Karen Read Trial Day 9 RECAP - Nicole & Brian Albert Testify | LAWYER EXPLAINS
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- This is the Recap for Day 9 of the trial of MA v. Karen Read.
Primer Video on the Background of This Case: • Who REALLY Murdered Jo...
Full Karen Read Playlist: • Massachusetts v. Karen...
See the trial streams with legal commentary here!
Day 9 MORNING: • LIVE: Karen Read Trial...
Day 9 AFTERNOON: • LIVE: Karen Read Trial...
Day 10 MORNING: czcams.com/users/livePR-zi4x0okI?...
Day 10 AFTERNOON: czcams.com/users/liversJdOWhocrM?...
TIME STAMPS:
0:00 Introduction
0:32 State's Witness No. 24 - Julie Albert, Cont'd.
21:15 Hearing on Motion to Exclude Turtleboy from Courtroom
29:34 State's Witness No. 25 - Nicole Albert
43:33 State's Witness No. 26 - Brian Albert
45:53 Thoughts Two Weeks Into Trial
47:11 What Do YOU Think?
CONTEXT:
On the morning of January 29, 2022, John O'Keefe's body was found on a snow plow in front of the home of fellow police officer Brian Albert. The night before, he had gone to a bar with his girlfriend, Karen Read, as well as some friends and acquaintances, including Brian. Not long after, Karen was charged with John's murder, but her defense alleges that she is being framed by the group of people who met up at Brian's home after the bar closed. Trial begins Tuesday, April 16, 2024 with jury selection.
To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT, Locals, or Patreon:
YT Members: / @legalbytesmedia
Locals: legalbytes.locals.com
Patreon: / legalbytes
--------------------
🚨 Our podcast:
Anchor: anchor.fm/legalbytes
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i3YLop...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
--------------------
🚨 We have a @LegalBytes Clips channel for clips from our live streams. Subscribe here: / @legalbytesclips4042
--------------------
Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
--------------------
🫖 Dragon's Treasure Teas: Visit www.thedragonstreasure.com/?d... for 10% off some delicious teas and to support this channel!
--------------------
Merch: legal-bytes.creator-spring.com
--------------------
#KarenRead #JusticeforJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead
If it rains every 3 days, no person familiar with the English language would say it 'rarely' rains. She's being obviously deceptive
I think the most normal answer would be something along the lines of "Of course, I have spoken more than usual on the phone with my friend. A fellow cop was found on my front lawn! I tried to make sence how it happened. Yeah, we probably spoke about Karen during at least some of those conversations - it was talk of the town."
I agree. Generally, if someone isn't trying to cover-up anything, they can easily explain what happens. I'm not alluding to a police cover-up because I don't know all the evidence yet, but something feels so weird with this whole case.
I wish the defense would’ve shown what the relationship was in the previous seven months. Did they only text prior? Did they have much fewer calls?
Sounds easy but when the defense is trying to destroy your family you might be a little bit more on edge than “of course……”
@@Steve-qn8gn Destroy your family?? That's a bit dramatic don't you think?
@@Dr.Doodlittle well, I guess that would depend on how much you care about your husband and kid. They are trying to assert that Brian and Colin beat him and threw him outside and every other member of the family is covering it up. You would be ok with that if it was your family?
This is all extremely sketchy. The Alberts weren't woken up by phone calls, sirens, police, a barking dog, Karen yelling.. like 30 feet from their bedroom? And Brian Albert didn't even go outside to see what was happening? He is a first responder himself and he just decided not to go help or anything? And why is he calling Brian Higgins multiple times throughout the night? And why did Higgins show up at the police station at 1:45AM when he wasn't on a shift? And why did Higgins destroy his phone the next day? All extremely suspicious
At the end of the day, It doesn’t matter what the defense says actually happened. The prosecution is supposed to be convincing Beyond A Shadow OF A DOUBT(!) that KR killed him. And they haven’t done anything to prove that yet.
DA Morrissey put out a statement last year saying that Trooper Proctor had no relationship or knowledge of who the Albert family is. Nicole clearly stated she had his personal cell number. It's all so Sus
Agreed. Regardless of the truth of what happened, they are all blatantly lying about what they remember, who they know, and what happened surrounding the incident.
