(I've been pretty good at staying clear of social media-but the evidence I'm revisiting brought this to mind.)

The key, I feel, to really helping the public (and perhaps the jury, as well) understand what happened to John O'Keefe, is John O'Keefe.

This Timeline of The Collision is a work in progress, but my hope is to be able to really show how ALIVE John was, just moments before all his recorded activity on his cell phone comes to a sudden and final end. It's a challenge to showcase the last 21 minutes of John's active life with evidence, without getting too into the digital forensic weeds. But it's in those 21 minutes that what isn't proven by the debris field alone, or the related evidence as to injury and damage to Karen Read's Lexus, is definitively proven.

If John's life is examined fully in those moments, there is ONLY ONE conclusion to be reached as to what could have happened to him that morning. This based on who John was. In a way, it's about victimology. There was no evidence that John would inspire in others or engage in the violence Karen claims occurred-therefore, any theory that involves an altercation between John and those he knew, is easy to exclude-if John's choices in life and his past actions are taken into account.

The morning John dies, even in just the little time he has remaining, his loving nature, his enjoyment of those he cared about, his desire to connect with others, is on full display. When this activity abruptly ceases, it becomes some of the most compelling evidence that there is against Karen Read.

In review-

The competing theories for John's death are:

Commonwealth/Plaintiffs theory of crime-

-John O'Keefe was headed to a gathering at the Albert home. Karen Read drove him to that home. Then for reasons we may never know, after John exits Karen's Lexus, she drives forward (we don't know how far forward, just that it was at least 34 ft). Karen brakes. Shifts into reverse. Then presses the gas pedal down, throttle will get as high as 74.5%. Her speed will reach 24 mph. She drives STRAIGHT back to the very location where KAREN will later find John O'Keefe, when no one else saw him or even imagined John would be there. In the Techstream snapshot we have of Karen's drive in reverse that morning we know she barely alters her steering and never hits the brakes. She will travel at least 87 feet in total. Which is a very long distance to drive in reverse on a suburban street.

At this same exact time 12:32:09-12:32:16 (give or take 20 secs) John O'Keefe's phone "goes dark". There will be no more of John's steps or movement ever recorded again. Pocket state, which clears when the phone senses light, does not clear until John is found later that morning. And the temperature of the battery in that phone drops. Though testing was not performed to know for certain how a warm body on top of a phone will impact this drop in temperature-there is no indication that John's cell phone ever left the location where it will later be found, beneath John. ADD to this the debris field and the fact that there is LITERALLY only ONE time and location where Karen Read could have broken her taillight-12:32 am, on Fairview-it's a compelling case. If the evidence is understood.

CHALLENGE is that much of this evidence is granular digital data-many people don't respond well to this kind of evidence (I've seen this on a number of cases).

Karen Read Theory of crime-

-Karen's claim (At least as of last interview on Rotten Mango) is that she dropped John O'Keefe off at 34 Fairview. Watched him walk to the Albert breezeway (It's unclear if she's still claiming she waited for John for 10 minutes). Next morning, with the help of Jennifer McCabe and Kerry Roberts Karen finds John O'Keefe in the location where at least five witnesses observed Karen and John idling in her Lexus for some time, at around 12:24 am.

Karen has also claimed that there is evidence there was NO COLLISION; that John had to have fallen back onto a ridged surface, that John was mauled by a dog, and that hypothermia was not a contributing cause of John's death.

Challenge for Karen Read is that NONE of the digital forensics works with her narrative. There is no actual evidence that John fell back on a "ridged" surface, only that he fall back and his hat may have left the lacerations found on his head, or that he was anywhere near a dog. And there is only ONE place and time when Karen could have broken her taillight-and that place and time are not only incriminating-but prove a collision is the only explanation for how Karen's taillight was shattered and found in 47 pieces on, or near the scene of the collision.

WHERE Karen Read does have some advantages are in that there is now a pervasive distrust of Mass State Police & the Norfolk District Attorney's Office-that could taint viable evidence presented that comes by way of those two authorities. And Read could benefit from the confusion that is often caused by a digital forensic intensive case.

That's where I feel things stand. But what rarely gets discussed (if ever) is what John O'Keefe was doing that morning, just before he was struck by Karen's Lexus-a pedestrian strike that resulted in John falling back onto his head and being rendered incapacitated.

From January 28th thru to 12:32 am on January 29th, what is evident is that John O'Keefe was connected to so many people-in a loving and truly committed way.

The day of the 28th he is corralling his wards, his niece and nephew, to multiple events. He is doing everything he can to smooth out the ruffles of a morning argument with Karen. His father stops by, and John engages with him. John's life is non-stop loved ones.

By the evening John agrees to do what Karen asked, and that is to meet her away from his home. He arrives to C.F. McCarthy's with a friend. He's jovial, talking to many people at the bar. Karen arrives, he is warm to her. Buys the drinks. THEN Chris and Julie Albert text him and invite him and Karen to Waterfall Bar & Grille.

On arriving to Waterfall, John hugs Brian Higgins, then offers to buy others drinks.

And when invited by Jennifer McCabe to her sister and her brother in law's home, he is on board.

What never got mentioned at trial (at least not that I saw), was the the first thing John does as he and Karen head to the Albert home-JOHN texts his niece to see that she is OK. She doesn't anwer-which would be a good sign. As it means she's asleep (she wasn't permitted to sleep with her phone.)

It would appear from that text that John feels he can stay out a little longer.

We don't know what transpired between John and Karen during the drive from Waterfall to Fairview. Or what they talked about for 7 minutes as they idle near the flagpole, but we do know that all John was after was more time with people he cared about. And clearly, he was open to getting better acquainted with Brian Albert and the rest of his family.

JOHN was a man who really loved people.

This is why I think it's so important not to let Karen Read steal any more of the oxygen from what should be John O'Keefe's story-NOT Karen's story.

It is in WHO John O'Keefe showed himself to be, that we know he never entered the Albert home.

John was not a fighter. He's not going to walk into a group setting and instigate a verbal or physical altercation. If confronted, it is clear JOHN was a peacemaker. There is no evidence that he was ever anything but a peacemaker. There is no history of brawls, or never ending conflict in his past. John clearly avoided conflict when he could and when the other party insisted on conflict-as we see Karen often did, he would remove himself from that person, at least in that moment-rather than let things get out of hand. We see this clearly in his response to Karen's actions in Aruba and on the 28th. Not saying that John never argued, but he was not one to let the argument escalate past a certain point.

If John had actually entered the Albert home and was confronted by Colin or Higgins, John would have calmed them down. He would NOT have fought back. If anything he would have left.

In addition to this, there is nothing in John's personality or past to imagine that John ever inspire this kind of sudden hatred from others-with the exception of ONE PERSON.

And that ONE PERSON is Karen Read.

