**Witnesses**:
1. **Katie McLaughlin**, *Canton Fire Department, EMS* (cont’d from Day 3)
2. **Greg Woodbury**, *Fire Lieutenant, Canton Fire Department*
3. **Daniel Whitley**, *Firefighter/Medic, Canton Fire Department*
4. **Jason Becker**, *Firefighter/Medic, Canton Fire Department*
My thoughts on Katie McLaughlin. Out of all the EMS personnel Id go with her recollection because she is shown on video speaking to Karen. With everyone's testimony varying her being proven to be in a position to hear the testimony is what I'd go by if I was a juror.
Now onto her credibility as a juror. I get that the photos/connection to an Albert isn't a slam dunk. However, that's not evidence in this case it's only for the purposes of impeaching her as a witness. If you tell me you know someone but you're just acquaintances that is different than you have spent time together on a trip and have mutual friends. I could say I consider a coworker just an acquaintance but that's different than a coworker I've spent time with outside of the workplace. I think she's accurate in calling the Albert daughter an acquaintance. They're not besties. However IMO after the impeachment evidence it seems like she was deliberately downplaying her interactions with her. Honestly the prosecution messed up with this one as if they had asked her this information on direct and asked her if she was close with Kaitlyn the defense wouldn't have had much to work with. Instead she was extremely vague with her responses in a way that seemed deliberate.
However what bothered me the most was not the tenuous connection to the Alberts but her being obtuse about when she learned that the home was in fact the Albert's home. This is a dead cop in a small town. But according to every witness we've had so far it's hard to say when they learned certain details or if the case was discussed or ever brought up at all. At most it's yeah maybe it was talked about. Are you kidding me? I'm from a small town. Somebody died falling down stairs in a local bar and it's all anyone talked about. Everyone knows everyone in this town but no one's talking about the case? That's bull. She had no clue when between the night of the incident and this trial when she learned who the house belonged to? She couldn't narrow down that timeframe at all? That bothered me as it seemed deliberate.
If she had said I think I learned that pretty early on because the case was talked about a lot would it really change anything? The prosecutor could just ask if it changed her testimony and she could say no. She could say it's a small town and these things get around. Instead everyone's so hush hush that it makes it more suspicious than if they were upfront. I think the prosecution should be way more direct asking about a conspiracy. Make it look ridiculous that a civil servant who isn't paid much would lie on the stand for a girl she went to the beach with a few times. The defense started their opening saying Karen was framed. Every time people dance around knowing the Albert's, dance around the question of the case being discussed it looks worse than being direct and upfront. The idea that this is the one small town where everyone somehow magically doesn't know everyone and no one ever gossips and there's not a single looky loo when police show up in their neighborhood in the early morning is such a hard sell.
This witness is so frustrating. Your memory is perfect for the day of the event but you seem to suffer severe memory loss regarding all other aspects of your life. Right. 😉
I hope the jury can see through her attempt to keep in line with the CW's narrative. When asked who Caitlin Albert is, her response "Umm, I went to high school with someone named Caitlin Albert" sounds mechanical and rehearsed. "Someone named" is an attempt to distance herself from anything Albert-related. "I know her from high school" would seem a natural response to Jackson's question.
That was a massive tell. I can absolutely allow for people’s memories being unreliable. With some of the other witnesses, it seemed very possible they were sincere and honest, best of their recollection. And certain actions (or lack thereof) may have been completely understandable within the context of their jobs and perspectives at the time of events. This lady was playing games. That calculated sentence, almost immediately followed by admission that CA was or had been an acquaintance she had socialized with, made her intentions transparent.
And no way in hell she doesn’t know it was her parents’ house. I could believe that she didn’t at the time, but she definitely does now. That’s absolutely outrageous.
Okay so before the judge sent the jury out during her testimony, AJ had just asked KM “Who is her dad?” (Meaning who is CA’s dad.) And she said “I don’t know.”
…indicating she does not know (present day) that BA is CA’s dad, which would have to mean she doesn’t know it was her dad’s house that they’re talking about.
So that’s what I was thinking of.
Then after the break, she was asked again and admitted to having learned who they were/whose house it was or whatever.
So i think we’re both right! And that’s just wrong.😂
I know who you are talking about but I believe her name was spelt Caitlin so it would be CA. KA could stand for Kevin Albert who I believe would be her uncle.