As i said before, if i was in the jury position i would find hard to believe that they remember everything that support one side but suddenly do not remember anything that support the opposite side.
If anyone else were this horrifically inept at their job, they'd be fired, but in this town, it's the stuff careers are made of.
Promotions are made on cultivated ineptitude.
I can't look at her without thinking Trooper Bukkake !! 😂😂😂 Omg
Don't google Trooper Bukkake. I have so many regrets right now. What even is Trooper Bukkake.
The cat!!!! In the box!!!!
This judge is so strange I'm not surprised there are already gossips that she's connected to the Albert's
Her brother represented Chris Albert in a hit and run and he killed someone. He only served 6 months.
I think its more than gossip. The defense tried to get her to recuse herself before the trial started because of the known connections. She refused & said she could be fair regardless.
She can’t hide her disdain about the defense and oh her sighing drives me nuts
Not gossip at all, but she refused to recuse herself even though her brother is the lawyer for Chris Albert
@@Bess9779if she gets a guilty verdict it will make a good grounds for an appeal.
It's amazing how terrible Julie's memory is until she's asked what happened that night. Then she has a minute by minute recap ready to go.
OMG, the cat* sleeping behind you is so sweet! Thank you for your amazing covering of this case!
Cat in the box lol
Yeh I noticed she (or he not sure) did that days before too... Cats sure love small spaces. Box or box with blanket is great for them.... Love seeing the cats in view sometimes and her dog is just too sweet too relaxing in the char.. :)
Alyte, thanks for clearing that up for me. I was wondering why all of this was so important.. Didn't know about this turtleboy...
it's more like a cover up for the defense.
🤦🏼♀️ I'm overwhelmed just listening - kudos to the jurors - with any trial!!
Not only did she say “rarely” She said, “VERY rarely”
"I hit him, I hit him, I hit him"
I have a dog, he doesn’t bark much but if you come to the compound or near my house he will bark his head off. The Albert’s German Shepherd didn’t like strangers. MULTIPLE people came and left that house and drove around that area and not a single one saw a d**d man on the street/snow? They found small bits or a tail light and a clear glass but they couldn’t find Officer John O’Keffe’s shoe, baseball cap and belt ? This case has taught me a whole neighborhood can turn off their ring door cameras and human memory is unreliable or they are all lying when they open their mouths.
There definitely is some cover up going on
And where is the sweater he was wearing, did it have the dog scratches, I would just concentrate on this, if those are dog bites, he was inside 🤷♀️🙄
@@57lsuarezAnd did the dog like to steal a stranger's shoe after being aggressive toward the stranger. I m joking but I had a dog that would knock kids down and take their shoes. I was supposed to be babysitting the kids so I was able to get the shoes back.
@@Juliette_4 cover up is a possibility, but it could also be a cover up of other stuff that had to do with being a Boston PD and it makes it look so suspicious in this case.
Thank you as always for these recaps!
I would say if I speak rarely with someone and then speak to that person for 27 minutes I would probably remember what it was about, if I wanted to remember that is…. 😅
Cat in a drawer. Lol.
This is what gives me doubt. When someone clams up or claims they dont remember the testimony from the day before, it feels off. And then this gives me doubt about a lot of things. The rest of her testimony sounds like she is just telling like her husbands story.
Thank you for the recap. IMO, the prosecutor has not proven that there was a car accident He seems more concerned with justifying alibis for his own witnesses and inadvertently focusing attention on Colin. As a potential juror I would have questions about the proof of any crime by this defendant
I agree. I thought it was strange that the prosecution seemed to switch to trying to disprove the defense theory of the case instead of providing the evidence that Karen actually did this.
@@carolynwisser3322 Perhaps this has something to do with the FBI conducting an investigation into the botched investigation. For some reason these prosecution witnesses are going out of their way to protect Colin and distance him from 34 Fairview. Not much on Karen Read. I read that Colin had swollen knuckles that night . We will see when he testifies . It is becoming more and more difficult to remain objective with so many shady witnesses.