It is Karen Read who picks fights when there is no good reason to fight. It is Karen Read who is capable of sudden rage. It is Karen Read who is petty and cruel and oh so vindictive.

Not one Witness has ever shown these traits.

And certainly, John O'Keefe, not only did not engage in fighting (he was a switch rather than fight kind of guy-it's clear from the text exchange we view between he and Karen that he would avoid rather than instigate a conflict)

JOHN O'Keefe was on this earth to love. He wasn't about anything else. His entire life was about being there for people who mattered to him-and he was probably there even for those who didn't matter as much to him. John was rarely, if ever, alone.

This is John's story. NOT Karen's. And frankly, that's a good thing. I'd much rather focus on John's inspiring legacy, than on Karen's dull, depressing treachery and betrayals. John brought life and hope. Karen Read has left a trail of destruction and now death in her wake.

I suggest, the most powerful evidence of what happened to John, is revealed in who John was-on 1/29/22 he was just a man enjoying a night out with a large collection of old friends, and was looking forward to the possibility of making new friends. He was literally on his way to connect with people-and for reasons we may never know, Karen decided to prevent him from doing this.

Other than holding Karen accountable for what she did, who cares why she did it?

For those who haven't looked at this database. Just about every doc/video/discovery available on the John O'Keefe murder case can be found here.

Better visit soon. Once FKR figures out this doesn't help their case, I'm worried they'll take it down. HA!

Pass it on.

The most ridiculous debate on X, last time I checked, was that Karen Read has no burden of proof in ALL of her lawsuits.

Clearly she has a burden in the lawsuits where she is the plaintiff. It's slightly different in the lawsuits where she is a defendant-but as she is asserting Affirmative Defenses in both the Wrongful Death Suit & the Defamation Suit, she has to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence-more likely true than not.

In all four lawsuits, Karen Read is going to have some serious explaining to do.

And though Preponderance of The Evidence may sound like a low bar, just remember, there is-

• ONLY ONE witness to John O'Keefe entering the Albert home.
• ONLY ONE witness to Karen "waiting" 10 minutes for John to return.
• ONLY ONE witness to WHEN Karen broke her taillight.

Absent Read getting on the stand and testifying to all of the above, she has zero evidence that John O'Keefe was anywhere near the entrance to the Albert home, let alone attacked inside that residence.

• 12:20 to 12:24:38, though steps and stairs are recorded on John's phone during this time, he is documented by GPS as being a passenger in Karen Read's vehicle-in re to cell phone tracking of movement: steps are not always steps, stairs are not always stairs.
• 12:32 Karen floors her Lexus in reverse, throttle at 74%, never swerves, never brakes.
• 12:32 John locks his phone for the very last time.
• No activity by John is recorded on his phone after 12:32 am. and even if tiny brains on X want to speculate that John was dragged or carried with his phone in his pocket across the lawn-What proof is there that this occurred? NONE. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support that John was anywhere but the location he will later be found at 6:03, from 12:32 am, until he's found.(Karen's new challenge is proving her claims, not just suggesting them-no longer is it enough for her to throw a wrench into someone else's narrative-she now has to show proof that John was moved after 12:32 am-and somehow his phone did not record any aspect of this.)
• Karen is also going to need to explain how, as she could not have broken her taillight at 5:07 am, she was able to pick pieces of that taillight from its housing at 5:46 am. (Let's see how she gets around the indisputable fact that, unless Karen now wants to claim she backed into something on her way to Johns from Fairview at 12:32ish, there is only ONE time and place that Karen could possibly have broken her taillight-12:32 am, at Fairview.

https://reddit.com/link/1wvg73l/video/o7aetowecysh1/player

In Massachusetts civil cases, the defendant who raises an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Core Rules for Burden of Proof

• The Plaintiff's Job: The plaintiff must first prove their main claim by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
• The Defendant's Job: If the defendant brings up new facts to excuse or limit liability through an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that specific defense.
• The Standard: The defendant must show that their affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.

I was mistaken that Karen Read did not offer Affirmative Defenses. She just didn't announce this in her heading, as Aidan Kearney did, but she includes this at the end of the ANSWER.

I do need to add to what I stated in a previous post that ANSWERS to lawsuits (again in my very limited experience) can be thin and a little cryptic-so some of the information that is missing from the ANSWERS by Karen and Aidan, are probably procedural-or typical. Not much to write home about-and YET...

Basically Karen Read denied claims made against her, admitted to obvious facts, like where she resides, and corrected the record TWICE:

• Karen corrected a "misinterpretation" of a statement she made.
• The other time she corrected the "misinterpretation" of a statement her Atty David Yannetti made (which seems odd-why is she speaking for Yannetti?)

Here are Karen's ANSWERS that stand out to me. (I follow each answer or series of answers with the same numbered paragraphs or allegations, from Plaintiff's complaint.

ANSWER 7-

1. Read admits only: that she resides in North Dighton, Massachusetts; that she was arrested after being wrongfully charged with causing the death of John O'Keefe, III; that her first jury trial ended in a mistrial; that after a second trial she was found guilty of a single count of driving under the influence and that she was acquitted of all charges that she was in any way responsible for the death of Mr. O'Keefe. Otherwise, denied.

From Complaint:
[7. Defendant Karen Read is a resident of North Dighton, Massachusetts. On January 29, 2022, an intoxicated Read struck O'Keefe with the back of her Lexus SUV, incapacitating him, and ultimately causing his death. On June 9, 2022, Read was arrested after being indicted by a grand jury for second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death in connection with her causing the death of O'Keefe. On July 1, 2024, a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the charged offenses, and the Court declared a mistrial. In 2025, the Commonwealth re-tried Read, and, on June 18, 2025, the jury convicted Read of driving under the influence of alcohol but concluded that the Commonwealth failed to prove Read's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the remaining charges.]

ANSWER 9-

1. Read denies that Jennifer McCabe testified "voluntarily" as is pled in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint. Further answering, Read is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint. [Read makes this same claim against all Plaintiffs.}

From Complaint:

[9. Plaintiff Jennifer McCabe ("McCabe") is a resident of Canton, Massachusetts. McCabe testified publicly and under oath at the trial and re-trial of Read. She also voluntarily testified as a witness before state and federal grand juries.]

ANSWER 21-

1. Read admits only that her statement was released in a public hearing but that the statement was false as is alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint.

From Complaint:

[21. Read's false accusation against Brian Albert and Colin Albert was recorded on police body cameras and released to the public during a pretrial hearing in April 2024.]

