Am I the only one who’s phone is always on its last legs by the time I decide to get a new one anyway? I’ve never needed to actively destroy one because I’m clumsy and it happens naturally 😂😂
You failed to mention that Proctor was not only sending these texts to his friends. He was also sending them to his colleagues and his superiors. Thats not just one bad cop, thats a system that condones this behavior in the police force. Enter the Sandra Birchmore case.
Love these episodes along with all the others you’ve done. I’m not shocked that people get hateful when they hear a different opinion than theirs being said, but it’s always disappointing. I love that you guys aren’t letting it get to you. Must be a lawyer super power. 😉 Keep up the good work!
Woah woah woah- the glass was not a defense theory, at all. The FBI hired these overly qualified PhDs and tasked them to see if 1st they can find out how the taillight broke and 2nd if officer JOK’s body/injuries were from a car. They alone came up with the glass hitting the light theory. The defense had the FBIs report to go off of but did not talk about the case or do any trial prep with these people, none at all. Like they said neither the SUV or the body reflect any of the state’s theory! Whatever did happen- it wasnt what the prosecutor sò
For me, who watched every day of the trial and was leaning guilty at the start, it was Trooper Paul who tanked the case, along with Proctor. Trooper Paul did not even know how velocity works. The pieces of tail light found initially on scene and the pieces of tail light found in Officer O’keefe’s clothing make me think there is a chance she did hit him, but I never got close to beyond reasonable doubt. I can’t make the physics work for a car accident… i need some kind of explanation there… I did not find the McCabes or the Alberts particularly credible, and Higgins was very suspicious. I don’t know if any were involved, I think most or all probably weren’t but they came off as lying anyway. For example, I don’t think Julie had anything to do with it, but why would you leave donuts to freeze in a car??? Higgins didn’t want to give a straight answer… and Jen was her own worst enemy. People should never harass them, though.
@izzydizzybangbang2560 KR tanked the case for herself. She admitted she hit him from the get go BEFORE anyone had any idea if he was in someone's bed or if he had a heart attack. Give up defending this cop killer. You sound rediculous.
@@Barb417since this podcast is about law - it should be at least - someone saying something is not evidence to convict them. If you want to be mad, be mad at the State Police and the CW, they did a horrible job. None of us will ever know what really happened that night bc the investigators didn’t do their job properly. This trial was awful, no matter on which side you are.
At about the twenty-one minute mark, you say "Does he have injuries that would be consistent with say him standing up and being backed into by a car? No, but it's not exactly accurate that he has no injuries below the neck." If his injuries are not consistent with him being backed into by a car, then we have reasonable doubt that he was backed into by a car. The moment that we admit that the injuries could be caused by any number of things, then we don't have a good case against anyone. If the injuries don't tell us exactly how he died, then I'm left with a huge amount of doubt. You seem to be trying to create a binary choice where we must accept the defense's conspiracy theory as you define that theory or must accept the prosecution's accusation that Karen Read killed John O'Keefe. I've watched a bit of testimony on other channels, and I no longer assign any credibility to anyone. If I were a juror, I would say that I have to vote not guilty because no one on any side is producing any evidence that has enough credibility for me to draw any conclusion. I'm back down to thinking that the odds are maybe 50/50 to 60/40 that she hit him, but ultimately, all of the stuff that has been said is so ridiculously inconsistent that I don't feel that I know anything. The more testimony I hear and the more commentary that I hear, the more I believe that the events of that night are hopelessly clouded. Many people who believe her innocence say that the injuries are not consistent with him being hit by a car. If the injuries don't definitively point to death by motor vehicle, then there can be no case.
@@VTPSTTU how many experts to we need to say that his injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car? But these prosecutors are their own experts, I guess lol
The reason she's so worried about John being hit by a car could be that some people are just prone to assume the worst. I've been close to people who always assume the worst. At times, my mom would assume that if I were five minutes late coming home, I was lying in a ditch somewhere instead of being stuck in traffic.
@@OliverMagoo My point is that some people jump to believing the worst in all situations. If she had that kind of dramatic, pessimistic personality, she might have assumed the worst.
I have seen this term confirmation bias thrown about liberally and foolishly by the Karen Read supporters. As if a sprawling conspiracy to frame Karen Read is just as likely as a drunk driving fatality. Drunk driving fatalities are a DAILY occurrence in the US- 37 a day-over 10,000 a year. Cops do not frame innocent people for murder. Cops do not conspire with private citizens to frame innocent people for murder. It has NEVER happened before. Here the defense specifically names 9 conspirators! But there have to be more. It doesn't include the 7 SERT officers who found debris from Read's taillight at 34 Fairview BEFORE Read's vehicle even got to Canton PD. How about Jackson shamelessly accusing 17 y/o Colin Albert of killing O Keefe and 17-year-old Ally McCabe of covering up for him. And you use the term integrity. You have a lot of nerve. . It is not confirmation bias to recognize that the two competing narratives are not equally likely and to treat the conspiracy argument like the contemptible nonsense that it is. The point of assessing PRIOR probability is to attach some likelihood to the competing narratives BEFORE hearing the evidence. You don't have to adduce a lot of evidence to convince me that an everyday occurrence, like a drunk driving accident, occurred. You DO have to introduce a mountain of evidence to convince me that there was an unprecedented conspiracy between a dozen normal suburbanites and law enforcement to frame an innocent person for murder. And it only gets worse when you DO hear the evidence. The Read/O Keefe relationship was fracturing. Read was drunk that night with an estimated BAC of between .13 and .29. So drunk that she told Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe that she didn't even remember going to the Alberts that night. When she awoke, Read acted like the guiltiest person on the face of the earth. She told Kerry Roberts that O Keefe was dead before discovering the body. She admitted to 5 people that she hit O Keefe. Debris from her broken taillight was found in the vicinity of O Keefe's body. The computer data from Read's car demonstrated that she reversed at a high rate of speed, hit something and O Keefe's phone stopped moving for the last time shortly thereafter. The evidence further established that O Keefe never entered 34 Fairview. Given this evidence, how can you have reasonable doubt that Read drunkenly ran over O Keefe, killing him.
@@katetucker1452 Is that how I got to this show? I love DD even when I completely disagree. They read witnesses very well. Maybe they are so off on this one b/c the prosecutors are clearly the ones not interested in justice.
Wrong! Tail light pieces were found weeks after, when Trooper Proctor noticed them while "driving by". He collected them but neglected to write a report or take photos. Curious if you guys watched the actual trial or are you reading a synopsis?
The snow plow driver testimony is not "conspiracy theory." He's a guy who was doing a job that he has experience doing. Part of that job is trying to observe his surroundings. He didn't see a body at the location where the prosecution insists that there must have been a body according to the prosecution theory of the crime. That's not "conspiracy theory." That's just evidence against the prosecution's theory of the crime. The testimony against the snow plow driver is that a couple of teenagers maybe thought that they saw something in that location. The teenagers are teenagers. If I remember correctly, the teenagers had been drinking (underage, at a police officer's home). The teenagers didn't recognize what they saw as a body or a possible body enough to stop and investigate. The snow would make seeing a body more difficult, but snow can also be disturbed in other ways that would make random patterns. If an animal was waling through the snow, a slight depression might form a shadow that would account for what the teenagers saw. On top of all of these things, the teenagers do have at least some motive to interpret their memories in ways that would benefit their friend as opposed to the snow plow driver who has no reason to interpret his memories in either direction. The end result is not that anyone should believe that Mr. O'Keefe's body absolutely wasn't there at two-thirty in the morning when the plow passed. The end result is that people should be skeptical of everything that they are hearing. I don't know whether the body was there or not when the snow plow passed. Because I don't know, I have a huge amount of reasonable doubt. Based solely in the testimony of the snow plow driver versus the teenagers, I lean 60/40 in favor of the snow plow driver for the reasons that I give in the above paragraph. You seem to be stuck on using pejorative terms to describe anything that the defense brings forward. If the defense had the burden of proof to make us believe in some conspiracy, being aggressive towards the defense would be somewhat justified. The defense doesn't have the burden of proof, and the prosecution's case is just very weak.