I think she could of legitimately forgot using the word “rarely” but I DO believe she is attempting to minimize her relationship
It was very rarely and 2/3 times a week for 7 months isn't rare and 3/4 times in 1 day definitely isn't. Lies, lies and more lies.
she forgot that she testified about it the day before? this is all extremely unsettling. All this evidence being presented indicates a cover up and conspiracy
No way she forgot being that a whole big deal was made about it in questioning the day before. If she just said it and they moved on that would be one thing but almost the whole testimony that day revolved around her saying she rarely talks to her & the defense lawyer destroying her on that point!
I don't believe it. She seems fairly sharp, and the defence actually stopped his flow to impeach her at the time about the frequency of phone calls
Somehow it seems everyone questioned during this case is lying, omitting or both. Very suspicious.
I’m still shocked that you find a dead body on someone’s lawn but never go into the home at all to check?!?!????
She absolutely remembered saying rarely. She was dodgy with details the day before, and she was cagey with questions around the use of the word rarely. She’s done herself no favours. She’s the first time I’ve really seen the conspiracy in the defences argument. She looks like the stereotypical mum trying to keep her kid out of prison.
She used the word rarely, but she couldn't remember if she brought it up or if the questioning put it in her mouth. As someone with a bad memory, especially under stress, I can sympathize.
Yet she ostensibly remembers to the minute the time her husband arrived home that night.
She’s a lair and the only good part about it is that she is horrible at lying. Hopefully the jurors can see through her BS.
The attorney made note that phone companies record data of when calls are picked up by voicemail or answered by someone. So she made it clear that the calls were definitely answered by someone.
I would laugh my ass off if the lawyer came out with something wild like "you called her more often than your own mother"
Imagine the scenes
"I hit him, I hit him, I hit him"
In my opinion, this judge is already siding with the prosecution😡
Thank you, Alyte! That's very helpful, especially after the weekend 😊
Nicole Albert said she joined both Brian's in the den/family room to look at pictures etc, Brian Albert said, they went upstairs to look at photos in his sons room. There's a reason he said 'upstairs' .. The other Brian had said 'they came back upstairs' in GJ testimony.. ie, the basement.
Excellent summary Lady Bytes, as expected and as always, appreciated.
Julie Albert is sus as hell. All of her answers could have been explained but her memory was bad! I find her not credible. I believe the reason the time that Collin left is Important is because the defense believes JO and CA had gotten into a fight that night
I really want to find the answer to what I mentioned in my comment about the apparently huge discrepancy in their stories (Julie Albert & hubby) in the way/ time/ arrival home. Wish I could remember what I read!! There's so much info, my brain apparently doesn't have room for it all.
2:30 she is def doing a crawfish walk. If I was a juror, it would make me think twice about her testimony.
Ma’am, thank you for your clear, concise summaries of the trial. Your diction and annunciation makes these videos a pleasure to listen to. No “ers”, “ums” or “you knows.” Plus your fair even handed legal opinions are appreciated.
Family doesn't know the definition of "acquittances" and (very) "rarely". I don't think the Weeks' sister are "playing dumb" and probably don't understand that definition either.
Thank you so much for covering this❤
Great recap but Mavvie pretzel in the clear box on your desk is the only thing I could focus on 😂
The pets really are the true stars of this channel haha
I've watched my fair share of trials (given that my job has nothing to do with the legal system), and that is far and away the most claustrophobic courtroom I've ever seen. I'd lose my mind in there.
Turtleboy is this cases umbrellaguy! Lol
Taking some interest in body language, there is a split second of Nicole's testimony where she is confirming her "cleaning", where she clearly shows contempt on her face. It's the only non-symmetrical emotional expression. My theory is her part of the alleged conspiracy, is that her job was to clean up the dirty basement. The striking thing about Julie's recollection of the time Chris came home, is even though it was proved inaccurate, her stated memory was EXACTLY the same time as Chris's. It sure looks like a pre-arranged story.
Thank you
There’s a difference between “bad facts” and a bad set of facts.
Having “bad facts” that surround the case on either side is completely expected.
But when you have a bad set of facts that all point to the defense’s theory……that’s something else entirely
I agree! The conspiracy theory is difficult to believe.
My goodness, these people have really "bad memories." It's not like they're being asked about mundane days and moments. Something major happened involving clode friends and/or family.