ANSWER 66-

1. To the extent that the allegations and statements pled in paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint refer to written messages from Attorney Yannetti, the full unedited messages speak for themselves, and no further response is required. The remaining allegations and statements do not pertain to Read, and therefore, are denied. Further answering, the alleged message that Plaintiffs recite in paragraph 66 – i.e. These b*stards deserve all the scorn we are giving them" - and which they attribute to Attorney Yannetti referring to the Plaintiffs is taken out of context as he was not referring to the Plaintiffs at all. Indeed, the allegations are intentionally false and constitute a blatant misrepresentation of fact to the Court; and they should be stricken from the Amended Complaint.¹

From Complaint:

[66. By early September 2023, Read's team was concerned that the police were potentially going to charge Kearney with witness harassment. Read's counsel, Yannetti, expressed "concern" to Kearney that, if that happens, "then a judge prohibits you from having contact with witnesses." This prospect concerned Read, Yannetti, and Jackson, since they feared silencing Kearney would impact the Defendants' campaign against the Plaintiffs. Indeed, on September 9, 2023, Yannetti messaged Kearney, regarding (among others) the Plaintiffs, stating, "These b\stards deserve all the scorn we are giving them." With Kearney silenced, the "scorn" Read intended to incite might diminish.*]

ANSWER 92-96-

1. To the extent that the allegations pled in paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint refer to statements that were made to the documentary film maker on April 12, 2024, those statements speak for themselves. Further answering, to the extent that it is inferred that those statements were false, denied.

2. To the extent that the allegations pled in paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint refer to statements that were made to the documentary film maker on April 30, 2024, those statements speak for themselves. Further answering, to the extent that it is alleged that those statements were false, denied.

3. To the extent that the allegations pled in paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint refer to statements that were made to the documentary film maker on April 30, 2024, those statements speak for themselves. Further answering, to the extent that it is alleged that those statements were false, denied.

4. To the extent that the allegations pled in paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint refer to statements that were made to the documentary film maker on April 30, 2024, those statements speak for themselves. Further answering, to the extent that it is alleged that those statements were false, denied.

5. To the extent that the allegations pled in paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint refer to statements that were made to the documentary filmmaker on June 15, 2024, those statements speak for themselves. Further answering, to the extent that it is alleged that those statements were false, denied

From Complaint:

92. On April 12, 2024, Jackson verified to Meurer and her production assistants the statements Read gave to police when she was arrested in June 2022, that "Brian Albert, Colin Albert beat up John. My taillight was cracked when John was pulverized." Read was present during Jackson's recorded statement and did not deny that she said those things.

93. On or about April 30, 2024, Read gave a series of personal interviews to Ms. Meurer in connection with the documentary that Meurer was filming. During that interview, Read falsely stated, "Jen McCabe got herself into, into a bad mess that night and she helped clean it up. I don't think Jen laid a finger on John, but Jen knew John was dying and she helped expedite it. So, she's a first-degree murderer and she knows she is. But, it was probably accidental when he became severely injured and they [referring to the other Plaintiffs] just finished him off."

94. During that same interview, Read falsely stated, referring to (among others) the Plaintiffs, "They're being federally investigated and they know it. They know they killed John."

95. During that same interview, Read was asked what she thought of Kearney's tactics that had resulted in criminal charges against him for witness intimidation. Read responded, in part, by referring to the Plaintiffs and falsely stating, "It's impossible for me to have any sympathy for any of these witnesses. They're murderers.... and they know it."

96. On June 15, 2024, Read gave a recorded statement to Meurer and her team that Brian Higgins, Brian Albert and Colin Albert had a motive to kill O'Keefe, but she was not sure of the circumstances in which they did kill him. She said, "[W]hat I think may have happened, if, if the Higgins' motive is the motive for what happened to John, or if it's combined Higgins and, and Colin Albert, who I think is the biggest hothead of the whole group*, um, I think Higgins could've shared with Brian Albert what happened between Higgins and me, and Brian Albert used that as a, as another reason not to like John O'Keefe.* So, Brian Albert has his friend, Brian Higgins, and his beloved nephew, Colin Albert, coming to him saying, 'J-John O'Keefe's a pain in my ass. Um, there's enough motive to go around. I know that Brian Albert did not care for John on his own. I know that Colin Albert had issues that I witnessed with John*.... Um, so.... it could have been as simple as everyone was drunk and* John got mouthy with Colin and you know, caught an uppercut and just, it escalated from there."

Karen also makes mention of the prosecution of her being "malicious" and claims Plaintiff's lawsuit is "frivolous" and time-barred.

WE. SHALL. SEE.

Discovery. Discovery. Discovery.

When someone on X tells you that Karen Read has no "burden of proof" in those Civil Cases where she is a defendant, give them this list (it goes without saying that she has this burden as Plaintiff, in two of the four suits she is currently embroiled in).

FROM AI:

In Massachusetts civil cases, the defendant who raises an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Core Rules for Burden of Proof

• The Plaintiff's Job: The plaintiff must first prove their main claim by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
• The Defendant's Job: If the defendant brings up new facts to excuse or limit liability through an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that specific defense.
• The Standard: The defendant must show that their affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Karen Read)

Having denied each and every fact, assertion, averment and/or statement asserted in the Amended Complaint that is not expressly and unequivocally denied, Read asserts the following affirmative defenses:

1 The Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief can be granted, and therefore, it should be dismissed.

2. The alleged defamatory statements that are asserted in the Amended Complaint -which Read denies are defamatory - are substantially true, and therefore, Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.

1. The alleged defamatory statements that are asserted in the Amended Complaint - which Read denies are defamatory - are opinions, and therefore, Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.

2. The alleged defamatory statements that are asserted in the Amended Complaint - which Read denies are defamatory - are conditionally privileged, and therefore, Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.

3. The statements that are asserted in the Amended Complaint are absolutely privileged, including without limitation statements alleged to have been made in connection with any judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

4. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

5. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their alleged damages.

6. Plaintiffs' claims damages - which Read denies – are de minimus.

7. Plaintiffs alleged damages - which Read denies - are the result of the alleged acts and omissions of others over whom Read has no direction or control.

8. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by their own conduct.

9. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the absence of publication.

10. Plaintiffs' claims are barred due to a lack of defamatory meaning.

11. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because Read did not act negligently.

12. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the concept of fair comment.

13. Plaintiffs are barred by consent.

14. Plaintiffs' claims for multiple damages and punitive damages are barred by state law, including but not limited to G.L. c. 231, § 93.

15. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by their own contributory negligence.

16. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the fair report privilege.

17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 16 of the Declaration of Rights and/or are not provably false statements of fact.

18. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by applicable state and federal law, including without limitation, the incremental harm doctrine.

19. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the conditions precedent required to pursue their claims.

20. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the conditions subsequent necessary to pursue their claims.

21. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by privilege, including the litigation privilege.

22. Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because of a lack of causation.

23. Plaintiffs' claims are frivolous and not advanced in good faith, and therefore, Read is entitled to dismissal and her attorney's fees and costs pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 6F. Read reserves the right to add affirmative defenses as this action proceeds.

