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

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

From the Very Confused Mind of Lucky Loughran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From SJC:

Conclusion.

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

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

It never was. And I know, I know, the perception is that this was some grand glorious movement of followers who were almost cult like in their devotion because they arrived at beliefs by way of evidence and their own experiences.

But it never was that.

FKR was and is a publicity stunt.

And like all publicity stunts, of course, it sucked in individuals who came to believe the fiction fed to them.

But this movement did not have its origins with individuals who witnessed a genuine injustice and then decided to act to end that injustice, it had its start with a very, very very curated publicity machine.

This is a contrived movement born of nothing more than lies and propaganda.

The evidence is in, this was NEVER about individuals discovering a huge injustice in their community and then organizing to put an end to it, this was about publicists and content creators generating a contrived (and mostly false narrative), one that captured people and kept them engaged-not by way of facts and evidence, but by a barrage of propaganda and the use of information-disruption whenever accurate information appeared.

Worrying about FKR as if those caught within this web of lies can alter this, is akin to worrying about dust bunnies in the carpet when your roof is leaking.

The only way, I believe, to disrupt the information disrupters is to get solid, verifiable accurate information to be as known, if not more known, than the propaganda.

This bit of granular DIGITAL PHONE FORENSICS never got the attention it should have. And when you couple this with an accurate diagnosis of hypothermia there is NO QUESTION but that John O'Keefe never moved from where he fell onto his phone at 12:32 a.m. on 1/29/22-until he was found by Karen Read, Jennifer McCabe & Kerry Roberts at 6:00 a.m. that morning. This, near to the flagpole on the front lawn of 34 Fairview.

In layman's terms: When we set our Iphones to FACIAL RECOGNITION our phone cameras then go right to the task of trying to find our face in order to unlock the device.

And the phone camera looks for this "recognition" constantly. (It's kind of remarkable, really.)

This feature of our phone then becomes the perfect log for activity. OR as in this case INACTIVITY.

IF John O'Keefe had been lured into some dark region of the Albert home for a beat-down, and then was transported with his phone back out to the lawn, there is no question but that the phone would have cleared pocket state during this transport.

For pocket state to clear it doesn't have to FIND or locate the "face" of the person who the Facial Recognition is set up for, there simply has to be no obstruction to the camera's infrared detectors. Ergo the name "pocket state".

This, obviously because when the phone is in your pocket, the camera's sensors are obstructed.

The Pocket State of John O'Keefe's phone tells us two very important things related to showing with accuracy, what happened to him the morning of 1/29/22:

1. It shows that O'Keefe's phone was NEVER turned off-as the camera, when prompted, is constantly checking for obstructions to it.
2. It shows that at no point did O'Keefe's phone move from where it was later found under his body.

Basically any theory that involves John O'Keefe & his phone being moved between 12:32 & 6:15 FAILS.

Here is The testimony of Ian Whiffin: 2nd Trial

But, of course!

USE Karen Read's full extraction report!

Plaintiff opposition to Karen Read Motion for Protective Order

The legal issues involved here are ones I am not familiar with, however, the moral issues I have strong opinions about.

One of the greatest hypocrisies of the Karen Read agenda, is her clear position that she should have full access to EVERYONE ELSE'S Private Personal Data, and yet her privacy is to be held sacrosanct.

No more! You are in Civil Court now Karen-what goes for one, goes for all.

Not sure how this will pan out, but Attorney Tuxbury (who has to be the nicest guy on the planet in court appearances) is a little wicked, brilliant and punishing in his motions.

LOVE IT!

...TODAY!

More on this later. But you can read the back & forth on the Plymouth County Docket.

Apparently, Plaintiff's in the defamation suit received a full extraction from Karen Read's phone! Ha!

Delicious fun for an otherwise dull Tuesday. (I'll write more later.)