They are testifying in relation for each other not for the case or the question 10:43 but toeing the line and sticking to the story. I see this in all families with pathological loyalties.
Re Nicole Albert's cross on phone calls. I believe it was explained cellubrite extraction cab distinguish btwn a pick up & a voice mail. It appears those 2 calls were picked up. It's also interesting this aggressive dog didn't appear to react to a person rushing into their bedroom, waking them up. 🤔 Even if you know a dog, startling them from a sleep while they lay w/owners would seem unwise. I wld expect family & friends to let owners know, Hey, I'm out here, open door, I'll be in in a sec"& "Hey, I'm coming in now, put Chloe away, side door's unlocked?" (which wld be two quick cell calls...just saying).
It’s early in the trial but I suspect the death was an accident and the cause of death is a coverup. The opening statements for the defence have really caused me to doubt Karen Read’s guilt.
I went into this case assuming it was a dumb conspiracy theory and now I have reasonable doubt! I dunno if the cops were involved in the death or if they are trying to frame a guilty woman but something stinks with this department.
It was Karen's accident- she actually admitted it
@EmperorOfMan Its still a dumb conspiracy- always go by your first gut feeling
@@valiakloeppel7252When did she admit it?
@@valiakloeppel7252 The person who said they heard that lied on the stand about other stuff. I threw her testimony out personally.
Good morning! You are doing a magnificent job covering this case. Thank you for your hard work. By the way, you really look great! I hope your pregnancy is going smooth. ❤
Thank you for the recaps. Honestly if I were a juror and I was in a different case just 3 weeks ago so a little eaiser to put myself in that frame of mind, I would have too much doubt to convict. Here are just a few of my thoughts. One the investigation was handled so bad that the evidence is all suspect. So many of the witnesses seem to be hiding something. The prosecution so far is contending that it was murder and she was drunk and the witnesses testimony seem to make it seem like she didn't appear to be drunk and that Karen and John were not fighting that night and the only fighting I have hard was she spent too much money on the kids in his care which is hardly anything to kill someone over. The whole glass thing is weird but I have not seen any evidence it had alcohol in it or that it was refilled. So it makes me wonder are the Alberts covering for one of the kids or did they think one of the kids did something and covered it up. The other thing that bothers me is the fact the prosecution is pushing murder, accident I could believe. However with that said if they offered a lesser charge I wouldn't agree with that either at this point.
I’ve tried hard - really hard - to see the prosecution’s case but their case doesn’t support the charges. Not ONE witness holds up!
It would have been a total chad move if the defense just stopped questioning her as soon as they resumed court. Dont even give her a chance to put forth an explanation.
Knowing that her son had not gotten home yet she would have most definitely checked the time when she heard the door. Every mother would, just by instinct.
Off topic- where did you get the cat's box?
she is obviously BS-ing. 67 times in a lifetime is a lot, nevermind in a year
67 phone calls over 7 months is a lot? Maybe you don’t have friends that care about you enough to call. 😂
@@Steve-qn8gnIt's a call every 3 days, that's not very rare. Especially when most people just message nowadays.
@@Steve-qn8gn To me, 'rarely' talking on the phone would be 5 times or less over a decade
She is lying through her teeth. She part of this framing and it will all come out!!!!
Will it “all come out”. Cause they haven’t really shown anything yet.
NOTHING will "come out" because it's all NONSENS like in the OJ case.
@@Steve-qn8gnare you joking????
@@chrystalmcatee6224 no I’m not joking. Neither side has proven what happened that night. The state hasn’t proven that Karen was even drunk let alone hit John. The defense has thrown a bunch of accusations out but have not backed them up yet.
lf these ppl can't remem anything,why bother 2testify??!!
To show that they're lying through their teeth and are part of the cover-up
Also why rip up the concrete floor in the basement just to put down new flooring on top of it.. And sell that house 50k under. That area they could have easily sold it for 1.2 mil. Rehome a dog that they had for 7 years that slept in their bed with them. She says they were talking about selling due to financials.. She drove a 100,000 dollar car.. You can look up the husband's pay online it's public he's ret bringing in well over 100k in ret. This family is very powerful in Massachusetts and that area. Hands in lot of pockets.