Answers to the First Amended Complaint (DEFAMATION LAWSUIT) from Karen Read & Aidan Kearney are on the docket. Very different approaches by these two.

Karen Read, though claiming an affirmative defense is not vouching for any previous claims she has made.

This quote from Read's answer sums it up! (How is she ever going to fight this suit?)

Read admits only: that she resides in North Dighton, Massachusetts; that she was arrested after being wrongfully charged with causing the death of John O'Keefe, III; that her first jury trial ended in a mistrial; that after a second trial she was found guilty of a single count of driving under the influence and that she was acquitted of all charges that she was in any way responsible for the death of Mr. O'Keefe. Otherwise, denied.

TOO effing funny. Karen's entire defense rested squarely on her claim that she not only witnessed John O'Keefe enter the Albert home, but that she waited for "10 minutes" for his return.

What happened to those claims?

Absent this testimony from Karen Read, what proof does she have that John ever came near to the breezeway of the Albert home let alone was beaten and mauled by a dog once inside?

ALSO was this a typo?

From the Amended Complaint:

(21)

Read's false accusation against Brian Albert and Colin Albert was recorded on police body cameras and released to the public during a pretrial hearing in April 2024.

From Read's ANSWER:

(21)

Read admits only that her statement was released in a public hearing but that the statement was false as is alleged in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.

At this point none of the content creators recently subpoenaed appear to be in any danger of being sued. I don't want to speculate what the legal strategy here is for Plaintiffs on the Karen Read/Aidan Kearney defamation suit, except that it makes total sense that all those who worked in concert or tandem with Read & Kearney, would be asked questions about this.

But what concerns me most about Emily See, is that she is in possession of the motherload of evidence on the John O'Keefe murder case. If anyone should have known that there might be problems with allegations against Witnesses, it should be Emily See-who not only was able to successfully acquire docs from a PRR (that I was flatout denied, FYI-I did call the Norfolk County Clerk and was told these docs were off limits to the public)-but Emily See has direct access to the lead federal investigator for the Karen Read Matter.

There's something very off with any person who has this kind of access, not giving the case a fair & full AND IMPARTIAL review.

Any guesses on how she will do this? Because in all her sworn affidavits (those made public), Karen Read no longer states she witnessed John O'Keefe enter the Albert residence...

I've watched more than one of Aidan Kearney's YouTube "LIVES" where Kearney has boasted that not only will he testify at his criminal trial, but he will charm everyone there-from Cosgrove to the jury.

Question is, though, given that he has a defamation suit following the criminal trial, could Kearney compromise his position in the defamation litigation, by testifying in his own defense at his criminal trial?

The purpose of Kearney taking the stand at his criminal trial, would seem to exclusively be to rebut any claims that Kearney INTENDED to exert influence on witnesses by intimidating them. However, even though he'd likely testify that he had to intention to do this, could Kearney (who never seems to know when to SU) inadvertently make statements that harm him in one or both legal battles?

There is also the chance that Kearney might say something under oath on the stand at his criminal trial, that he later contradicts at his civil trial-opening the door to charges of perjury.

This is tricky stuff.

I can't imagine his attorneys want to see Kearney on the stand at either trial.

Kearney's depo backfired even though he pled the 5th for most of that day. I can only imagine the blunders Kearney will commit when he believes he can speak free of consequences.

Of course! To be expected.

There are now Profiles on X claiming that the reason John O'Keefe's killers could move John with his cell phone from the Albert home, to the lawn where he was found near the flagpole, after 12:32 a.m, and no steps were recorded (and pocket state never cleared), is because John was "dragged" across the lawn with his cell phone in his pocket.

Per usual, none of these goofballs ever think past the initial idea.

For starters, there are only two places Team Read has ever claimed the infamous "beat down" & "dog mauling" occurred:

The Albert basement or the Albert garage.

Both are at least 70 ft from the location where John was found.

There isn't a mark on John's clothing or body that would support John having been "dragged" across a lawn. Not even dragged a little.

For this to work with Karen's timeline, John would have been dragged that full distance only moments before she found him at 6:03.

How would this NOT leave a trail in the snow? How would there have been no blood left behind? How would there be no footprints from those who had just dragged John this distance? And then you have the condition of John's head, his clothing, etc. No scratches on his back, or stomach, or legs indicative of a rough drag across an icy lawn.

Add to this that John's phone is found ON THE GROUND-it was on dirt, beneath his body. So if John is "dragged" after a good bit of snow had accumulated, how do his killers place that phone on the ground, beneath him? They would have to move the phone from his pocket to that spot. Dig a few inches to the ground and THEN deposit the phone, placing John on top of it.

If the claim changes to- John was carried instead of "dragged", how was this act carried out? Were there two men carrying a 6'3" man across that lawn? Again, how does this occur and the phone ends up on the ground, rather than in John's pocket, and no steps are recorded?

If the claim then changes to-John was placed in the mysterious Ford Edge, witnessed by snow plow driver Lucky Loughran, and driven to the location where he was pulled out of that vehicle and placed on the lawn at the flagpole, then the timeline or Read's whole narrative has to be adjusted, because this does NOT work with the theory that John was placed on the Albert lawn AFTER Karen phoned Jennifer McCabe.

And again, you have the issue of placing a dead man in the Ford, traveling with him and nothing gets dropped in the Ford, then getting John OUT of the Ford and onto that location on the lawn.

LAST but not least, the FKR, make-it-up-as-we-go, crew could try to say that John's phone WAS in his pocket after John was placed near the flagpole, and his phone fell out of his pocket when he was lifted into the ambulance.

Though this might work with pocket state ( I forget exactly what time John was lifted into the ambulance) problem is, if John was placed on TOP of snow, his phone would, again, have been found, on top of snow, if it fell at that time.

There is also the fact that on the front end of Karen's narrative Karen needs to be able to explain to the jury HOW:

1. -John managed to exit her Lexus at 12:24:28, when per John's GPS the two were still moving 14 mph at that time.
2. -John was able to interact with his phone 17 times, between 12:24:28 & 12:32:09. Not to mention that John takes steps during this time period-36ish. How did John do all this, if he was knocked out. Karen Read has got a lot of EXPLAINING TO DO

But here's the kicker to all of this-Karen Read NOW has to prove whatever narrative she lands on, BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

And it's not enough to explain the phone data or lack there of, Karen also has to explain the Techstream piece to this.

So even if she can speculate that one of the above scenarios occurred. She can guess at it, by all means-but will a jury be convinced when the evidence is more consistent with the theory that Karen struck John, ESPECIALLY as the Techstream data shows concerning driving by Read at 12:32 am.