Around the hour and thirteen minute mark, Alice seems to draw a distinction between "unethical" and "crooked cop." While I understand that she's saying that his being unethical doesn't mean that he tried to frame Karen Read, I wouldn't draw a distinction between "unethical" and "crooked cop." To me, those are the same. I can understand you arguing that Proctor is too stupid to frame someone, but he's a crooked cop either way.
Quite a bit of information left out, why? 🤔 Proctor’s texts were despicable. No, he did not show remorse, he didn’t apologize. But that was not the biggest problem, it was the so called “investigation”, actually the lack of investigation. The expert witnesses were credible. The only expert opinions that caused doubt were regarding the time of Jennifer’s text which wasn’t relevant imo. Excluding this does not change all the facts presented. I will never understand how it’s possible that a law enforcement officer did not come out of his house to assist a “fellow” officer “found” lying on his property. He knew. Very sad.😞 Oh wait didn’t Albert and Higgins attend a fellow law enforcement officer’s funeral in New York the day before?🤔 Did they attend John O’Keefe’s funeral?🤔 I back law enforcement, but not the corrupt ones. I come from a family of military and law enforcement. smh
I can’t understand how Jen didn’t run immediately inside to check on her family. Oh yeah, cause she just called her sisters phone and the call was answered!! Suddenly cell phone evidence is not evidence at all. I’m sure this trial will affect the Walsh case and many others that have already been convicted on the same type of evidence that is suddenly disputable only in this case.
As a matter of fact, I'm feeling a glitch in the matrix system right now. 😯 Who are you guys, and what have you done with Brett & Alice? 🤦♀️🤦 Some lame but lighthearted humor mixed in with a great deal of frustration with your analysis of this case.
@milart12 If you don't agree with me, keep scrolling. Your responses toward me are harassing and unproductive. If you have questions, I recommend you contact one of the jurors who voted Not Guilty on all Counts.
I’ve listened, because I always listen to your podcast. And I don’t even know if she did it or not but when I heard Alice say there were some tiny marks on John’s arm?! I listen because I think that you’re fair I listen because I think that you can look at both sides, obviously your prosecutors. But not one single thing about this case makes you feel like something was going on? Maybe less conspiracy, more cover-up? Nothing? I’m sorry I’m so frustrated by your irresponsible comments. During this particular part I’m not sure if you even watched or listen to any of the testimony there were three pieces of tail light, maybe four found the first day, when they finally called them at night time to go search! When people were saying weeks later, it’s because there were large pieces found weeks later! Also, the absence of blood during their entire search was a little suspicious no? Anyway, I’ll keep listening because for the most part, I trust that you will at least be able to admit how terrible the police and the prosecutors were in this case!?
@@joeindyjoeindy3078exactly! i came here from my podcast app to see if i‘m the only one thinking this episode is full of bias. Sure they are called the prosecutors podcast but does that mean you neeed to switch everything to make the CW the good one and the defense the bad one? This is not about good or bad, its about finding the truth and getting justice. I‘m really disappointed - i mean look at other former prosecutors talking about this case, they all managed to stick with the facts and calling BOTH sides out when needed. This podcast is clearly taking the „we stick to one side no matter what“ road and thats not what i thought this podcast is and certainly not the ppl i will listen to in the future. Very sad.
@@milart12huh?? 4 jurors have come out (2 contacted the defense attorneys directly) to say the jury reached NG on counts 1 and 3. They were only hung on count 2 and the lesser charges associated with it. This info came from affidavits recently filed by the defense.
@@falconzone1 What do you mean Huh? Yes of course, I know about the affidavits. BUT THE JURY HUNG 9-3 IN FAVOR OF CONVICTION ON THE DUI/MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. Were you not aware of that? In other words, 9/12 jurors believed that Read drunkenly ran over O Keefe. And the Karen Read cultists ask silly questions like "Did you even watch the trial" Well, 9/12 jurors also beleived that Read hit O Keefe. I never thought that the prosecution was going to get a conviction on Murder2. It was an overreach and I am not surprised that Read was , apparently, acquitted on this charge.
When the EMT took those clothes off of John- they found absolutely ZERO pieces of tail light in John's clothes. Nothing was reported tell many days after the fact about anything being found in John's clothes... That's a FACT!!!!
Making them seem suspicious - wtf🤣🤣??? Buddy they couldn't get in more suspicious if they ran around the court room naked screaming- The Alberts dog is not freaking guilty no matter how many times she bit OJO 😂✌️. Get a grip buddy!
Did you both listen to, but not watch the trial? On 1.5x speed? How are you missing the lies? Are you listening to the excuses you are providing the witnesses? I can't believe you would present these story to a jury?
Did you read court documents? You can't just sit and watch TB and Melonhead Little for "information" they get paid to lie. Yet, you support pro cop killers.
I know, right?! It’s infuriating. And I’m curious why they or their people aren’t on here responding. They should respond to those of us who are in shock about how they are presenting this case. Their credibility tanked on this case and I no longer wish to listen to anything they have to say because they have insulted my intelligence to the nth degree!! I thought about going back and re-listening to their previous cases again to see if I somehow missed the bias in them. But nah… plenty of other podcasts to listen to. Too bad though because before this case , The Prosecutors podcast was my first recommendation to people for a good source on trial cases. I believed them to be unbiased and fair in their analysis of each case. Oh well… they had a good run… now this podcast will turn into a a platform for people to spew lies and feel justified in their skewed views or opinions.
@@lavelleronning4639 I feel like they are trying to tell me people don't lie under oath. Quite frankly, I have never witnessed a case in which so many people clearly lied and perjured themselves on the stand. And 75% of them were state's witnesses. LEO, their families, expert witnesses, emts /firefighters... To top that off I witnessed the prosecutor clearly lie and deceive from indictment to closing arguments. I don't even know what to think of the judge, be it tiredness or disinterest, she clearly contradicted herself and never read a damn thing.This case alone has single handedly underminded the usefulness of our justice system in my eyes. If people don't feel compelled to be honest the entire foundation crumbles...and these two want to tell me state's witnesses were above reproach?
You could question if karen purposely bumped johns car to explain the broken taillight....but that would obviously take us down the conspiracy route...and i dont buy the conspiracoes in this case
You both literally sound like defense attorneys. You both brush away multiple areas of reasonable doubt. It is so shady that two people, whose job it is to serve the public, both got rid of their phones the day before an order to preserve. It doesn’t prove what they are hiding, but it shows they are hiding something. In addition, people in their corrupt little city are tipping them off. There’s also lots of holes in the timelines of where evidence is. Plus, tons of weirdness with evidence collection, seemingly important statements missing from police reports and on and on. All of these issues give reasonable doubt. There doesn’t need to be proof of a conspiracy. What I see is bias confirmation, incompetence and a lack of ethics.