Turtleboy said on a livestream they are filing the appeal on Tuesday. But on a livestream the same day he was removed from court, he said the reason the woman used that unfortunate term for the detective's name is because that is what he has been calling him for months or years. So basically admitting to the CW's claim in that motion.
I think it is totally fair to hammer her on this. Even on the day itself she was acting dodgy around the frequency. She said VERY rarely even not just rarely but VERY rarely. Now I don't know about you folks but when I get asked is it either a) very rarely or b) 67 times in 7 months (aprox. once per 3 days), I would have a solid idea which one is closer to the actual number since the gap is quite large. Once every 3 days on average that's in the park of a close friend or a coworker that screws up a lot. I would've probably taken that evasiveness though and asked her to, alright you can't recall? Put a hard statement on it now then. How frequent, at THIS point in time would you say you called her? Now either in face of the jury she's going to have to amend her lie from yesterday and admit to the 67, or she's gonna have to suddenly recall why she said very rarely last time and do it again so you can continue impeaching her. That's a win-win. When it comes to the 12:10 vs 12:14 I don't know where he was trying to go with that I wasn't a fan of that. It's been 2 years man nobody that hasn't studied the tape for hours looking for clues remembers all these events to the second. I'll give him an hour off but 4 minutes... what are we talking about?
All in all the most plausible story I've got in my head currently, I do think this is a cover-up. However, I do not think this is a cover-up of any wrongdoing on the Albert family's part. I think this was the police dpt. being out of their depth on an unsual crime scene, they absolutely bodged the job, and then when they figured they were never going to get somebody convicted for a potential murder on a cop they started grasping at straws to convict just anybody they could think of to not look bad. I could still swing either way based on the expert testimony, but this is what I'm currently considering most plausible.
Finally, perhaps most importantly, belly rubs to the box kitty in the back :p
I think the defence's theory is that Colin Albert was involved so the time he arrived home is important to that.
Brian Alberts beat this man and the dog attacked him too. Then they left him to die outside hoping to blame it on the morning snow plow that would come after the blizzard. That's what Alberts beat friend has said but recanted because he refused to testify. The plow didn't work because he saw the man on the ground & called police who never showed up to the scene. But all they have to prove here is reasonable doubt about Karen so that's what the defense is sticking to. What happened here is diabolical and I pray that the truth comes out fully and all those involved in the death and cover up go down for this. It wasn't just a botched job. They lied, they planted evidence after the fact. They tried to coordinate their efforts to keep their story strait but there's cracks EVERYWHERE! BIGGEST COVER UP IVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!
" I would've probably taken that evasiveness though and asked her to, alright you can't recall? Put a hard statement on it now then. How frequent, at THIS point in time would you say you called her?" --- Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you on the feeling behind wanting those answers, but the defense literally cant ask her open ended questions like that. Open-ended questions that allow for explanation are only allowed on direct examination of your own witness. Cross examination is limited to basically yes/no answers. That's why the defense (which is cross examining the prosecution's witnesses) say things like "Would you agree with me that [blah blah blah]" Now if the defense had called her as a witness, they could ask her open-ended questions, but the prosecution could not (because at that point she wouldnt be the prosecution's witness).
Fun fact: Did you ever see on TV a lawyer say "permission to treat as a hostile witness"? That's when you get to ask yes/no questions of your own witness, usually when they're being evasive. Then the side that called the witness is allowed to basically box their own witness into yes/no/I dont know format. If you want open-ended explanations, you have to call the person as your own witness.
Goooood morning! Happy belated mothers day ❤
Can't wait until the facts come out and not this conspiracy heresy. These witnesses have been thru the wringer. Bet they wished they never invited a get together or answered Karen's calls
Julie's worried about Colin being out late but not his underage drinking. 🤦🏼♀️
In what world does a witness’s feelings trump the 1st amendment?? The guy hasn’t even had his day in court yet. Looking forward to the appeal.
Side note: Brian Albert, a retired police officer of 30 years, doesn’t lock his door at night? Come on man!
This Turtle Boy guy is classic.
I wound up sleeping through a lot of this cause it was my day off, and I thought the court was taking Fridays off.
