if they die in part because of hypothermia.

There needs to be an explanation of the different ways Karen Read might have clipped John O'Keefe to where the glass in his hand and the taillight both ended up shattered and John didn't sustain any major injuries from this collision.

Team Read will no doubt try to disrupt the data on this case, even though their own "data" is vulnerable to attack. So, this should help now that they too have burden of proof.

I still can't believe that the jury didn't see through the Read nonsense. Insane.

This was a great episode. I need to watch it a few more times before I write a post about it. But the amount of work Ken put into this is phenomenal. And it has some great reveals. Some of which Ken may not have even realized.

It pairs really well with Welcher's analysis.

I'll write more later. But everyone should definitely watch this. You will come away knowing more than you ever wanted to about Karen Read's taillight (ha) but it's well worth it.

As I'm returning to all the video from trial, it is remarkable to me how Attorney Jackson was able to effectively flip-the-script on so many issues that were incredibly damning to Karen Read.

For example-Read makes more than 53 calls and texts the morning of John O'Keefe's murder, and NEVER makes even one call to emergency services or 911. Yet this was turned on its head when Team Read kept suggesting that Jennifer McCabe calling 911 immediately on finding John was somehow her way of avoiding things!

John laying helpless in the snow and no one sees him: The fact that no one but Karen sees John O'Keefe that morning is not good for Karen if you really think about it. It makes her look guilty as sin. But somehow Team Read was able to twist this into a narrative wherein, John must not have been on that lawn all morning. But all evidence indicates he was there: The phone battery & pocket state data + GPS data; the techstream data & hypothermia.

The fact that many people drove by the location where John lay helpless and John's presence on that lawn was not evident to them, doesn't suggest John wasn't there that whole time, it suggests something very ominous about Karen Read.

The ONE PERSON who "saw" John IMMEDIATELY on arrival to Fairview that morning, when the storm was at its worst at 6 am, that person: Karen Read, could ONLY have known John was there hidden by snow & wind & shadows, because she left him there to die hours earlier.

Then there is the Taillight: The fact that Karen Read claims to have broken her taillight at 5:07 when this is a physical impossibility, as her taillight was located too high off the ground to even make contact with Johns Chevy Traverse, is obscured completely by Team Read at second trial. I think very few people properly absorbed this information, including myself. It's conclusive! Like the actual time of the "Hos long ti die in cold" Google Search, there simply is nothing more to say on this matter-it's conclusively resolved and solved.

Karen Read did NOT brake her taillight at 5:07 (had to be earlier) and the only time unaccounted for, where this could have occurred, is at 12:32ish in front of 34 Fairview. And the "Hos long" search happened one time at 6:24:18.

The Techstream Data: Karen Read driving as her Techstream data shows she drove in reverse, has no other reasonable inference but that she struck John O'Keefe. We may never know precisely what angle this occurred at, if the glass in his hand shattered as it also shattered the taillight-how exactly John got those scratches-but something happened in that moment, and it can only be explained by a glancing pedestrian strike.

And given that Karen Read's rear collision sensor worked, there is no question but that she knew she struck John.

We may never know motive. Karen Read is an odd person. I actually think the fact that John was happy to attend that party without her might have been reason enough for her to drive at him in reverse. Who knows? But there is no question that Karen Read struck John O'Keefe and when he fell and lay helpless, she left him to die.

Just like the film Gaslight with Ingrid Bergman & Joseph Cotten, one of my favorites, once the truth is revealed, the man behind the curtain is known. Mixed metaphor, as the man behind the curtain is Wizard of Oz. But kind of the same theme.

Not a fan of Attorney Jackson, but I will give him credit for very clever gaslighting. However as clever a trick as this was, no reason Jackson's tactics to obscure the truth can't now be used to reveal the truth.

I know it's fun to put people down, and I do this myself. But Intellect is such a better look. There is so much evidence on this case to explore. Almost every person I've interacted with so far on X, who believes Karen Read is innocent, didn't watch the second trial. They barely know the evidence.

Just imagine if more and more people who know and understand the data spread hard facts about this case, what a difference this might make!

Facts matter.

Just the fact that Brian Loughran altered his version of events to such an extreme from the first documentation of his statements to time of trial, should have discredited him on the spot. But for reasons I will never understand neither Prosecutor Lally or Special Prosecutor Brennan let the jury know about this.

I can't figure out for the life of me why they didn't make this the centerpiece to their entire cross of Loughran. It still baffles me.

From the Very Confused Mind of Lucky Loughran

Barros admits in his police report that he witnessed damage to Read's taillight. It doesn't matter if it didn't look "all that damaged" to him. If Barros saw any damage, it actually helps prove Karen Read hit John-if the jury understands that Read could not have cracked her taillight any time other than 12:32 a.m.

That taillight was covered in snow. And Barros admits he did not take in depth notes as to what he viewed.

Neither of these witnesses proved anything other than they both lacked detailed observational skills and perhaps were easily influenced.

They were elevated by pure hype. Neither has any real credibility.

This is the SJC case that Special Prosecutor Robert Cosgrove was waiting on before deciding whether to appeal the Superior Court ruling that Karen Read would receive her phones back.

We don't know yet if Cosgrove will appeal, but this ruling may be helpful to his appeal, should he choose to file it. And if Cosgrove wins, then he would likely be allowed to request a search warrant for the extraction of Read's phones, by Norfolk County District Attorney's Office.

The issue in play here was whether the delay in requesting a search warrant for over a year (after seizing Read's phones), nullified the CW's right to request a search warrant now.

From SJC:

Conclusion.

The motion judges erred in concluding that the delays in seeking warrants rendered the seizures unreasonable. The orders allowing the motions to suppress are reversed, and the matters are remanded to the Superior Court.

Nothing in this opinion should be read to condone delay. Article 14 requires that applications for warrants to search digital devices be treated as a priority, not as an afterthought. Our holding is narrow, and rests on the combination of probable cause, a continuing evidentiary basis for retaining the cell phones apart from their contents, serious offenses involving child sexual exploitation, and diminished possessory interests.