Again, you seem stuck on ascribing motives to anyone who doesn't see things your way. You spend a while insisting that people would hear the horrible things that Proctor says and would engage in jury nullification because they hate him so much. Later, you admit that his feelings could lead to tunnel vision that might have affected his ability to investigate the case. Why can't a juror vote "not guilty" because they don't trust the investigation done by someone who has that much tunnel vision and is that unable to control himself? Proctor could be a complete bastard, but if the medical examiner could say, "Absolutely, this man was run over by an SUV," the prosecution would be much closer to a conviction. If they had found bits and pieces of Mr. O'Keefe's clothing in the undercarriage of Read's SUV, then the prosecution would be much closer to persuading us that her car killed him. We'd have to consider whether he was really run over or whether Proctor put them there. Proctor's behavior suggests that he's unethical enough to do that, but that's not the biggest problem. The lack of that physical evidence of Mr. O'Keefe being run over is a big problem for the prosecution. I understand that you feel strongly that she is guilty of hitting him either by accident or as murder. However, your ascribing motives and thoughts to anyone who has doubts isn't making your case for your ideas any stronger. That whole approach just feels like ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you.
@@leslievasquez2645 They aren't that way on every case. I don't know why this one is causing such negativity. I accept that maybe Karen Read hit Mr. O'Keefe with her car. I also accept that the investigation was badly flawed. Some of those flaws were no one's fault. If the whole thing had happened in the summer, maybe the situation wouldn't be this bad. On the other hand, some of those flaws happened because every officer involved seems to be incompetent. I don't understand what makes this case one where there's so much ad hominem against anyone who doesn't believe the prosecution.
@@VTPSTTU I watched the whole trial and I just honestly don’t believe that Lally proved what was his burden to prove. I have no idea what happened but I believe the experts who said that John wasn’t hit by a car. They weren’t paid experts and they were available to the prosecutor as well. Murder just wasn’t proven in my opinion 🤷🏼♀️
Is a body temperature of eighty degrees consistent with his being in the snow for the amount of time that the prosecution theory says? I have to assume that it is, but this case seems so insane that I'm not sure. I'm sure that the charts suggest a whole range of times that a body would need to be dead in the snow to reach eighty degrees. I'm sure that the amount of snow on his body and even the wind would be a factor. Did anyone explore what the whole range of times would be?
@@katetucker1452 Are we absolutely certain that he had massive blood loss? I'm not saying that to say that he didn't. I'm asking the question because I'm no longer sure. If they held the whole trial and didn't spell out the forensic details of his death, that's just more reason to doubt everything that everyone is saying. If we are going to believe that she killed him with her SUV, we need to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that he was killed by a SUV. If we can't establish that fact, proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't seem possible. Obviously, if they had a video of her backing over him but didn't have absolute forensic proof on his body, that would be a different situation. They don't have that kind of evidence of her SUV hitting him. They have a broken tail light, maybe a dent, and some scratches. The backs of most people's cars have some scratches, so the evidentiary value of a few scratches is almost zero. Her running over him seems to be a very plausible theory, but without real evidence, that's just a theory.
Don't be naive. And STOP acting like the rest of America is that ignorant! Karen used Higgins to make a point with John. She didn't want Higgins. He wasn't that attractive. She played with Higgin's emotions to get to John. A child's game that went too far. An altercation happened btw John and Higgins outside after Karen drove away. A scuffle that ended with John injured and unconscious. Maybe an accident. Or a push that went too far. Higgins wasn't plowing snow that night out of the goodness of his heart and a belly full of whiskey. He plowed to cover up a scuffle and maybe some blood. Then he moved John with Alberts help down thru the outside basement entrance until everyone left. No one upstairs would be the wiser. John's head was still bleeding in basement so part of the basement floor was replaced by the Alberts soon after incident. But BEFORE they sold the house. Chloe was in the basement and became anxious with all the tension. There was music playing upstairs. Chloe then bit and scratched John's arm as if he was a threat. They pulled Chloe off and cleaned John's arm. Erase the DNA. Or so they hoped but they quickly re-homed Chloe anyway to keep her out of the picture. Couldn't report it. Couldn't have John die inside the house or a vehicle. Scent of death. Cops would know this. So when no one else was around, John's body was then moved to the front lawn to die in the snow and the cold as if he had never entered the house. The house that was NEVER investigated. Mutual butt dials btw Albert and Higgins at 2:30 a.m. It mattered to them that John die. John HAD to die. So they had JM Google how long it would take to die in the freezing cold. We all know that cops/deputies can be very tightknit. A code of honor. We all see it in every town and watering hole in this country. Secrets are kept close to the vest. We're not talking about the average neighbors. These are comrades with a life-long bond and code of silence. If ONE goes down, they ALL go down. Details in my scenario may differ, but timetables and other evidence points heavily in this general direction. This isn't Mayberry, Massachusetts.
@mauiswift6391 I agree! Sounds like the cult members are in these comments losing their minds 😂😂! All the the bs they allow themselves to believe is insane!
This is the most logical accounting I've heard yet. It is actually the argument that I have articulated as well. The only one that makes sense and fits with the evidence. "This isn't Mayberry" indeed!
There was not one single piece of evidence in this entire trial- that could come even remotely close to being considered as "devastating" for the defense- period... To even hint at such a thing is straight up Ludacris!!
Well, it's nice neither of you are living with PTSD. It really affects how you think and behave in a crisis. We have the dash cam footage. We know what she did & said and to whom. Y.B. narrated her drinks at the bar and he was wrong. I feel like you are pushing an unethical narrative.
I was so excited when i saw that this podcast is covering this case. Its really disappointing to listen to obviously overwhelming bias from you two. I‘m not a fan of KR and i‘m not sure if she‘s innocent in everything here but using common sense there was clearly so much wrong with this trial and the CW did a horrible job. Its sad to see you two going the „we stick to the prosecution side no matter what“ road. Now i have to question every case you ever discussed where i didn’t researched the details myself. Its like the horrible coverage Nany Grace uploaded about this case, its so obvious when ppl did not see the trial from start to finish. No shame in not having time to watch it in its entirety but its a shame to act like you did and spreading so much bs out there. This is not a fact based analysis, very disappointing and i‘m certainly will consider listening to this podcast again.
Proctor did a hell of a lot more then just care they're water for them- he freaking dumped a hundreds + gallons of it all over the courts floor for the whole world to see!!!
These pro-conspiracy people in the comments are exhausting. How old are you? If you don't like their takes, don't listen. Go find an echo chamber of like minded individuals and enjoy yourselves. I have second-hand embarrassment just reading the comments.
Quite hypocritical considering no one is forcing you to read the comments…? I think these comments are from people, like me and you, who have listened to this podcast for a long time and enjoyed it, who like Brett and Alice and support them. People are just sharing their personal opinions on this highly controversial case. Most are not being malicious or rude and all are within their rights to disagree with Alice and Brett’s assessment.
Oh Jeezus, you are very wrong about the taillight pieces, HER TAILIGHT WASN'T BROKEN, and you seem to have missed the lack of physics in Trooper Paul's theory.
@fullercorp There is a difference between CRACKED (Karen, Kerry. Barrios, Tow Truck Driver, etc.) that AM on video after Officer John O'Keefe's death and what Proctor and Bukanik presented as the state they found it in. It's galling they thought they would be able to convince people otherwise.
Actually! I can’t. I’m done listening. I keep hearing what I think are mid-truths. I’m so disappointed in both of you honestly. I wanted to hear balance , and I heard apologies for the ridiculous prosecution. And also, things that simply were not in evidence.
Losing faith in y’all. More than just a little bit. These last 7 episodes were painful to listen to. Yes, we all have biases, but we also all have eyes, ears & brains. If you can’t see the mountain of reasonable doubt, then you’re allowing your own biases to overtake your logic. This case is polarizing and will stay that way up until the FBI and Atty General investigations are over. Whether or not we’ll be granted that knowledge, I don’t know. But as it stands-the last set of witnesses were the MOST credible witnesses in that whole s**t-show Lally directed, and to brush them off, is just an example of tunnel vision and malicious prosecution. I’ll listen to the end, whenever that is, and I hope the clouds will clear for you guys too.