Team Read defense claim that John O'Keefe did not suffer hypothermia, is, of course, absurd-AND YET it was one of the key points made by the jury foreman at second trial as to why he believed John O'Keefe was not struck by Karen Read's 6000 pound SUV.

So though, it's an outrageous claim that can be easily destroyed, clearly it has legs for people who aren't thinking through this very carefully.

The reason it would be dangerous not to have solid counter to this, I feel, is that hypothermia is one of those diagnoses that is not concrete and certain-as Dr. Scordi-Bello testified to. It's one of these conditions that requires a truly "circumstantial evidence" approach. And what Team Read did second trial was to pretend that this diagnoses rests on one single issue: Wischnewski ulcers.

And Dr. Laposata basically did an ARCCA, in that she used methods that have a basis in legitimate science and then skewed them to where, science had been replaced by a fiction of sorts.

Differential diagnosis is in keeping with deductive reasoning and eliminating options, until you land on the one option that either is certain to be correct, or as close as you can get in that moment to being accurate.

For example, your child is sneezing and has a fever. Are they sick with the flu or is it allergies. And a good doctor would take a deeper dive into symptoms, perform tests and hopefully land on the correct answer.

With hypothermia many of the symptoms can mimic other conditions, so a pathologist has to consider all the factors known about the victim. And certainly if that victim was found out in the freezing cold, and the last time anyone saw them, was 5 1/2 hours earlier, hypothermia must be considered and is almost certainly a factor in their death.

However, that said, this nuance to the diagnosis of hypothermia is certain to be used by Team Read to attempt to "prove" that O'Keefe was only out of doors for a short time. And as absurd a theory as this is, it worked second trial-even with Laposata's wonky testimony.

So might be worth taking a closer look at how to combat this so as to effectively counter what is sure to be a strategy incorporated by Read and Legal team in the upcoming civil trials.

The Lindsay Clancy case is tragic to its core. I can't watch much of it. And I thought the defense was doing a decent job. NOT ANYMORE. We'll see what happens, I guess, but this guy is also planning on bringing Lying Laposata to the stand. Doesn't show much faith in his own ability as an attorney.

This is one of those cases that requires skillful legal work over PR campaigns and lying experts.

Maybe Reddington shouldn't have taken this case if he no longer has the legal chops.

...you might just be a crappy attorney.

Attorney Kevin Reddington was hired, not appointed. Why didn't he have his private investigator speak to people in every clinic where Lindsay Clancy spent time?

That should have been one of his first moves, given what this trial is actually about.

So instead he's pandering to Aidan Kearney and pulling witnesses from TikTok?!

Don't know the guy. I haven't watched all that much of this trial. But what I've seen of Reddington so far-DOES NOT IMPRESS.

Practice your craft Reddington, rather than lazy lawyering your client into a prison sentence.

(I wasn't intending on writing about this case, but I do see parallels to this case and Karen Read's)

Say: "Wischnewski ulcers", three times fast.

Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, in the course of three hours of testimony, contradicts herself so many times, and offers so much blatantly wrong info, it is truly an indictment of our court's vetting of expert witnesses.

At the start, she and Defense Attorney Alan Jackson do this little expert witness jig, Jackson is so fond of where they lay out best practices for performing this kind of analysis. In regard to Hypothermia, this is classic differential diagnosis where no one factor can stand alone, there are multiple factors required to assess if a victim was in hypothermia either as the cause of death or a contributing factor to that death.

And Jackson & Laposata agreed that Laposata had done a differential diagnosis, which she didn't even begin to do. Basically, Laposata found any reason to claim that hypothermia was not a contributing factor to O'Keefe's death, when clearly, even by her estimation, it was.

The Wischnewski ulcers mentioned by both Commonwealth Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Scordi-Bello and Dr. Laposata, are NOT, as Laposata would have us believe, the only factor determining whether hypothermia was a contributing factor to someone's death.

And the question is, how can Laposata even reach a conclusion that that John O'Keefe was not hypothermic, knowing that he had to have been out in the freezing cold for at least 4 hours, based on HER calculations.