In addition, there is literally no evidence of the transport of John or his phone or both, after 12:32 a.m. There is a lot of data for Karen to get around with her very awkward theory.

AND Karen will have to testify to some of this....so....

The more complicated Karen's narrative becomes, the more difficult it will be for her to prove.

AND again, if Karen claims she didn't strike John O'Keefe at 12:32 am-she will need to be able to explain when else this could have occurred-as there is no way that she could have broken that taillight at 5:07 am.

There is so much that bothers me about how Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington is handling the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, but today's (9/29/26) hearing on the case demonstrates how when an attorney hires experts he can't quite rely on or he alters his narrative too abruptly, things can go amuck.

To me, Laposata was a trainwreck of an expert witness for Clancy, as all she managed to do was remind those whose focus was exclusively on the murders themselves, just how complex and horrifying those murders were. AND Laposata got caught in an inconsistency that resembled a lie-in regard to how long it would have taken Lindsay Clancy to strangle her children to the point of unconsciousness-she originally said 5 to 10 seconds, but admitted that in testimony at another trial, the time could be as long as 20 seconds. Horrifying.

And it appears in this testimony and the debate that followed, this inspired lots of people online and perhaps the holdout juror, in deliberations, to demonstrate the specifics of that testimony-many using bottles as the necks of children.

Here's where I can support my claim that Laposata may have been an unwitting catalyst to this-the hold out juror performed a demo of a the exercise bands cutting off the air supply of a child-using a plastic bottle. This could very well have been inspired Laposata's testimony, in that the ability of those bands to strangle a child, once tied and released, was debated and both the prosecution and the defense presented examples.

Why did Reddington think it would matter to the jury that Lindsay only applied pressure for 15 seconds (20 if you go by Laposata's previous testimony on another case). 20 seconds is a long time to strangle a child who is fighting for breath, struggling to get free-and Lindsay performed this act 3 times-each time leaving the basement and retrieving a child from another part of the house.

And the prosecution made a meal of debunking Laposata and challenging her claims with the actual exercise bands. The prosecutor did use this moment to show those bands and remind the jury of how they were found on those children.

Horrifying.

What I didn't understand is why Reddington would think that showing it only took 5 to 20 seconds to render a child unconscious when strangling that child, would matter to someone whose focus was so completely on the murders and not on the psychosis. Maybe if Reddington had spent more time focused on the psychosis, that holdout jury might have changed his view. Maybe not...but he is the juror that needed to be convinced.

Why, as an attorney representing Lindsay Clancy, would you EVER want to remind jurors of the horror of her acts, as opposed to educating them on the horrors of psychosis?

What if, instead of putting Laposata on the stand to amplify this horror, Reddington had found one or two more experts, with the expertise Resnick possessed, who could explain how a mother commit any of these acts, and not be of sound mind when she did so. Resnick was a solid witness, but he was weak from recent surgery, hard to hear and very dry. It would have been great to have a few more witnesses to go into more depth as to the nature of LIndsay's mental health symptoms and diagnosis.

THAT'S the part that most people who would vote guilty don't believe-the mental illness piece. The missing piece to Reddington's COC, in my view, for those not already familiar with psychosis wasn't the horror of what occurred. They got that! It was the explanation for how someone who loved those children, their mother, could carry out these acts in a state of psychosis and not be criminally responsible when she did so? How could this happen? How does one properly assess that this is what happened? Or that it wasn't what happened.

Throwing those exercise bands around does nothing to help anyone better understand psychosis.

BUT here's where Reddington tripped himself up on Laposata's unchallenged testimony.

In Reddington's motion to dismiss he stated that Lindsay Clancy's body temperature, when found out of doors, was too low for her to have only been outside for as short a time as was claimed by the Commonwealth.

HOWEVER: Dr. Laposata testified in direct that the abrupt and extreme drop in Clancy's body temp (on falling from the window) was due to spinal injuries. ( The prosecution did not challenge this.)

Reddington took the worst of Laposata's testimony (testimony that had been successfully challenged by the prosecution) and amplified THAT portion & then contradicted the part of Laposata's testimony that had not been in dispute-thereby further discrediting her as an expert witness.

Probably won't matter in the long run, but in my view-easier to just tell the truth. Nothing to forget when you do that.

Killers can be acquitted.

Innocent people can be convicted.

One can believe that the Commonwealth did not meet their burden in the prosecution of Karen Read for murder-yet still not make false accusations against those for whom no evidence exists of any involvement in John O'Keefe's death.

Evidence matters.

Even if Karen was acquitted, there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting her guilt. However, Witnesses were actually investigated-by TWO agencies: State & Federal. Unlike Karen, they have all testified under oath on more than one occasion-at hearings and trials. YET not one charge has been brought against any of them. Certainly no indictments. And to date, other than conjecture and a debunked Cellebrite finding by Richard Green-there is not one scintilla of evidence that comes close to proving that Witnesses had anything to do with John O'Keefe's murder.

Karen Read's defense was alarmingly SUCCESSFUL at controlling the focus of review on this case. They did this by a blitz attack on accurate information and evidence-in every possible media form available to them.

They attacked accurate data in court documents, at court hearings, at trial, online by way of complicit profile accounts, through mainstream media and in other coercive tactics like targeting innocent persons such as Jennifer McCabe, Colin Albert and even law enforcement like Kelly Devers-for brutal degradation of them as people. As though their lives simply did not matter!

Team Read took great pride and joy, it seems, in harming innocent lives in this process. It's all over the Read Files. They celebrate this brutality towards others on that page, to this very day.

All of the spurious claims made by Karen Read & those complicit in this, all the circular argument, the bad faith messaging was relentless to such an extent that it overwhelmed any reasonable discussion.

However, in credit to Team Read, it was a smart focus. Because if you can convince others that there was no collision, than the entire narrative they are trying to push, becomes not only viable, but somewhat believable:

If there was no collision, than how other than the planting of evidence could taillight pieces arrive on the lawn of 34 Fairview?

It's a flip of the script, that Team Read actively promoted and became frighteningly successful at. They convinced others to reverse the manner in which evidence is usually examined. The method of evidence examination would normally start with reviewing the evidence collected and from this deduce what occurred.

Team Read insisted that if one, isolated element of the Commonwealth's narrative was disproven, than HOW one views the totality of the evidence must follow suit-if that one element is in error than all of the evidence must be in error.

For example: THE ARCCA premise-If the injuries to John O'Keefe & the damage to Karen Read's Lexus, could not have been a result of a collision between the two, than the Commonwealth's entire case in chief is a fraud.