@@kittikat2318 it sounds like they're not watching the actual trial, just reading the Cliff Notes. 😉They've got many facts wrong and seem unaware of the whole picture.
I completely agree. Take Proctor, for example. I could overlook all of his schoolboy locker room talk, which was beyond obnoxious. EXCEPT, for Proctor wishing Karen dead. That one I filed away. Because those words take it to a whole other level of one's thought process. True character. If Proctor is so flippant about someone's demise behind the scenes, what else is he capable of behind the scenes?
Then there's Katie McLaughlin, EMT. (I think that's her name.) And this might be a little nit picky, but . . . short example. I went back the other day, and both my husband and I re-listened to her testimony along with a few other EMT testimonies. I was actually looking for something else that someone had challenged me on. McLaughlin was fine when Lally was questioning her. When Defense questioned her, she 'struggled' recalling very specific events- even when a beach photo, with her in it, was handed to her. She couldn't be certain of anything over the span of the past 10 years - since High School in 2014 - and was extremely vague when it came to her connection with the Alberts. I'm older. I can remember events and connections from 40 years ago. I would know if I'd been to someone's home or if they'd been to mine. It was just bizarre, IMO.
The best defence is conspiracy....wow ypu americans do come across as very nieve! You should think yourselves lucky, and i mean lucky that you have at least 2 logical, commensesical prosecutors over there in the usa
@@mauiswift6391 There is so much...but Trooper Joe Paul, in particular, was a train wreck. He had no credentials or credibility.His "theory" was embarrassing , tbh. The experts hired by the FBI/DOJ were actual qualified experts with no "dog in the hunt" so to speak. I went into this with no preconceived ideas or knowledge of the case. Watched the trial with an open mind and in disbelief. The experts are clear that OJO was not hit by a car, thus no case against KR. I have experience with dog bites/attacks and OJO was definitely attacked, imo....based on my own observations. Brett called them little scratches or something like that. I am (or was) a huge fan of the Prosecutors, love both of them. They are approaching this case with tunnel vision (imo), so disappointed. Had I not watched the trial for myself I would never question anything they say....that is how much confidence I had in them. Now I'm questioning other cases that I didn't follow.
@@mauiswift6391 Several things...Trooper Joe Paul, the Elephant in the room. He was NOT an expert. His theory was ridiculous. Compared to the actual qualified experts, who were hired by the FBI/DOJ (no dog in the hunt, so to speak). They scientifically proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle, and in doing so exonerated KR. That's really the entire case. I am greatly troubled by the poor investigation, all of the butt dials, butt answers...The audio of Jen calling her sister and whispering, then claiming she did not make the call. The Alberts, law enforcement and first responders did not come out of the house AT ALL. I have personal experience with dog attacks/bites. I know what they look like. Brett played those off as "little scrapes"....I love Brett and Alice more than any other true crime podcasters, by far. I cling to every word ....but I watched the trial this time. They are cherry picking discussion points, giving credibility to witnesses who have conflicting statements. The list goes on. I am so sad and disappointed . I do not know KR, knew nothing about the case prior to watching trial. Have no reason to care one way or the other. I do believe in a fair trial, wait for the evidence and follow it. That was not done in this case. I have to believe B and A will eventually find reasonable doubt, this case is a text book example.
@@milart12 No, they are in addition to "chain of custody issues" the chain of custody issues involve the collected blood, sitting in a bag, in a solo cup in the sally port where anyone and everyone has access. There is no log once they make it to the evidence room. The same applies to the pieces of tail light collected throughout the month by various people.The tail light in the bag opened in court had 3, not 2 pieces as indicated on the bag. Proctor drove around with "evidence" without turning it in for days.Where is the jacket that the EMT worker insisted OJO was wearing when he was attempting to revive him? At some point the missing belt appeared in court, it was listed nowhere on an evidence log....because there was no log. These are not best practices. The "evidence" is often not allowed in court if it cannot be authenticated and or show a strict chain of custody.
No, the prosecution went first, as always. However, in this case, they anticipated the defense's strategy of third party culprits, and called them first as prosecution witnesses in order to get ahead of the scenario that the defense would present when it was their turn.
What does it say about Karen that she thought she left him at the Waterfall bar? She was so drunk that she didn't even remember that she went to 34 Fairview. And many people heard her say "I hit him"
I’ve listened, because I always listen to your podcast. And I don’t even know if she did it or not but when I heard Alice say there were some tiny marks on John’s arm?! I listen because I think that you’re fair I listen because I think that you can look at both sides, obviously your prosecutors. But not one single thing about this case makes you feel like something was going on? Maybe less conspiracy, more cover-up? Nothing? I’m sorry I’m so frustrated by your irresponsible comments. During this particular part I’m not sure if you even watched or listen to any of the testimony there were three pieces of tail light, maybe four found the first day, when they finally called them at night time to go search! When people were saying weeks later, it’s because there were large pieces found weeks later! Also, the absence of blood during their entire search was a little suspicious no? Anyway, I’ll keep listening because for the most part, I trust that you will at least be able to admit how terrible the police and the prosecutors were in this case!?
Am I the only one who’s phone is always on its last legs by the time I decide to get a new one anyway? I’ve never needed to actively destroy one because I’m clumsy and it happens naturally 😂😂
You failed to mention that Proctor was not only sending these texts to his friends. He was also sending them to his colleagues and his superiors. Thats not just one bad cop, thats a system that condones this behavior in the police force. Enter the Sandra Birchmore case.
"A Sicilian never squeals. Never."
WTF does that mean?
Love these episodes along with all the others you’ve done. I’m not shocked that people get hateful when they hear a different opinion than theirs being said, but it’s always disappointing. I love that you guys aren’t letting it get to you. Must be a lawyer super power. 😉 Keep up the good work!
Who is being "hateful"?
Woah woah woah- the glass was not a defense theory, at all. The FBI hired these overly qualified PhDs and tasked them to see if 1st they can find out how the taillight broke and 2nd if officer JOK’s body/injuries were from a car. They alone came up with the glass hitting the light theory. The defense had the FBIs report to go off of but did not talk about the case or do any trial prep with these people, none at all. Like they said neither the SUV or the body reflect any of the state’s theory! Whatever did happen- it wasnt what the prosecutor sò
Thanks Brett and Alice.
For me, who watched every day of the trial and was leaning guilty at the start, it was Trooper Paul who tanked the case, along with Proctor. Trooper Paul did not even know how velocity works. The pieces of tail light found initially on scene and the pieces of tail light found in Officer O’keefe’s clothing make me think there is a chance she did hit him, but I never got close to beyond reasonable doubt. I can’t make the physics work for a car accident… i need some kind of explanation there… I did not find the McCabes or the Alberts particularly credible, and Higgins was very suspicious. I don’t know if any were involved, I think most or all probably weren’t but they came off as lying anyway. For example, I don’t think Julie had anything to do with it, but why would you leave donuts to freeze in a car??? Higgins didn’t want to give a straight answer… and Jen was her own worst enemy. People should never harass them, though.
Exactly.
@izzydizzybangbang2560 KR tanked the case for herself. She admitted she hit him from the get go BEFORE anyone had any idea if he was in someone's bed or if he had a heart attack. Give up defending this cop killer. You sound rediculous.
@@Barb417 talk about calling the Pot black. Listen to yourself!
@Fivar Listen to yourself. You sound rediculous.
@@Barb417since this podcast is about law - it should be at least - someone saying something is not evidence to convict them. If you want to be mad, be mad at the State Police and the CW, they did a horrible job. None of us will ever know what really happened that night bc the investigators didn’t do their job properly. This trial was awful, no matter on which side you are.