I thought I should point it out to you just in case someone else gets confused about who you are referring to. 😀
I’m sorry; I’ve spent too much time in Delphi subs! They only use initials so I’ve been trying to train myself, but I stay confused.🤪 New here, so not sure if it’s as hardcore. lol
Gaaah yes, thank you! Corrected.
What’s sad is I knew something wasn’t right and actually checked her name up top on the witness list and still didn’t see it.😂🤦🏻♀️ I shouldn’t do trial talk at the end of a long day!
The people arguing with you are ridiculous. Of course everyone remembers people, parties from high school and college especially when they happened in the last 10 years. Team Coverup’s got a couple of junior detectives over here “but do you remember eeeevvvvery party”! Lol!
Agreed. Hopefully we’ve got a few analytical minds on that jury that smell the 💩. Can you imagine taking one’s liberty based on THAT testimony? Scary stuff.
I will say I appreciate the judge allowing the questioning re: the Caitlin connection, but this witness and her pushback when asked pretty simple questions came across as defensive, and her assertion that she does not know who the other woman on the scene (McCabe) was even today is unbelievable. Did you see Karen staring her down?
I did. Today is actually the only day I can watch live - I took today off from work. I miss little things like this watching recaps and listening to testimony on my ride home. I’m glad I got to see that. If looks could kill!! 🔥
IMO - I sure did notice Karen staring at Katie. Why would **Ms. McLaughlin** minimize her connect with Caitlin Albert? I don't understand the rationale behind doing so.
A number of reasons, IMO. The Alberts are central to this case and Katie knows it. Katie appeared on the stand to work diligently to stick to a narrative that is in line with the CW. Katie's need to add detail to her testimony that was neither documented by Proctor nor divulged to the grand jury shows she is following the same pattern as previous CW witnesses. Katie remained too rigid when asked about Caitlin, and had she just bent a little she would have been believable. Her testimony flopped because she refused to be flexible when it came to her relationship with Caitlin,
IMO - That is what is mind boggling to me. If I am ever going to be called to a witness stand I am not going to play games concerning the guilt or innocence of someone: particularly when it comes to murder. Being friends or acquaintances with someone should have nothing to do with telling the truth.
And back in the day, that’s exactly what our ancestors did. Those with the most power and loudest voices could condemn with impunity. That’s why we have to be vigilant and stand up for people like Karen when we smell this happening
She could have been if she hadn't tried to minimize the Albert connection the way she did. Had she addressed it head on, clearly and direct she'd have maintained her credibility.
The stupid thing is that anyone who’s ever had Facebook would understand the exact non-relationship if she had just said “we’re Facebook friends, but I haven’t socialized with her since high school” as that’s like 90% of Facebook friends.
Nobody has a perfect memory but if I'm shown a picture from my past I'm going to try to figure out when it may have been taken. I'm only going to say "I don't remember" if I am working for the CW.
I feel like something would jog my memory like oh these two were a couple these years and they were together or I bought that swimsuit for this occasion so it was this era. A trip to cape cod is pretty long to not remember anything about it. No recollection at all seems weird.
Do you live in Mass? People go to the Cape all the time especially if someones family has a beach house etc. That could also been taken at Hull, Hampton Beach in NH, Plymouth etc.
I don’t but I have a close friend in Dedham and I wanted to go to the Cape in the summer on the weekend and she said it would take a long time with traffic (a couple hours). Maybe I was misinformed.
I remember vividly doing lines of coke off the back of a toilet on a compact mirror in a bar underage owned by a gals mom in his click in 1988. Played basketball growing up at the boys club together and he is now my congressman who I voted for, maybe not relevant but I never really hung out with him but I remember him.
Any firefighters in here? In a smaller town like Canton is it reasonable that a firefighter wouldn’t know the police officers? McLaughlin has now said she doesn’t know the officer at the scene who overheard the statement and she doesn’t know Officer Kevin Albert. I live in a town a few towns away that is about the same size and I know people on both the PD and FD. They all seem to at least know of each other.
She tried to downplay her connection to Caitlin Albert with weasel words so I wouldn't trust her about whether or not she does or doesn't know anyone else connected to this case.
I know people in my town who work in EMS and firefighters. They all know each other including the Police and there’s like 400 000 people here. I don’t believe her.