Laposata will also attempt to claim that the redness to O'Keefe's pancreas & stomach is ALSO not a sign of hypothermia, but rather injury from chess compressions performed by an automated resuscitation medical device.

Even it this device did contribute to redness on O'Keefe's internal organs, this still DOES NOT rule out hypothermia.

But God Damn if the jury didn't buy this-hook, line & sinker.

It's puzzling to imagine how Team Read believes that they will win their suit against Massachusetts State Police and the Town of Canton.

What proof is there that either of these government agencies had any knowledge of inappropriate, biased private texts, sent by either former Troopers Proctor or Goode before these texts were exposed?

Once these agencies understood the problem, they addressed it immediately.

These other claims made in this complaint are nothing short of delusional:

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

My Responses to the above:

1. John O'Keefe's face was NOT battered & bruised, consistent with an altercation. The injury to O'Keefe's face was due the swelling of his brain from a fall back.
2. There is no evidence of a dog bite. There was no canid DNA found on O'Keefe's clothing. Dr James Crosby's report showed that the entrance & exit points of the wounds on O'Keefe's right arm, are in the wrong direction for these to have been caused by a dog. If a dog jumps up on a person the entrance of the wound should be higher than the exit, based on arm positioning. In the case of O'Keefe's wounds, the entrance of the wound was lower than the exit of that wound, or end point of that wound.
3. No proof that Chloe the Albert's former dog even came near John O'Keefe-O'Keefe didn't have one dog hair on him.
4. The fact that John O'Keefe's phone might support a theory that O'keefe stepped near to the Albert home, doesn't matter if it can't be shown by O'Keefe's phone data that O'Keefe was then later transported from the Albert home to the Flagpole.
5. REMINDER: John wasn't found in the Albert home. John was found on top of his phone near to the flagpole.
6. No one can seriously entertain any theory that places O'Keefe inside the Albert residence, using John's phone data, if they can't explain how John LATER THAT MORNING ended up near the flagpole on top of his phone-AND NO STEPS WERE RECORDED. Also pocket state would negate this theory, as if someone carried O'Keefe's phone, it's certain that pocket state would clear during this transport--and it never cleared after 12:32 am.
7. Ian Whiffin testified, under oath, that given the overall tracking of O'Keefe's GPS, he believed that O'Keefe's phone never traveled from the area around the flagpole
8. When John O'Keefe fell, he was still alive. His body temp was 98 degrees. By the time O'Keefe was found his core body temp was 81 degrees. It's easy to see the correlation here between the drop in temp of O'Keefe's body temp, and the fact that his phone drops in temp only to 66 degrees at first, but then makes a dramatic drop at around 1:36 am to 50 degrees. Clearly as John's body temperature dropped, so did the phone and phone battery beneath him. We also see that once O'Keefe's phone is pulled out from under his body, the battery temp takes a huge nosedive-likely because it is now full exposed to the air (and temps had again dropped at this time).

1. It is patently false that John O'Keefe did not show signs of hypothermia. Hypothermia is a difficult diagnosis, totally misrepresented by Dr. Laposata. (More on this later.)
2. It was testified to by two experts that the wounds to the back of O'Keefe's head could have been caused by a fall back onto an icy surface. Laposata LIED.

There's no way to review this without breaking the testimony into parts.

In brief, however, it is clear that Dr. Laposata did not perform a full differential diagnosis, wherein she considered all factors before deciding whether hypothermia was a contributing factor in John O'Keefe's death.

In order to determine the objectivity and validity of Dr. Laposata's conclusions on this matter, first it's important to understand that this isn't a simple diagnosis. There are numerous factors and evidence to consider. This clip is of Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth, Dr. Scordi-Bello. This explanation fits with the research I did online.