At about the twenty-one minute mark, you say "Does he have injuries that would be consistent with say him standing up and being backed into by a car? No, but it's not exactly accurate that he has no injuries below the neck."
If his injuries are not consistent with him being backed into by a car, then we have reasonable doubt that he was backed into by a car. The moment that we admit that the injuries could be caused by any number of things, then we don't have a good case against anyone. If the injuries don't tell us exactly how he died, then I'm left with a huge amount of doubt.
You seem to be trying to create a binary choice where we must accept the defense's conspiracy theory as you define that theory or must accept the prosecution's accusation that Karen Read killed John O'Keefe. I've watched a bit of testimony on other channels, and I no longer assign any credibility to anyone. If I were a juror, I would say that I have to vote not guilty because no one on any side is producing any evidence that has enough credibility for me to draw any conclusion. I'm back down to thinking that the odds are maybe 50/50 to 60/40 that she hit him, but ultimately, all of the stuff that has been said is so ridiculously inconsistent that I don't feel that I know anything. The more testimony I hear and the more commentary that I hear, the more I believe that the events of that night are hopelessly clouded. Many people who believe her innocence say that the injuries are not consistent with him being hit by a car. If the injuries don't definitively point to death by motor vehicle, then there can be no case.
@@VTPSTTU how many experts to we need to say that his injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car? But these prosecutors are their own experts, I guess lol
Exactly.
Exactly!
Exactly 💯
The reason she's so worried about John being hit by a car could be that some people are just prone to assume the worst. I've been close to people who always assume the worst. At times, my mom would assume that if I were five minutes late coming home, I was lying in a ditch somewhere instead of being stuck in traffic.
@@VTPSTTU exactly
Yes, but you were driving a car. John was supposedly in a house. He wasn't wandering around the neighborhood in a blizzard. Big difference.
@@OliverMagoo My point is that some people jump to believing the worst in all situations. If she had that kind of dramatic, pessimistic personality, she might have assumed the worst.
@@VTPSTTU and I agree with you
Maybe she thought he was walking home after?
The confirmation bias you are describing this whole series has been very clear and obvious to any reader with an inch of integrity
I have seen this term confirmation bias thrown about liberally and foolishly by the Karen Read supporters. As if a sprawling conspiracy to frame Karen Read is just as likely as a drunk driving fatality. Drunk driving fatalities are a DAILY occurrence in the US- 37 a day-over 10,000 a year. Cops do not frame innocent people for murder. Cops do not conspire with private citizens to frame innocent people for murder. It has NEVER happened before. Here the defense specifically names 9 conspirators! But there have to be more. It doesn't include the 7 SERT officers who found debris from Read's taillight at 34 Fairview BEFORE Read's vehicle even got to Canton PD. How about Jackson shamelessly accusing 17 y/o Colin Albert of killing O Keefe and 17-year-old Ally McCabe of covering up for him. And you use the term integrity. You have a lot of nerve.
. It is not confirmation bias to recognize that the two competing narratives are not equally likely and to treat the conspiracy argument like the contemptible nonsense that it is. The point of assessing PRIOR probability is to attach some likelihood to the competing narratives BEFORE hearing the evidence. You don't have to adduce a lot of evidence to convince me that an everyday occurrence, like a drunk driving accident, occurred. You DO have to introduce a mountain of evidence to convince me that there was an unprecedented conspiracy between a dozen normal suburbanites and law enforcement to frame an innocent person for murder.
And it only gets worse when you DO hear the evidence. The Read/O Keefe relationship was fracturing. Read was drunk that night with an estimated BAC of between .13 and .29. So drunk that she told Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe that she didn't even remember going to the Alberts that night. When she awoke, Read acted like the guiltiest person on the face of the earth. She told Kerry Roberts that O Keefe was dead before discovering the body. She admitted to 5 people that she hit O Keefe. Debris from her broken taillight was found in the vicinity of O Keefe's body. The computer data from Read's car demonstrated that she reversed at a high rate of speed, hit something and O Keefe's phone stopped moving for the last time shortly thereafter. The evidence further established that O Keefe never entered 34 Fairview. Given this evidence, how can you have reasonable doubt that Read drunkenly ran over O Keefe, killing him.
Bring on the Defence Diaries vs the Prosecutors' Podcast finale to this series!
@@katetucker1452 getting rid of phones, deleting all sorts of calls, text and a google search is perfectly reasonable to Brett and Alice!
Yes! This would be AMAZING!
@@katetucker1452 OMG I love this idea!!!
@@katetucker1452 Is that how I got to this show? I love DD even when I completely disagree. They read witnesses very well. Maybe they are so off on this one b/c the prosecutors are clearly the ones not interested in justice.
Wrong! Tail light pieces were found weeks after, when Trooper Proctor noticed them while "driving by". He collected them but neglected to write a report or take photos. Curious if you guys watched the actual trial or are you reading a synopsis?
That is my recollection, too.
They definitely did NOT watch much trial at all.
PS... "Collected" February 11, 2022.
What?! There were some found that same day. No wonder you people just believe what you want to believe.
@vanessabiggs4369 Seems like you people have selective hearing
The snow plow driver testimony is not "conspiracy theory." He's a guy who was doing a job that he has experience doing. Part of that job is trying to observe his surroundings. He didn't see a body at the location where the prosecution insists that there must have been a body according to the prosecution theory of the crime. That's not "conspiracy theory." That's just evidence against the prosecution's theory of the crime.
The testimony against the snow plow driver is that a couple of teenagers maybe thought that they saw something in that location. The teenagers are teenagers. If I remember correctly, the teenagers had been drinking (underage, at a police officer's home). The teenagers didn't recognize what they saw as a body or a possible body enough to stop and investigate. The snow would make seeing a body more difficult, but snow can also be disturbed in other ways that would make random patterns. If an animal was waling through the snow, a slight depression might form a shadow that would account for what the teenagers saw. On top of all of these things, the teenagers do have at least some motive to interpret their memories in ways that would benefit their friend as opposed to the snow plow driver who has no reason to interpret his memories in either direction.
The end result is not that anyone should believe that Mr. O'Keefe's body absolutely wasn't there at two-thirty in the morning when the plow passed. The end result is that people should be skeptical of everything that they are hearing. I don't know whether the body was there or not when the snow plow passed. Because I don't know, I have a huge amount of reasonable doubt. Based solely in the testimony of the snow plow driver versus the teenagers, I lean 60/40 in favor of the snow plow driver for the reasons that I give in the above paragraph.
You seem to be stuck on using pejorative terms to describe anything that the defense brings forward. If the defense had the burden of proof to make us believe in some conspiracy, being aggressive towards the defense would be somewhat justified. The defense doesn't have the burden of proof, and the prosecution's case is just very weak.
Yeah yeah yeah
Around the hour and thirteen minute mark, Alice seems to draw a distinction between "unethical" and "crooked cop." While I understand that she's saying that his being unethical doesn't mean that he tried to frame Karen Read, I wouldn't draw a distinction between "unethical" and "crooked cop." To me, those are the same. I can understand you arguing that Proctor is too stupid to frame someone, but he's a crooked cop either way.
Quite a bit of information left out, why? 🤔
Proctor’s texts were despicable. No, he did not show remorse, he didn’t apologize. But that was not the biggest problem, it was the so called “investigation”, actually the lack of investigation.
The expert witnesses were credible. The only expert opinions that caused doubt were regarding the time of Jennifer’s text which wasn’t relevant imo. Excluding this does not change all the facts presented.