Well they called each other nearly every third day. So total bs
I don’t find it too suspish that she doesn’t remember the word “rarely.” When I’m stressed it’s like my brain shuts down. Even after doing a walk through of an apartment during a breakup I wasn’t able to describe or remember the layout of the model half an hour later when talking to my SIL on the phone. What words she used is a bit diddly to recall. I do think she is being cagey. But not remembering the word “rarely” doesn’t seem out of order to me
looking at her and hearing her speech pattern, she comes across tense with a stress in her voice. You can see the stress around her mouth so there is more to the story.
Having to testify in such a case is always stressful so her being stressed while on the stand doesn't tell me much.
True, but the difference between prosecution and defence is significant. It does colour my opinion but I accept that I should take it with a pinch of salt.
This judge sustains too many times with the Defense!
I totally agree with you. She's playing dumb and if there was nothing to hide then she would just be honest and not even care how it might sound because if you did nothing wrong you did nothing wrong, period!
Find it strange Proctor said he never went right in the Ablert house,Nicole stated dinner table husband stated kitchen
Thank you for covering this case much appreciated……
I truly think Karen reads innocent
Kim🇬🇧
If I were going to testify, I would've pulled my own phone records & had my answers ready to go. I understand forgetting. I also know sometimes people don't want to tell the whole truth. (Edited to add: Their fear of Turtleboy is absolutely stupid.)
It is very frustrating that the case is being presented so bit-by-bit, with a lot of focus on “irrelevant” things imo. I get it of course if she actually “did it”, that they would want to focus on the reasonable doubt of it all but still.
My questions are however:
Was she drunk? Did they walk home together? At what point did she realize that he wasn’t home yet and go out looking for him? Why did she take the car to 34 unless she knew he had gone there the night before? Or was that just one of the places she went to while driving around looking? How far away is their house to the Alberts’ on 34 and from which direction would she reasonably have come onto that street from if that would matter if she actually did hit him and also how did he die? Did he slip and hit his head on the hydrant? Where was the glass he was holding shattered then? Was that ever made clear? They showed it to the jury, but was it ever said where it was found? There are so many freaking missing pieces in this case so far it is driving me insane!
That’s a prosecution problem. The fact that you have all of those questions is good for the defense. I find the prosecution much more difficult to follow and listen to. I can’t even remember when/if they said at what time he was declared dead
No ring cameras working especially the chiefs across the street, time footage Karen's vehicle passed by library removed, pints of John's blood not found in yard, belt missing, Google search, and trying to delete online searches and texts tells me all I need to know. FreeKarenRead!
What bothers me about rehoming Chloe, is most dog owners don't re-home their dog after one dog bite. Then the fact that they kept it secret where the dog is......
Looking at this as a lawyer, I actually really disagree on the one bite thing. A single bite can be enough for a lawsuit, and where there's a second bite, that's an even higher liability risk, since the owners have actual knowledge that the dog can harm other people/animals. While I hate the idea of rehoming dogs out of inconvenience, and I do agree that the timing here is iffy, I don't see it as strange at all if a family decides to rehome after a single bite. That's especially true if there's an indication that there's a problem for the dog in the home environment that isn't something that the family can address, or that can be resolved by finding a better environment for the dog. I'm not sure if that last bit describes this situation, because we don't have that level of detail, but I'm highlighting it to make a point that it's not always the case that the original home is in fact the best place for the dog.
@@LegalBytesMedia I agree with you on that.. In my experiences it's usually people that have had the dog for a short period of time and if something like that happens then they may rehome the animal.. But someone who has had that pet for years and an incident occurs they usually try preventative measures training, things of that nature, unless the dog viciously attacked a human being.
Her description of her migraine and symptoms are suspect, small thing but they keep happening
Julie was bs’ing about “rarely.” She is covering up conversations and commiserations between her and Courtney Proctor. Ugghh
I would be a horrible witness regarding this because I simply have a hard time remembering conversations. On the other hand, I write this crap down so I'm not repeating things so I an try to jog my memory.
I always miss things even though I'm watching the trial so I'm loving these quick recaps! Thank you
The constant "I don't recall" from these witnesses isn't believable imo. It just makes them look sus.