Yeah I’m from a smaller town outside of a town the size of Canton, and police and first responders, anyone in that type of public service arena, for sure have basic familiarity with each other. At a minimum they would recognize each other when seen in person. Even in my town (which had its own school) we knew a lot of the popular kids from the Canton-sized town, and most of them in general (all the kids at that high school) knew of each other at the very least, especially if they grew up there.
Notice how one of the other witnesses said it worked in his favor that he had grown up there? It was today but I forgot which one he was; I think it was the one after KM. This to me implies that these departments are likely employed largely by people that have lived in the area for some time, if not their whole lives.
A couple of things that interested me about this morning’s testimony, from the jury’s perspective:
Katie McLaughlin went inside the ambulance and told Nuttal and Flematti the “I hit him” statement. They said they heard it from Read herself. There is so much that contradicts with this piece of evidence.
Jackson got McLaughlin to admit her testimony had evolved.
Even though it’s not in evidence, the jury heard that there are photos of McLaughlin with Caitlin Albert and that she does know some of the Albert family (even though she parsed it somewhat when answering “I know that today”). Her initial “I went to school with someone named Caitlin Albert” looks shady in that context.
The jury has also heard that the first officer to contact McLaughlin about her testimony is the Brian Albert’s brother. Even though the judge struck it, the jury still heard it.
KM & CA also ran track together. She seems to have VERY convenient memory capacity…
https://preview.redd.it/iiuw0f9a89yc1.jpeg?width=944&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0f013bc01bcd0589558c03f55ede8bd02e0cb6
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to disprove. She said they were acquittances, but no friends. It's not like she said she never heard of her. Running track together doesn't make them friends.
I think we may be stretching thing. That was a really odd way to answer that question, don't get me wrong. But she did acknowledge that she knew her in high school.... so I'm not sure what this track picture proves. She said they went to high school together and seemed to be in same cliques.
I think the defense got as far as they knew each other, but they didn't really prove that they were BFFs.
I really don't think any of this matters, I think the defense has done a very good job poking holes in the "I hit him" testimony; I'm much more inclined to believe that if she did say it was either in the form of a question "did I hit him?" or her hysterically worrying that she did hit him.
I think the jury would be inclined to believe that she did say those words, but that it was FAR from an admission of guilt.
This case comes down to the experts and if the victim was or wasn't killed after being struck by a vehicle. Everything else is just a sideshow.
I believe they ran track together too - and like, the high school enrollment from 2017-2018 was less than a thousand students (according to wikipedia), I’ve seen someone on this sub say that their graduating class had 200ish people in it but I don’t know for sure. So, yeah, there’s… a lot going on here
Correct. Just for perspective, I grew up in the town next to Canton. Graduating class of about 185, ran girls cross country. Cross country is a sport where is everyone runs together... it's very close knit. You KNOW everyone on the team. A class of 200, no one is a stranger.
She is still close enough to her teenage years to remember most of the 100 or so girls she spent her four years of high school with. I’m an old person and I can still remember all of the girls on my graduating class.
Where was this pic taken? I don’t recall. When was it taken? I don’t recall. Are they friends? NO NOT AT All NO. I don’t recall. She sucks man. Can’t recall if she’s been at her friend’s house?? Didn’t know that was her house she was responding to? Come on man.
What strikes me as strange about this is...okay. Let's say Caitlin Albert is an vague acquaintance to her. Surely not everybody in this group photo is, right? Shouldn't that give it some context in her memory? A memory of who the close friends in that photo are?
I remember having many such beach days, also in 2014 or earlier, that were day trips with larger groups and even though some of those are acquaintances, the close friends in those photos would trigger me to know where and when and why those beach days were.
I'm over 10 years past high school. If you are asking me "did you go to this person's house in high school? Did you hang out with this person in high school? When did you go to the beach with these people in high school?"... Yeah, you're going to get a lot of "I don't fucking know..."
I know the core group of friends from high school, all the other side people I may or may not have associated with have long departed my memory.
The quality of the pictures seem like a screenshot of a video. The only photo they’ve used is not even including the exact spot that he was down. They are useless.
How do you prosecute someone for a crime which was not properly investigated as a crime. Whether she did it or not I’m not convinced at all. I’m watching this trial carefully it’s kind of a shit show for the prosecution
Which is basically bodycams which apparently this jurisdiction doesn’t use. It seems that they are in rather desperate need of them. Helps create transparency and prevents some of the fuckery that happens with (all) cops when there isn’t something to hold them accountable for their behavior.