I will never understand how it’s possible that a law enforcement officer did not come out of his house to assist a “fellow” officer “found” lying on his property. He knew. Very sad.😞
Oh wait didn’t Albert and Higgins attend a fellow law enforcement officer’s funeral in New York the day before?🤔 Did they attend John O’Keefe’s funeral?🤔
I back law enforcement, but not the corrupt ones. I come from a family of military and law enforcement. smh
I can’t understand how Jen didn’t run immediately inside to check on her family. Oh yeah, cause she just called her sisters phone and the call was answered!! Suddenly cell phone evidence is not evidence at all. I’m sure this trial will affect the Walsh case and many others that have already been convicted on the same type of evidence that is suddenly disputable only in this case.
Great episodes guys! I respect you for sticking to the truth that many find very hard to do !
@@MiaPuhar the truth? They have many facts wrong.
Yet, they aren'though. Not the basic truth.
Yep, big mob out there trying to push their opinion on anyone who stands with the evidence.
Exactly!
@Ieezeca Believe whatever YOU want to believe. Its just an opinion, not a fact.
As a matter of fact, I'm feeling a glitch in the matrix system right now. 😯 Who are you guys, and what have you done with Brett & Alice? 🤦♀️🤦
Some lame but lighthearted humor mixed in with a great deal of frustration with your analysis of this case.
@@nottthereyet4872 a little bit aggressive from Brett at the beginning
@leslievasquez2645 Hey. One minute, we're discussing true crime, and the next, we're all conspiracy theorists! 🙃
@@nottthereyet4872 they go hand in hand 🤣
@@nottthereyet4872 If you believe that Karen Read is innocent, you ARE a conspiracy theorist. They are merely stating the obvious.
@milart12 If you don't agree with me, keep scrolling. Your responses toward me are harassing and unproductive. If you have questions, I recommend you contact one of the jurors who voted Not Guilty on all Counts.
I’ve listened, because I always listen to your podcast. And I don’t even know if she did it or not but when I heard Alice say there were some tiny marks on John’s arm?! I listen because I think that you’re fair I listen because I think that you can look at both sides, obviously your prosecutors. But not one single thing about this case makes you feel like something was going on? Maybe less conspiracy, more cover-up? Nothing? I’m sorry I’m so frustrated by your irresponsible comments. During this particular part I’m not sure if you even watched or listen to any of the testimony there were three pieces of tail light, maybe four found the first day, when they finally called them at night time to go search! When people were saying weeks later, it’s because there were large pieces found weeks later! Also, the absence of blood during their entire search was a little suspicious no? Anyway, I’ll keep listening because for the most part, I trust that you will at least be able to admit how terrible the police and the prosecutors were in this case!?
Deep Bev style sigh....this is so ingenious. Now I have to question all the other cases you've analyzed. Sad.
That’s how I feel too. I now question their judgement.
@@Vlue2000 So the big question "Did Adnan do it" ??? Now I don't know!
@@joeindyjoeindy3078exactly! i came here from my podcast app to see if i‘m the only one thinking this episode is full of bias. Sure they are called the prosecutors podcast but does that mean you neeed to switch everything to make the CW the good one and the defense the bad one? This is not about good or bad, its about finding the truth and getting justice. I‘m really disappointed - i mean look at other former prosecutors talking about this case, they all managed to stick with the facts and calling BOTH sides out when needed. This podcast is clearly taking the „we stick to one side no matter what“ road and thats not what i thought this podcast is and certainly not the ppl i will listen to in the future. Very sad.
@@TheDogAndTheBee I agree...my infatuation w/ them is over
@@joeindyjoeindy3078 I used to look forward to this podcast, I’m heading to the Defense Diaries now
I don’t see how she cannot be guilty, and to get a hung jury, I assume she has convinced herself she is blameless.
did you watch the trial?
Are you blind and/or deaf? What trial were you watching? Serious question. 🤔
@@TheDogAndTheBee The jury voted 9-3 to convict on dui/manslaughter so maybe it is you who didn't pay attention when watching the trial.
@@milart12huh?? 4 jurors have come out (2 contacted the defense attorneys directly) to say the jury reached NG on counts 1 and 3. They were only hung on count 2 and the lesser charges associated with it. This info came from affidavits recently filed by the defense.
@@falconzone1 What do you mean Huh? Yes of course, I know about the affidavits. BUT THE JURY HUNG 9-3 IN FAVOR OF CONVICTION ON THE DUI/MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. Were you not aware of that? In other words, 9/12 jurors believed that Read drunkenly ran over O Keefe. And the Karen Read cultists ask silly questions like "Did you even watch the trial" Well, 9/12 jurors also beleived that Read hit O Keefe. I never thought that the prosecution was going to get a conviction on Murder2. It was an overreach and I am not surprised that Read was , apparently, acquitted on this charge.
Due respect the Sert team found 3 pieces of taillight two white one red. The white later appeared to have broken into smaller pieces.
Yes, but they were talking initially.
@@mauiswift6391 right they only found three pieces initially that first day not “several” all the rest were found subsequent days.
When the EMT took those clothes off of John- they found absolutely ZERO pieces of tail light in John's clothes.
Nothing was reported tell many days after the fact about anything being found in John's clothes... That's a FACT!!!!
Making them seem suspicious - wtf🤣🤣??? Buddy they couldn't get in more suspicious if they ran around the court room naked screaming- The Alberts dog is not freaking guilty no matter how many times she bit OJO 😂✌️. Get a grip buddy!
Did you both listen to, but not watch the trial? On 1.5x speed? How are you missing the lies? Are you listening to the excuses you are providing the witnesses? I can't believe you would present these story to a jury?
Did you read court documents? You can't just sit and watch TB and Melonhead Little for "information" they get paid to lie. Yet, you support pro cop killers.
I know, right?! It’s infuriating. And I’m curious why they or their people aren’t on here responding. They should respond to those of us who are in shock about how they are presenting this case. Their credibility tanked on this case and I no longer wish to listen to anything they have to say because they have insulted my intelligence to the nth degree!! I thought about going back and re-listening to their previous cases again to see if I somehow missed the bias in them. But nah… plenty of other podcasts to listen to. Too bad though because before this case , The Prosecutors podcast was my first recommendation to people for a good source on trial cases. I believed them to be unbiased and fair in their analysis of each case. Oh well… they had a good run… now this podcast will turn into a a platform for people to spew lies and feel justified in their skewed views or opinions.
@@lavelleronning4639 I feel like they are trying to tell me people don't lie under oath. Quite frankly, I have never witnessed a case in which so many people clearly lied and perjured themselves on the stand. And 75% of them were state's witnesses. LEO, their families, expert witnesses, emts /firefighters... To top that off I witnessed the prosecutor clearly lie and deceive from indictment to closing arguments. I don't even know what to think of the judge, be it tiredness or disinterest, she clearly contradicted herself and never read a damn thing.This case alone has single handedly underminded the usefulness of our justice system in my eyes. If people don't feel compelled to be honest the entire foundation crumbles...and these two want to tell me state's witnesses were above reproach?
You could question if karen purposely bumped johns car to explain the broken taillight....but that would obviously take us down the conspiracy route...and i dont buy the conspiracoes in this case
You both literally sound like defense attorneys. You both brush away multiple areas of reasonable doubt. It is so shady that two people, whose job it is to serve the public, both got rid of their phones the day before an order to preserve. It doesn’t prove what they are hiding, but it shows they are hiding something. In addition, people in their corrupt little city are tipping them off.
There’s also lots of holes in the timelines of where evidence is. Plus, tons of weirdness with evidence collection, seemingly important statements missing from police reports and on and on. All of these issues give reasonable doubt.
There doesn’t need to be proof of a conspiracy. What I see is bias confirmation, incompetence and a lack of ethics.
They sound like typical shady unethical prosecutors to me.
@@Vlue2000 the conspiracy is that Karen killed John, in my opinion
It was a month before.
@@Felhoney1why are you listening then?