There are some people who talk to people multiple times a day. To them, once every few days will be rare. I am on the opposite side of things. I am more of a texter. So a call even once in 2 weeks would be “regular” for me
I think one or two of these things happening is not as suspicious…all of it together alarm bells.
I saw somewhere, but now can't recall where, a mention of the huge discrepancies between Julie's testimony re: how & when they got home. Did y'all see that it do you know about it? Apparently, it's a bold- faced lie. I'm curious.
Also, Turtleboy has been on the case since day 1 & is pretty much the reason anyone is even aware of the case & the facts. Theres also an OOP against Aiden but was ruled out shouldn't keep him from the trial. One more thing, yes, he did go to people's houses asking for statements BUT other journalists definitely went to Karen Readshome, as well as her parents home harassing then for info. What's being done with him is obnoxious!! Serving the AP before... WELL BEFORE serving Turtleboy is ridiculous & Lally's explanation for that is absurd!! But, what they're doing with the 10 press seats is childish! The MSM didn't want anything to do with this case till now... took it began to get traction but now, with all their bells & whistles, big budget, et al. are bullying the little guy outta the line. It's crazy! The DUIGuy+ went the 1st day of picking the jury, was snitches on for ONLY having a CZcams channel & had him yankedfrom the courtroom. An officer who knew who he is, however, went out & got him to come in the courtroom as an atty. FYI: what witnesses are left that Turtleboy CAN be present for other than those NOT a member of the Albert family!! Lol!! But really? Brian Albert shirts suffers a "chilling effect" from Turtleboy!! ?? Seriously??
Nicole got seriously defensive in her cross, but I've thought all the females have in this case. Noticed?
Turtle brains think alike.
The "witnesses" seem to have amazing memories and vocabularies until the Defense wants them to speak. I am amazed how the Prosecution's "witnesses" are contributing to "reasonable doubt". I typically Back the Blue, but am also understand not everyone with a badge will be a good cop 100% of the time. Sad that Mr Albert and this situation will cast a shadow on his career. He may have been a very good cop, but this case makes me suspect he made a bad choice on JAN 29, this family deserves TRUTH, and a woman's very life depends on TRUTH, if I were on the jury I would not be able to say she is guilty. There are just way too many things that cast doubt in my mind. and it has begun to really stink of cover up.
Lol wait is that a cat in a (clear) box behind you on the left side of the screen?? I just spotted it out of the corner of my eye and had to do a double take lol 😹
** Edit: ahah k just saw it move so cat in a box confirmed! 🐈📦✅
Haha yes, that's Mavvie! In the recap for Day 8 she was all over the place in the video, causing chaos. This time she decided she needed rest haha
I appreciate your Recaps. It's hard for me to catch the entire day's testimony and you do a good shop of summarizing them, Thank You
I'd also like to comment on "Turtle Boy" just my own opinion but I think it's bad when "reporters" make themselves a part of what they are reporting on. This trial is about life and death. This trial could end in someone being in prison for a long time and maybe the rest of their lives. It is WAY to Serious to have to worry about some wacko on the internet trying to get more clicks by injecting themselves into the middle of the case and the proceedings. I think "Turtleboy" should have been banned from the proceedings, his first Amendment rights end when they could possibly interfere with anothers actual freedom. Reporters need to realize that its NOT about them, it is about what they are Reporting about and they fail whenever they quit realizing this.
I recommend everyone checking out Gavin fish episode with sean McDonough called "this prives karen reads Innocence". Hes retired DEA & Discusses hiw the FBI has been investigating the case, gors inti the testimony about the best friend saying it was he was beaten then the dog got him & they left him out 9n the ground to blame the snow plow etc. Theres so much more info that might not even come out in Karen's case. You all have to hear this, its insane!
Thank you. This is a crazy case
I think the data is what’s gonna solve this case n free Karen
There is no need to look into my dog I had to just have it adopted in another state no need to look into that at all.
67 times in 7 months is not rarely and not nit picky!
Lets see not coming ppl,not coming out of crime scene hse.re-home fam dog,selling the property but not b4 renovating basement n pool???