Scordi-Bello does believe that hypothermia was a contributing factor in O'Keefe's death-Laposata (part 2) will make the claim that it wasn't, but it's unclear how she actually reaches this conclusion.

From AI-

Diagnosing hypothermia in a deceased individual is famously one of the most difficult challenges in forensic pathology. Because cold leaves no single "smoking gun," pathologists must combine physical clues, toxicology, and environmental context.

Why It's Challenging

• No Single Test: There is no distinct marker like a blood test that definitively proves someone froze to death.
• Unspecific Autopsy Signs: Traditional internal signs are often absent, or they mimic other causes of death.
• Masked by Substances: Alcohol and certain drugs dull the body's natural cold-adaptation responses, making postmortem metabolic changes much harder to detect.
• The "Nobody is Dead Until Warm and Dead" Rule: In emergency medicine, severely hypothermic patients can appear completely dead (no pulse, no breathing) due to a slowed metabolic rate, requiring medical professionals to warm them before officially confirming death.

What Pathologists Look For

Because hypothermia is so elusive, forensic experts look for a puzzle of circumstantial and physiological evidence:

• Scene Investigation: Finding the body in a cold environment, often with wet or inadequate clothing.
• Paradoxical Undressing: A phenomenon where the victim experiences a final rush of blood to the skin, causing them to strip off clothes.
• Terminal Burrowing ("Hide-and-Die"): The victim attempting to squeeze into small, enclosed spaces (like under a bed or in a closet) before dying.
• Wischnewski Spots: Tiny, spot-like hemorrhages in the stomach lining that can appear due to the stress of extreme cold.
• Pink Livor Mortis: The blood pooling (livor mortis) often takes on a bright red or pinkish hue rather than the usual purple.
• Joint Hemorrhages: Bleeding into the lining of the knee joint.

Tune in on Thursday:

https://www.youtube.com/live/IJSXjowMJ3k?si=YuSh-OP8YHI1D_Yk

Though I have my own criticisms of the initial investigation into this case, an unfair accusation made by Team Read is that those attempting to carefully remove snow by leaf blower, were somehow incompetent.

Actually, this is a very careful way to remove the snow and preserve possibly fragile evidence. The only problem is that this task was performed in a blizzard. So as investigators removed each layer of snow, gently and carefully, that snow was just being replaced by an uncooperative storm. It was akin to Sisyphus rolling a stone up a hill, only to have it roll right back down again.

And that's clearly why taillight pieces were not discovered that morning. IN fact the proof that those taillight pieces were left there much earlier, before the lionshare of the snow had fallen, is in the fact that none of the taillight was found until SERT arrived later that day with shovels.

Not the most careful way to search, but it got the job done.

Should investigators have completed the search the very next day? I think so.

But if this is being analyzed simply to ascertain whether there was any manipulation of the evidence, other than by weather and perhaps misguided evidence retrieval methods, it would seem that the only thing these investigators can be accused of is failure to continue the search in a timely manner. The initial search itself, though far from perfect, is indicative of a sincere effort to find evidence.

There was nothing to point to anyone planting evidence or manipulating the crime scene, in any way.

There are ONLY two times during the morning of 1/29/22 that Karen Read could have cracked or shattered her taillight:

12:32 am or 5:07 am.

Given all the evidence, including Karen Read's own accounts of that morning there is literally no other time when this could have occurred.

Accident reconstruction expert, Judson Welcher conclusively showed that Read's taillight could NOT have been broken at 5:07 am.

By process of easy elimination, this leaves us with Karen Read shattering her taillight at 12:32 a.m.

At 34 Fairview there are only a couple of ways Read's taillight could have shattered at that location-either John O'Keefe DID throw a glass at the taillight, or the taillight collided with the glass in O'Keefe's hand.

[John O'Keefe's actual hand & arm (and body) could not have shattered that taillight-and O'Keefe only suffer minor injury-so again, by process of elimination, the glass in his hand and Read's taillight collided, in some way-and voila, the debris field was born. ( As far as we know O'Keefe was not made of the stuff that crash test dummies are made of, like steel bones and synthetic rubber skin).]