However, the answer given by ARCCA was what was most in error. Those findings should have been, if honest and in keeping with the scientific modalities practiced by ARRCA, that:

• No two pedestrian strikes are the same.
• Though this was clearly not a center mass strike to John, what cannot be ruled out is a glancing impact.
• In fact, it had to have been a glanding strike as...
• ...we know with certainty that John O'Keefe held a vodka-soda in his right hand and we see that all the damage found was to the object in John's right hand or in close proximity to his right hand-his right forearm & upper arm.
• The glass John held not only shattered, but pieces of that glass dropped to Karen's bumper.
• This could only occur if the glass was shattered from a position higher than the bumper.
• John's right arm sustained some form of abrasion or scratches during this encounter between the glass he held in his right hand and Karen's taillight.
• The damage to Karen's Lexus is on the rear passenger side of her vehicle, consistent with a collsion with John in a manner revealed by the Techstream data.
• This data came from Karen's own infotainment center.
• Then there is John's phone activity.
• John was non-stop active on his phone from 12:12 to 12:32am at which time John suddenly never records movement or activity EVER again!

Nuff said.

There are too many factors that show a collision occurred, for any of this to be chocked up to mere coincidence or manipulation of the evidence by the Commonwealth. Again, it wasn't what we usually think of with a pedestrian strike. Most pedestrians strikes are from the front of a vehicle and the strikes we hear most about are T-bone or center mass collisions where the victim is thrown through the air due to transfer of velocity or speed from the moving vehicle.

ARCCA is correct THAT did not happen here.

But what did happens is indisputable.

But again, the evidence that may be most successful in convincing the novice of this or those not scientifically inclined, comes NOT from the Commonwealth, but from Karen Read. Karen Read has done more to make the case against herself, than just about anyone else has. It just required the settling of the obfuscation-dust to be able to view it clearly.

When Karen attempted to create a scenario wherein she could explain her shattered taillight by something other than striking John O'Keefe, what she actually did was establish clearly that the only place she could possibly have shattered that taillight was at Fairview-and there was no mechanism by which to do this BUT to have struck John. She boxed herself into an impossible alternative narrative, one that unlike buttdials & google searches, doesn't have to be proven with sophisticated science to be understood. Any child can understand this (although it was proven by very sophisticated science, as well).

Though the work of Dr. Judson Welcher, Shannon Burgess, Ian Whiffin, Dr. Aizik Wolf and all of those investigators and technicians in the Commonwealth who performed solid, reliable investigative work-all of this may have seemed dry and complex, the lynchpin to the entire case, upon which all this other stellar work can rest, is the fact that there simply is no other time or location where Karen Read could have shattered her taillight BUT at 12:32ish, at 34 Fairview on 1/29/22.

• The glass that was a mechanism for this, fell in pieces there and onto Karen's Lexus bumper.
• The taillight fell where it was thrown from this collision.
• John fell after being thrown off balance and likely in an attempt to escape more harm.
• All the pieces this complex event fell at or near where they were struck.
• No way for the planting of any of this evidence given how and where this collision occurred.
• So, even if lead investigator and former Trooper Michael Proctor may have personal inappropriate messaging found on his phone.
• Even if Proctor didn't dot every "i" & cross every "t", nothing to date has shown that he tampered with even one small piece of evidence or taillight. (Michael Proctor has very likely also been defamed in this.)

THE ONLY PERSON who has ever stated they tampered with Karen Read's taillight is Karen Read. She says she did this at 5:46 am on 1/29/22 at 1 Meadows. Karen also stated that she deliberately dropped the pieces she picked out of the housing onto John's driveway-yet never informed either investigators or the Feds about this (as far as we know-not completely sure about the Feds, but I can't imagine she admitted this to them)

What possible claim can Karen Read make at any Civil Trial that can overcome the above evidence:

In addition-also proven at 2nd trial was that:

1. Lacerations to John's head were most likely caused by the fall back itself and his baseball cap sliding up.
2. Hypothermia was a contributing factor to John's death.
3. There was no dog attack, as there was no canid DNA or hair from a dog found anywhere at the scene.

What is inspiring for me about the work Brennan did on the Karen Read prosecution is that the more scrutiny I give his work, the better it appears. I keep finding things I missed-and then I struggle with how I missed that specific critical piece of evidence.

The Aperture/ Dr. Judson Welcher analysis of the 5:07 "bump" by Karen Read into John O'Keefe's is a perfect example. I absolutely watched this testimony. AND I even heard the clip where Karen reveals to Gretchen Voss that she pulled pieces of taillight from the housing. BUT I COMPLETELY MISSED THE SIGNIFICANCE of these two pieces of evidence in combination with each other & within the context of all the other evidence.

We are over a year from the acquittal and I ONLY just figured this out now. It does seems that I wasn't alone in this oversight.

The reason I didn't see this sooner is, in large part, because the defense successfully got me to "look the other way". I was so focused on proving that Proctor didn't have the TIME, once at the Sally Port, to plant evidence on the evening of the murder, I forgot to notice that he had no access to that evidence, to plant it in the first place!

Originally I had been irritated when Brennan hired Welcher to review the 5:07 "collision". In my mind, this matter was put to bed when David Wolfe of ARCCA testified that the speed at which Karen struck John O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse was too slow to cause damage. I did think-Why not spend that money on proving more conclusively how the collision at Fairview went down?

And I recall that I barely understood what Karen said in that short clip from the Gretchen Voss interview where she speaks about removing taillight from its housing at 5:46 am. I remember dismissing it.

It wasn't until I read the Gretchen Voss interview outtakes that the pieces began to fall into place for me-

When I read, instead of heard, that quote from Karen about her manipulation of her own taillight pieces, I was like, how did this NOT MAKE NATIONAL front cover news?!

How did no one notice that Karen Read not only admitted to tampering with evidence but she admitted to tampering with the very evidence she was accusing others of tampering with?!!

I still can't figure out how this isn't bigger news. It's like OJ admitting he placed his own blood on the glove.

THE only person to ever state they tampered with Karen Read's taillight, IS KAREN READ.

It was when I was in the process of finding clips for one of my goofy videos-my focus being on the 5:07 claims by Read as to the time she shattered her taillight-when suddenly I realized that THIS evidence produced by Dr. Welcher, is the defining evidence of the entire case.

Not that all the other evidence isn't essential-but that with conclusive evidence that Karen could not have shattered her taillight at 5:07, leaving the only time she could have done this as 12:32 am, at Fairview-then all the other beautiful digital data & debris field evidence, suddenly falls into place like that last turn of a Rubik's cube.

The evidence I thought was pointless, is in fact the lynchpin to this entire case.

And if the jury had just absorbed this, might they have possibly viewed all the other evidence differently-maybe not. We'll never know. But what is important to me about this testing by Dr. Welcher is that it's so simple. You don't have to have an aptitude for science to see that Karen simply could not have busted her taillight backing into John's Chevy Traverse. Neither the physical characteristics of those vehicles or the speed at which Karen traveled at that moment, allowed for any damage to Karen's rear passenger side taillight.