Concerning Turttleboy by just looking at his post on CZcams in his community page he comes off very antagonistic. For example he in his community tab commented on one of the people sitting in the gallery behind Peggy O’Keefe was a woman by the name of Marybeth Frisoli. He then goes into a prior conviction of this person from the early 2010’s for no reason than what I would assumed to be “why does she get to be in the court room and not me.”
Now while it is his right to have those views and to express those views. I could understand why the Commonwealth does not want Turtleboy in the courtroom while these specific wittinesses are on the stand. It’s no secret that the Albert witnesses as well as the witnesses who were at that house the night of John O’Keefe’s are under a lot of scrutiny by those who believe strongly in Karen Read’s innocence and it’s no secret that Turtleboy is an avid Karen Read Supporter.
Turtle boy is a Blue backer he's defended police in the past.. He has a ton of people who are in the know that feed him information. He has facts to cases. He the guy to go to if you're afraid to come out with it.. This family is so corrupt if you know you know.
The judge in this case her husband dismissed a case against the Alberts in the past as well. The defence tried to get this judge 🧑⚖️ removed due to it. The judge refused stepping down. The evidence of John being in the house didn't get collected because they are covering up for this POWERFUL family.
I understand her tripping up on the questioning about what words she said when. If you were to ask me today exactly how a conversation flowed yesterday, i would struggle. Those kinds of details don't stick in my memory. It's a shitty side effect of my brain.
67 times in 7 months is about 1 call every 3 days. That’s NOT rarely. Even once a week is borderline rarely. Idk if she was lying but if she was, she’s pretty convincing from her body language. Don’t see any nerves or signs of irritation. I just still don’t believe her one bit.
Agreed, I wish they would have shared the amount of times they talked before JO passed so we could compare. I found her to be really tense, like she was listening soooo closely to the question to be sure she doesn’t accidentally answer wrong. That said I don’t know her true baseline behavior and even if I did I’m no professional just the vibes I got (I’m bad with names but I’m referring to thr blond woman) the next woman seemed much more relaxed.
None of these people give straight answers.
❤❤❤❤
Brian junior is sayin what he has been told to say by daddy
I would not remember which word I had used the day before. And "not often" can be three times a day and then not again for the next three weeks. It makes the lawyer who asks seem petty, not her look bad in my eyes.
I disagree, that word caught her out the day before there's no way she wouldn't remember it
@julieoshea7360 Exactly, it was made a big thing of the day before, she knew what she said.
Starting to think this lady doesn’t know the difference between headaches and migraines.
Rarely is the wrong description. Occasionally seems much more appropriate
Once every couple of months might be 'occasionally' - 6 phone calls per year - bearing in mind some of the calls were close to 30 minutes. One phone call every 3 days is fairly frequent
@@Arthur_King_of_the_Britons While I dont disagree with you, they never actually said once every three days - that was an average we worked out. They've been saying "67 times in 7 months" but that includes one day that she called her 4 times and then 3 times the following day. While I DO agree with you that she was trying to minimize and the being intentionally forgetful, I could see her (in the three seconds she took to think about it) considering only conversations of a certain length and forgetting that the defense is going to look at her phone records. Basically, she capsized her own boat & then doubled-down instead of just accepting the small "L" of agreeing with the defense that she used the wrong word and "occasionally, except for when we were all gossiping about someone freaking being arrested for freaking murder" would be more correct.
@@atroposz That's true, but she also denied or 'couldn't recall' ever speaking about Karen Read...all very sus if there's nothing to hide. After all there's no crime against women gossiping about what's in the news
@@Arthur_King_of_the_Britons I agree. She looks sus, and it's her own damn fault. I dont think the prosecutor prepped them enough because these are the kind of answers that would get told to rephrase because it's completely normal that everyone in a small town would be talking about this and there's nothing wrong with that.
ls this woman,medicated at all times,ur right sometimes but rarely!😅But is the topic abt:KR
On day 9 Iggi Pop testifies.....
So she can't remember the content of any phone call but she remembers, to the minute, when her husband got home. But she doesn't actually and is mistaken but both her and her husband made the exact same mistake. How odd.
Has anyone beem through how many calls she made to this man's sister before the incident? Genuine question, so much content here i cant keep up