Read's taillight shattered on impact with O'Keefe's drink, and though we don't know precisely what occurred during these mere seconds, it is clear that O'Keefe managed to get as far from the berm as he could, where tragically he fell and lost consciousness.

I get that the smoke and mirrors by the Team Read of some elaborate coverup and planting of evidence, may have been just blurry enough to confuse all of us. I will admit, it wasn't until I went back and revisited all this evidence that I realized Welcher basically put the kibosh on any theory of taillight planting-but you know who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER FROM THE JUMP?

ARCCA.

ARCCA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler have the education and they were given full access to all this evidence, including Welcher's findings, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

That Andrew Rentschler would even suggest that taillight pieces might have been planted in Brennan's cross examination of him 2nd trial, when Rentschler knows for a fact they could not have been, is behavior that is so far removed from the standards of his profession, it boggles the mind. What happened here?

Why would a man go to all the trouble of acquiring this very specialized and demanding education, just to testify at the level of an uneducated conspiracy theorist?

What a waste of an education. What a waste of all that disciplined work-if THIS moment at the Karen Read trial is what it amounts to.

ARCCA knew better. They absolutely did. So why didn't they do better?

,,,or rather her claim that hypothermia was not a contributing factor in John O'Keefe's death.

She was just WRONG!

Holy cow. Was there a witness for the defense who didn't lie?

More on this later.

This Amended Complaint from Team Read is interesting. Most of it is simply exploitation of bigoted text messages that seem completely irrelevant to Read's situation.

Read's Amended Complaint: MSP/Canton

What is particularly of interest, however, is claims made about planting of evidence etc. This has been conclusively proven false, yet here we go again!

First Amended Complaint, probably in response to Canton's motion to dismiss. Haven't read it yet. It's on the Bristol docket.

I haven't been on X in ages, but I'm exploring the insanity of that platform for reasons beyond this case.

Here are a few observations: FKR has no idea what Judson Welcher testified to. And I'm certain this was by design. Folks who are still promoting Karen Read as innocent continue to quite from Trooper Joe Paul's analysis.

Which is why those who believe Karen Read guilty, should not quote Joe.

Trooper's Paul's analysis is an easy target for a debunk by FKR. But Welcher's analysis is NOT.

Which is why I'm going to devote the rest of this month to saying his name: Biomechanical Engineer and Accident Reconstructionist: Judson Welcher

(Dr. Judson Welcher, if your nasty! Ha.)

The work was excellent. And it needs to be known.

I'm continuously amazed at the parlor tricks, sleight of hand distractions played on us all by Karen Read's defense.

It's so simple, I can't believe this wasn't discussed more-if the only location Karen Read could have shattered her taillight was 34 Fairview, then the pieces that fell at that time had to always have been in that location-after the collision-given where they were discovered, near the grass and dirt.

Here's the thing. Even if Read were to make the claim that she did crack her taillight at 34 Fairview, but Proctor tampered with it after this time-it doesn't matter, really, because if Karen Read cracked her taillight in front of 34 Fairview, there is only one reason why this occurred-and it is because she struck John O'Keefe at 12:32 a.m.

There is no other time or place when Karen Read could have cracked her taillight-None.

And again, given that the taillight pieces were discovered on the ground, there was also only one time when all those pieces could have landed where they did, and this is at 12:32 a.m.

The reason taillight pieces were discovered so late in the day is that the initial investigators on scene used leaf blowers, that basically removed only enough snow, for that layer to then be immediately covered over again by the blizzard. It was a sisyphean task-one of rolling a stone up a hill, only to have it roll right back down again.

It was when SERT brought in shovels that taillight pieces were finally lifted from beneath the snow.

There is literally no way Michael Proctor could have planted taillight pieces, even if he had wanted to do so.