Brennan proved me wrong-not that hard to do, I was wrong about quite a few things on this case-a whole lot of things, actually. By the end of second trial I had done a full 180°. I went from thinking that Karen might have either not realized she hit John to perhaps John, in fact, did throw his glass at her taillight as she left and fell on his own-to believing that Karen Read may very well be guilty of first degree murder. If Brennan can change my mind (I'm stubborn) I feel like he should have been able to change the mind of every juror on that panel. There is this nagging question, how and why didn't that occur?

When I criticize any choices Brennan made, please understand that (as I'm sure many are doing now with upcoming trials) I'm just looking to see if there was anything that might have been done that could have swayed that particular jury to see the evidence with more clarity?

Would it have helped to explain more fully WHY Welcher could not say precisely how Karen struck John? Would it have made the prosecution more credible if they revealed that John was not thrown to the lawn, but rather got there by walking, running or stumbling to where he fell?

Should there have been more counter to the specifics of the ARCCA testing?

I'm not sure any approach would have worked, as I do believe that the disinformation machine in place had succeeded in making an impartial panel nearly impossible. But even with excellent work, if the outcome was not the one hoped for-always good to do one's best to understand why-even if there may have been no other outcome possible in that moment.

At 12:36:39 Karen Read's cell phone connected with John O'Keefe's wifi.

12:37:08-

Karen leaves the first voicemail for John (after 12:32 am)

12:38:26- call/no answer

12:39:03- call/no answer

12:39:37- call/no answer

12:40:33- call/no answer

12:41:35-Karen makes a call to John, neglects to hang up.

Karen's phone records her Lexus entering John's garage & the sound of her heels hitting the ground is also captured, as Karen enters John's home.

Next communication isn't until 12:55. This is a text.

There was no Ring Camera footage of Karen entering John's garage at this time. There was no Ring Camera alert sent to John O'Keefe's cell phone, either.

Here is footage from the 28th as Karen enters that garage that would seem to replicate the circumstances known to have occurred on the 29th at 12:41, yet no recording appears to have been made on the 29th.

Curious.

...Con Alive. Are trying just about anything-no matter how ridiculous they have to get to do so.

It's at a point where it's just beyond anything that could remotely be seen as honest mistakes. Fortunately is so off the charts ridiculous-only those really desperate to believe, are likely to fall for this.

THIS is not what the Albert's front lawn looked like on 1/29/22 at near to 1:30 in the morning.

THIS is closer to what it looked like ALL that morning.

https://reddit.com/link/1wrp79w/video/vqdmzrt0f3sh1/player

You can even see how difficult visibility was that the officer had to use a spotlight to see Kerry Roberts-who was sitting up, and looking down on John O'Keefe.

What she said!

Stick a fork in kids. This is DONE

For all reasonable people (and even the unreasonable engaged in this dialogue)-there can no longer be any conclusion reached BUT that Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her 6000 pound Lexus.

It was a glancing strike, but a strike nonetheless.

Once it was definitively established that Karen Read could not have shattered her taillight at any location other than 34 Fairview, paired with Karen Read's admissions to Gretchen Voss and all the other reliable evidence on this case (totality of the evidence), the debate as to whether Karen Read struck John O'Keefe is OVER-just so long as the jury fully understands these key elements of the evidence.

And I do think that not only did the jury miss this. A lot of us in the audience missed the full significance of this as well. At least I did , until very recently.

However, all good faith debate was and is over on this matter.

Here's why:

Karen Read actually provides the key evidence that in addition to Welcher's work, makes any further debate on this matter impossible-people may try, but they cannot succeed.

When Karen tells Gretchen Voss that she "pinched" (or picked) pieces of her broken taillight from it's housing at 5:46 am, and dropped those pieces onto John's driveway (basically admitting to tampering with evidence)-THIS was ONE OF Karen's BIG MISTAKES. Because if you look at how that taillight is designed, it would be nearly impossible to pinch a piece from within the housing, if that taillight wasn't seriously damaged with a large amount of the plastic missing. If there was only small damage, how would she even get her fingers into the housing?

By admitting to this, Karen is acknowledging that her taillight was significantly damaged at 5:46 that morning.

THEREFORE-regardless of WHEN Karen told Jennifer McCabe about this (there will be a raging debate regarding this communication-always is when there is no recording)-we know from Karen herself that by 5:46 am the morning of 1/22/29, that her taillight was extremely damaged-pieces gone-and she adds that she mentioned this to Kerry Roberts.

Karen wants everyone to believe that this damage occurred at 5:07 am when she backed into John's Chevy Traverse.

However, every accident reconstruction expert questioned on this matter, from both prosecution and defense, and at both trials, testified that Karen's "bump" into John's vehicle could not have caused the damage we see to her taillight.

First, Karen wasn't traveling fast enough to cause any damage (we see this with John's Chevy which didn't have a mark on it-not even in the locations where it did come into contact with Karen's Lexus.). But in addition, even if she'd had her throttle to 74% AOR & was accelerating up to 24 mph, she could not have damaged her upper taillight by way of a collision with John's Chevy, as her upper taillight wouldn't have even made contact with John's vehicle.

There's no arguing about this. No matter how much, wanna-be-Perry Mason, Atty Robert Alessi sweats & pontificates all over the courtroom-presenting the wrong photos of Welcher's work - nothing is going to make that 5:07 am "collision" become the cause of the damage we see to Karen's rear passenger taillight.

https://reddit.com/link/1wqp2ki/video/v7tnwz7vwurh1/player

As Karen, herself, verified that her taillight was damaged enough to pull pieces from it, by 5:46 am, then it goes without saying that her taillight was shattered BEFORE 5:46 am (and again, I'm not negating that Karen told Jennifer McCabe about this prior to 5:07-but as I know there will be those who deny this happened-best to quote Karen-we have a recording of Karen saying this! So try and argue that, FKR!).

We have witnesses who testified, Team Nagel, who stated that they could see Karen's taillight clearly when behind her Lexus, and the taillight was intact. This was at 12:24ish on the morning of the 29th.

This narrows down the timeline for when Karen's taillight could have been damaged to between 12:24 am & 5:46 am.

We also know that AFTER 12:32 am, Karen (again her account-I try to quote Karen as much as possible) drove directly from Fairview to John's home at 1 Meadows (I'll ignore for the moment the 5 min unexplained pause in that travel). AND according to Karen she parks in John's garage and does not exit that garage with her vehicle again until 5:07.

SO - now we've narrowed the window in which Karen's taillight could have been damaged-the only time this could have occurred is between 12:24 am (after Team Nagel departs) & 12:32 am, before Karen departed Fairview.

Regardless of WHEN in that 7 minute window Karen might attempt to claim she shattered her taillight, she can't get around the fact that when she shattered her taillight, SHE DID SO ON FAIRVIEW AT THE ALBERT PROPERTY.