@@leslievasquez2645the conspiracy is how she leaked info to TB to start the lies about the witnesses.
Funny how many conspiracies are turning out to be true
Like what?
@@nottthereyet4872 I don't follow you
Not everything is a conspiracy....but chloe didn't do this
@@jh6614 I agree. Chloe did not kill John O'Keefe.
1:13:29 isn’t being unethical part of being a crooked cop? Y’all still defending him? LOL. I stg y’all are a part of the “conspiracy”.
Again, you seem stuck on ascribing motives to anyone who doesn't see things your way. You spend a while insisting that people would hear the horrible things that Proctor says and would engage in jury nullification because they hate him so much. Later, you admit that his feelings could lead to tunnel vision that might have affected his ability to investigate the case. Why can't a juror vote "not guilty" because they don't trust the investigation done by someone who has that much tunnel vision and is that unable to control himself? Proctor could be a complete bastard, but if the medical examiner could say, "Absolutely, this man was run over by an SUV," the prosecution would be much closer to a conviction. If they had found bits and pieces of Mr. O'Keefe's clothing in the undercarriage of Read's SUV, then the prosecution would be much closer to persuading us that her car killed him. We'd have to consider whether he was really run over or whether Proctor put them there. Proctor's behavior suggests that he's unethical enough to do that, but that's not the biggest problem. The lack of that physical evidence of Mr. O'Keefe being run over is a big problem for the prosecution.
I understand that you feel strongly that she is guilty of hitting him either by accident or as murder. However, your ascribing motives and thoughts to anyone who has doubts isn't making your case for your ideas any stronger. That whole approach just feels like ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you.
@@VTPSTTU I was extremely disappointed as well and then it hit me: they are prosecutors
@@leslievasquez2645 They aren't that way on every case. I don't know why this one is causing such negativity. I accept that maybe Karen Read hit Mr. O'Keefe with her car. I also accept that the investigation was badly flawed. Some of those flaws were no one's fault. If the whole thing had happened in the summer, maybe the situation wouldn't be this bad. On the other hand, some of those flaws happened because every officer involved seems to be incompetent. I don't understand what makes this case one where there's so much ad hominem against anyone who doesn't believe the prosecution.
@@VTPSTTU I watched the whole trial and I just honestly don’t believe that Lally proved what was his burden to prove. I have no idea what happened but I believe the experts who said that John wasn’t hit by a car. They weren’t paid experts and they were available to the prosecutor as well. Murder just wasn’t proven in my opinion 🤷🏼♀️
I haven't watched a new episode since.
@@buckstopshere6306 same
Is a body temperature of eighty degrees consistent with his being in the snow for the amount of time that the prosecution theory says? I have to assume that it is, but this case seems so insane that I'm not sure. I'm sure that the charts suggest a whole range of times that a body would need to be dead in the snow to reach eighty degrees. I'm sure that the amount of snow on his body and even the wind would be a factor. Did anyone explore what the whole range of times would be?
Massive blood loss hastens hypothermia. Oddly, I don't think any of this was spelled out in the trial.
@@katetucker1452 Are we absolutely certain that he had massive blood loss? I'm not saying that to say that he didn't. I'm asking the question because I'm no longer sure.
If they held the whole trial and didn't spell out the forensic details of his death, that's just more reason to doubt everything that everyone is saying. If we are going to believe that she killed him with her SUV, we need to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that he was killed by a SUV. If we can't establish that fact, proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't seem possible. Obviously, if they had a video of her backing over him but didn't have absolute forensic proof on his body, that would be a different situation. They don't have that kind of evidence of her SUV hitting him. They have a broken tail light, maybe a dent, and some scratches. The backs of most people's cars have some scratches, so the evidentiary value of a few scratches is almost zero. Her running over him seems to be a very plausible theory, but without real evidence, that's just a theory.
Don't be naive. And STOP acting like the rest of America is that ignorant!
Karen used Higgins to make a point with John. She didn't want Higgins. He wasn't that attractive.
She played with Higgin's emotions to get to John. A child's game that went too far.
An altercation happened btw John and Higgins outside after Karen drove away. A scuffle that ended with John injured and unconscious. Maybe an accident. Or a push that went too far.
Higgins wasn't plowing snow that night out of the goodness of his heart and a belly full of whiskey. He plowed to cover up a scuffle and maybe some blood.
Then he moved John with Alberts help down thru the outside basement entrance until everyone left.
No one upstairs would be the wiser.
John's head was still bleeding in basement so part of the basement floor was replaced by the Alberts soon after incident. But BEFORE they sold the house.
Chloe was in the basement and became anxious with all the tension. There was music playing upstairs. Chloe then bit and scratched John's arm as if he was a threat. They pulled Chloe off and cleaned John's arm. Erase the DNA. Or so they hoped but they quickly re-homed Chloe anyway to keep her out of the picture.
Couldn't report it. Couldn't have John die inside the house or a vehicle. Scent of death. Cops would know this.
So when no one else was around, John's body was then moved to the front lawn to die in the snow and the cold as if he had never entered the house.
The house that was NEVER investigated.
Mutual butt dials btw Albert and Higgins at 2:30 a.m.
It mattered to them that John die. John HAD to die. So they had JM Google how long it would take to die in the freezing cold.
We all know that cops/deputies can be very tightknit. A code of honor. We all see it in every town and watering hole in this country. Secrets are kept close to the vest.
We're not talking about the average neighbors. These are comrades with a life-long bond and code of silence. If ONE goes down, they ALL go down.
Details in my scenario may differ, but timetables and other evidence points heavily in this general direction.
This isn't Mayberry, Massachusetts.
Haha. In a word-Ridiculous.
Calm down now.
@@milart12absolutely made up in their mind
@mauiswift6391 I agree! Sounds like the cult members are in these comments losing their minds 😂😂! All the the bs they allow themselves to believe is insane!
This is the most logical accounting I've heard yet. It is actually the argument that I have articulated as well. The only one that makes sense and fits with the evidence. "This isn't Mayberry" indeed!
Can you go into detail on the evidence/theory about where the body landed? The angles seem wrong. Could there have been a second car?
@@judykeller4549 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There was not one single piece of evidence in this entire trial- that could come even remotely close to being considered as "devastating" for the defense- period...
To even hint at such a thing is straight up Ludacris!!
Well, it's nice neither of you are living with PTSD. It really affects how you think and behave in a crisis. We have the dash cam footage. We know what she did & said and to whom. Y.B. narrated her drinks at the bar and he was wrong. I feel like you are pushing an unethical narrative.
I was so excited when i saw that this podcast is covering this case. Its really disappointing to listen to obviously overwhelming bias from you two. I‘m not a fan of KR and i‘m not sure if she‘s innocent in everything here but using common sense there was clearly so much wrong with this trial and the CW did a horrible job. Its sad to see you two going the „we stick to the prosecution side no matter what“ road. Now i have to question every case you ever discussed where i didn’t researched the details myself. Its like the horrible coverage Nany Grace uploaded about this case, its so obvious when ppl did not see the trial from start to finish. No shame in not having time to watch it in its entirety but its a shame to act like you did and spreading so much bs out there. This is not a fact based analysis, very disappointing and i‘m certainly will consider listening to this podcast again.
But the jury voted 9-3 to convict on dui/manslaughter. Maybe it is you with poor judgment and not these very competent professionals.
Proctor did a hell of a lot more then just care they're water for them- he freaking dumped a hundreds + gallons of it all over the courts floor for the whole world to see!!!
These pro-conspiracy people in the comments are exhausting. How old are you? If you don't like their takes, don't listen. Go find an echo chamber of like minded individuals and enjoy yourselves. I have second-hand embarrassment just reading the comments.