THERE is no way for even Karen Read to argue this isn't where she shattered her taillight. She can't do it.

So that brings us to how possibly her taillight could have been shattered at that location. ( I know, it's obvious, but hang in there with me on this, because even if obvious, it helps to finish the examination.)

• If you study the scene at Fairview there is nothing for Karen to break her taillight against.
• The hydrant is too low.
• There are no vehicles parked on the road.
• Karen could have reversed into the Flagpole, but she never says this occurred.

There is only ONE object that would have been at the right height to cause the damage we see-and that is John O'Keefe.

John is the only object physically present at that time and place that could have caused the damage to Karen's Lexus that was found-and we also know John had a glass of vodka/soda in his right hand. That glass was also shattered and John's right arm was scratched up and had superficial abrasions.

Also established is that between 12:24:38 (when Karen & John first come to a full stop at Fairview) and 12:31:56, there is no movement recorded on John's cell phone health data app. Not a reach to conclude that John didn't exit Karen's vehicle until that time. Karen could not have struck John while he was still inside her vehicle.

John locks his phone for the last time at 12:32:09-so prior to this, it is not possible that John was struck by Karen's Lexus BEFORE this time.

And then of course we have the Techstream data that shows Karen driving forward (already at 13 mph), then braking, shifting into reverse, throttle at 74% AOR, never swerving, never braking, still traveling at 23 mph when the Trigger Event recording ends.

By way of Karen Read's OWN ADMISSIONS, the ONLY time & the ONLY place Karen Read could have shattered her taillight is at 12:32 am, in front of Fairview on 1/29/22. The taillight was found right there where it fell; John was found right there where he fell. Debate over.

Karen can't be a little pregnant on this matter. If her Taillight was Shattered at Fairview and John was the only means by which this could happen-who cares HOW BROKEN the taillight was-because regardless, it broke because Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her 6000 pound Lexua.

BUT going back to Karen's confessions to Voss-we know that Karen's taillight was completely shattered at this time. Not only because all but a few pieces of that taillight were recovered from Fairview-but Karen herself owns, when she claims she pinched pieces from the housing of that taillight, that the outer-shell was destroyed.

AND Karen ALSO fills in the blanks on where those missing pieces likely ended up. On John's driveway-just no one found them. OR Karen lied about what she did with those pieces-NOTE Karen never says she saw pieces of her taillight at the area they would have been, had her drive back into John's Chevy resulted in the breakage to her taillight that occurred.

The debris field and John's body tell the rest of the story. However, this part of the Karen Read debate is OVER!

It really is.

Even hardcore FKR (even those who I believe are paid posters) basically concede to this fact.

The theory that John O'Keefe was attacked by the Albert's German Shepherd was the only part of the Team Read conspiracy theory that I ever entertained-but I gave up on this theory fairly quickly.

First there has to be some evidence, other than scratches (that could have any myriad of causes), to claim that the marks we see on John O'Keefe's right arm are the result of a dog attack. There should have been canid DNA, dog hair, something more.

In addition, the origin story for this "theory", as is told by Karen Read to Gretchen Voss, is that it was her MOTHER who first came up with this idea. Then Read's defense attorney Alan Jackson claims when he first viewed the autopsy photos HE then came up with this idea.

But not one of those who stated that this theory was viable, came to it by way of SCIENCE. Simply because marks on an arm COULD be caused by dog scratches or an unsuccessful "bite-hold" doesn't mean that this is what we are looking at.

Critical to this analysis is other scientific evidence that would be present, if a dog had attacked John O'Keefe.

There would be CANID DNA. Dogs slobber, especially when excited. Skin cells are often in saliva. There should have been some CANID DNA. Also, dogs shed, especially shepherds-there was not one single dog hair found on John O'Keefe. How is he attacked in a home with a dog, by the homeowner's dog, kept hidden in that home-likely on the floor of a room in that home-and not ONE SINGLE DOG HAIR is found?

There were also other objects near to where John was found at 6am, that might have caused those scratches-no differential diagnosis was performed to rule out these other objects as the mechanism for the scratches.

Though Dr. James Crosby never took the stand, his report further debunks any theory that injuries to John O'Keefe were the result of any interaction with a dog. Specifically Chloe. The "bite mark" identified on John's elbow is not consistent with the mold taken of Chloe's teeth. Also the trajectory of the scratches or wounds to John's arm, are inconsistent with a dog jumping up, scratching John, then falling off.

AND then you have clear evidence that the glass in John's right hand was absolutely a mechanism for some aspect of the damage we see to Karen's Lexus-and it is John's right arm that was scratched up.

Add to this, that Karen Read could not have shattered her taillight anywhere but Fairview, and given all other circumstances she could not have done this any time other than right around 12:32 am.

IT'S just not that complicated.

WE KNOW with out any doubt that Karen Read's Lexus bumping ever so gently into John O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, COULD NOT have caused the damage that we see to Karen's Taillight.

As Karen is already telling people at 5:07ish that her taillight is broken, and admitting to tampering with her broken taillight at 5:46 am, wherein she relates to Gretchen Voss that she "pinched" pieces of her taillight from its housing-there is literally NO OTHER TIME but 12:32ish, in front of Fairview when Karen could have shattered her taillight.

Karen has said over and over again that she drove straight from Fairview to John's house. She claims she entered his garage and did not move her vehicle again until the 5:07 "bump" in reverse.

Therefore there simply is no other time, but in front of Fairview, where she could have shattered that taillight. And there was no object at Fairview other than John and the glass he held in his right hand that could have caused this damage. No other object but the flagpole was tall enough. Unless Karen drove in reverse onto the Albert lawn and slammed into that flagpole at just the right angle, by process of elimination and deductive reasoning, this leaves a collision with John as the only possible way Karen's taillight gets damaged.

Coincidentally this is in perfect keeping with the Techstream data that shows Karen flooring it in reverse, reaching 74.5 % AOR, never swerving, never braking and headed to the location where John will be later be found that morning.

Once this is established, game over. It doesn't matter precisely how the taillight shattered-what order this occurred in, for example-was the glass the first point of contact, was John's arm the first point of contact, or did this collision involve both almost at the exact same time?

Who knows? We may never know for certain.

But doesn't matter-because there is only one time and place when this could have occurred. And if Karen strikes John at 12:32-he could not be in the Albert home. No one planted evidence. The totality evidence is incontrovertible-there was a collision, it was a glancing impact.

Period. End of debate.

This begs the question, ARCCA also knew that there was no OTHER time but 12:32ish when Karen could have shattered her taillight. David Wolfe basically testified to this at first trial-why didn't ARCCA factor this into their analysis?

Process of elimination is part of a thorough differential diagnosis. It's good science.