Quite hypocritical considering no one is forcing you to read the comments…?
I think these comments are from people, like me and you, who have listened to this podcast for a long time and enjoyed it, who like Brett and Alice and support them.
People are just sharing their personal opinions on this highly controversial case. Most are not being malicious or rude and all are within their rights to disagree with Alice and Brett’s assessment.
Oh Jeezus, you are very wrong about the taillight pieces, HER TAILIGHT WASN'T BROKEN, and you seem to have missed the lack of physics in Trooper Paul's theory.
She SAID It was broken and a cop car camera caught it as being broken.
@fullercorp There is a difference between CRACKED (Karen, Kerry. Barrios, Tow Truck Driver, etc.) that AM on video after Officer John O'Keefe's death and what Proctor and Bukanik presented as the state they found it in. It's galling they thought they would be able to convince people otherwise.
Actually! I can’t. I’m done listening. I keep hearing what I think are mid-truths. I’m so disappointed in both of you honestly. I wanted to hear balance , and I heard apologies for the ridiculous prosecution.
And also, things that simply were not in evidence.
Losing faith in y’all. More than just a little bit. These last 7 episodes were painful to listen to. Yes, we all have biases, but we also all have eyes, ears & brains. If you can’t see the mountain of reasonable doubt, then you’re allowing your own biases to overtake your logic. This case is polarizing and will stay that way up until the FBI and Atty General investigations are over. Whether or not we’ll be granted that knowledge, I don’t know. But as it stands-the last set of witnesses were the MOST credible witnesses in that whole s**t-show Lally directed, and to brush them off, is just an example of tunnel vision and malicious prosecution. I’ll listen to the end, whenever that is, and I hope the clouds will clear for you guys too.
@@kittikat2318 it sounds like they're not watching the actual trial, just reading the Cliff Notes. 😉They've got many facts wrong and seem unaware of the whole picture.
I completely agree.
Take Proctor, for example. I could overlook all of his schoolboy locker room talk, which was beyond obnoxious.
EXCEPT, for Proctor wishing Karen dead.
That one I filed away. Because those words take it to a whole other level of one's thought process. True character.
If Proctor is so flippant about someone's demise behind the scenes, what else is he capable of behind the scenes?
Then there's Katie McLaughlin, EMT. (I think that's her name.) And this might be a little nit picky, but . . . short example.
I went back the other day, and both my husband and I re-listened to her testimony along with a few other EMT testimonies. I was actually looking for something else that someone had challenged me on.
McLaughlin was fine when Lally was questioning her. When Defense questioned her, she 'struggled' recalling very specific events- even when a beach photo, with her in it, was handed to her.
She couldn't be certain of anything over the span of the past 10 years - since High School in 2014 - and was extremely vague when it came to her connection with the Alberts.
I'm older. I can remember events and connections from 40 years ago. I would know if I'd been to someone's home or if they'd been to mine. It was just bizarre, IMO.
@@nottthereyet4872 💯
@@nottthereyet4872 interesting 🤔❤️
The best defence is conspiracy....wow ypu americans do come across as very nieve! You should think yourselves lucky, and i mean lucky that you have at least 2 logical, commensesical prosecutors over there in the usa
17 person conspiracies- some, mouthy teens- doesn't jive for me.
Last comment...u speak of "evidence" as if there are no chain of custody issues. I could go on....😢
Such as?
@@mauiswift6391 There is so much...but Trooper Joe Paul, in particular, was a train wreck. He had no credentials or credibility.His "theory" was embarrassing , tbh. The experts hired by the FBI/DOJ were actual qualified experts with no "dog in the hunt" so to speak. I went into this with no preconceived ideas or knowledge of the case. Watched the trial with an open mind and in disbelief. The experts are clear that OJO was not hit by a car, thus no case against KR. I have experience with dog bites/attacks and OJO was definitely attacked, imo....based on my own observations. Brett called them little scratches or something like that. I am (or was) a huge fan of the Prosecutors, love both of them. They are approaching this case with tunnel vision (imo), so disappointed. Had I not watched the trial for myself I would never question anything they say....that is how much confidence I had in them. Now I'm questioning other cases that I didn't follow.
@@mauiswift6391 Several things...Trooper Joe Paul, the Elephant in the room. He was NOT an expert. His theory was ridiculous. Compared to the actual qualified experts, who were hired by the FBI/DOJ (no dog in the hunt, so to speak). They scientifically proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle, and in doing so exonerated KR. That's really the entire case. I am greatly troubled by the poor investigation, all of the butt dials, butt answers...The audio of Jen calling her sister and whispering, then claiming she did not make the call. The Alberts, law enforcement and first responders did not come out of the house AT ALL. I have personal experience with dog attacks/bites. I know what they look like. Brett played those off as "little scrapes"....I love Brett and Alice more than any other true crime podcasters, by far. I cling to every word ....but I watched the trial this time. They are cherry picking discussion points, giving credibility to witnesses who have conflicting statements. The list goes on. I am so sad and disappointed . I do not know KR, knew nothing about the case prior to watching trial. Have no reason to care one way or the other. I do believe in a fair trial, wait for the evidence and follow it. That was not done in this case. I have to believe B and A will eventually find reasonable doubt, this case is a text book example.
@@joeindyjoeindy3078 But these are not "chain of custody" issues
@@milart12 No, they are in addition to "chain of custody issues" the chain of custody issues involve the collected blood, sitting in a bag, in a solo cup in the sally port where anyone and everyone has access. There is no log once they make it to the evidence room. The same applies to the pieces of tail light collected throughout the month by various people.The tail light in the bag opened in court had 3, not 2 pieces as indicated on the bag. Proctor drove around with "evidence" without turning it in for days.Where is the jacket that the EMT worker insisted OJO was wearing when he was attempting to revive him? At some point the missing belt appeared in court, it was listed nowhere on an evidence log....because there was no log. These are not best practices. The "evidence" is often not allowed in court if it cannot be authenticated and or show a strict chain of custody.
Takes to long to get started
Got tired of waiting for you to get started with some useful info turned you off
I’m confused the defense presented their case 1st?
No, the prosecution went first, as always. However, in this case, they anticipated the defense's strategy of third party culprits, and called them first as prosecution witnesses in order to get ahead of the scenario that the defense would present when it was their turn.
@@leonardeast3389ok ty
Is everyone guilty?
Chloe...nope
Karen thought she left him at the Waterfall bar and naver actually said "I hit him". Watch the trial
😂😂😂You are delusional
What does it say about Karen that she thought she left him at the Waterfall bar? She was so drunk that she didn't even remember that she went to 34 Fairview. And many people heard her say "I hit him"
@milart12 Or she could actually be TRYING to distance herself from the crime scene or what happened. But definitely was very drunk and in a rage.
@@realhousewifeoftransylvania1.0 Interesting. Never thought about it that way.
@@milart12it says Jen Mcade is wrong about Karen saying they should look for him at 34 Fairview.
I’ve listened, because I always listen to your podcast. And I don’t even know if she did it or not but when I heard Alice say there were some tiny marks on John’s arm?! I listen because I think that you’re fair I listen because I think that you can look at both sides, obviously your prosecutors. But not one single thing about this case makes you feel like something was going on? Maybe less conspiracy, more cover-up? Nothing? I’m sorry I’m so frustrated by your irresponsible comments. During this particular part I’m not sure if you even watched or listen to any of the testimony there were three pieces of tail light, maybe four found the first day, when they finally called them at night time to go search! When people were saying weeks later, it’s because there were large pieces found weeks later! Also, the absence of blood during their entire search was a little suspicious no? Anyway, I’ll keep listening because for the most part, I trust that you will at least be able to admit how terrible the police and the prosecutors were in this case!?