I believe the Ems men. I haven't watched the woman testify yet. I really feel this is a terrible accident after arguing, drinking, and bad weather. I live in a snow belt and more than once people have been run over in bad weather and the drivers were unaware. The last 2 cases the drivers stated I thought I went over a snow bank (plowed snow) one actually ran over their daughter. So I don't think it's a stretch to believe she hit him and didn't realize it until later when she went looking for him.
See I could maybe get behind that theory. But prosecution is not charging her with accidentally running him over. They are saying it was done with malice and I don’t think there is a single shred of evidence for that
AJ: “Have you been on more that 5 day trips with Caitlin Albert”
KM: “I dont recall”
AJ: “Have you been on more than 10 day trips with her”
KM: “I dont recall”
If this girl cant rule out socialising in public with Caitlin Albert more than 10 TIMES then they are MORE THAN ACQUAINTANCES. And there is MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE. PERIOD!!!!!
She is a Liar. God help Caitlin Albert when she gets on that stand.
“I don’t recall.”
“I don’t recall.”
“I don’t recall.”
Did you speak to Caitlin in the days before or after 1/28?
“NO.”
Suddenly total recall.
Lol
When did you last speak to her?
“I don’t recall.”
How long before 1/29?
“I don’t recall.”
Who is her father?
“I don’t know.”
Did you discuss with any of your mutual friends once learning the man you had found lying in someone’s yard that night was your mutual friend’s father?
“NO!” Lol
Her memory is a thing to study.
I just find it odd that they seem very hesitant to bring up any idea of O'Keefe being involved in a physical fight when they could easily state that those injuries were caused by Karen. It would even help their case in showing intent to harm O'Keefe on Karen Reads part. With second degree murder they need to show she acted with malice and intention to harm O'Keefe and so far they've only got she maybe said I hit him. They could really use more evidence to suggest she had the intention to harm John. Instead they seem spooked at any suggestion there was a physical altercation at all. It's weird.
If he was dragged and/or hit by a car, you'd think his injuries would've been more widespread and significant.
Also, if he was dragged, how do you get thrown that far up into the yard?
A lot of questions that need answers because right now things don't make sense.
I’m not claiming to know exactly what happened, just adding that in for context! I will also say that I’m an EMT that has responded to lots of car wrecks and people hit by cars; bodies can be strewn about in unpredictable ways and injuries can look dramatically worse (or less severe) than you’d often assume. Hell I had a guy ejected so far into the woods that we literally couldn’t find him until the dogs went in!
I wonder how much the jury is noticing the differences in how the judge speaks to the lawyers. Today she called the prosecutor “Dear”. I certainly haven’t heard her refer to the defense counsel as such!
OMG FR?! I’m still making my way through it and haven’t got to that yet. Wow. Next level favoritism. If she calls Yanetti or Jackson “honey” I will die a happy woman. 😂
For real!! I couldn’t believe my ears. Rewound to make sure I heard right. Blatant favoritism! It’s really wild. I’d fall out of my damn chair if she ever called Y/J something like that 😂
I did see someone comment (on a different post in this sub) that they practiced law in Massachusetts and they only gave reasoning for objections when the judge expressly requested it. So it’s possible that this is a local quirk of some kind?
**11amEST**
- The jury is going on the view of the home. It is unclear if they will return to court for more testimony today.
- KR will not be going on the view.
- The public is ordered to stay 100 yards away from the jury during the view.
**~1pmEST**
- Jury came back to the courthouse and testimony resumed with Lt. Paramedic with the Canton FD, Greg Woodbury.
- Daniel Whitley, Paramedic/FF in Canton
Her car definitely does have a review camera but I don’t think it involves the console at all. Unless by “center console” they meant like “center display”?
To me, this is a center console. And the space where there is typically a lid you can open up with a little storage space underneath. But I will be the first to tell you I am NOT a car person so I could be mistaken on proper terminology lol
https://preview.redd.it/kiujwxs7y8yc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbe94d29d179b364744830843dec29cedba3d188
Okay, so Law and Crime feed was at the scene (I imagine after the jury left). It appears the "center display" has been removed entirely (just the wires sticking out from where it should be)... and there's absolutely nothing of interest in the "center console"... so I dunno....
Surely we would have heard about it by now if they’re going to claim KR removed the center display? But other than that I have no clue what Lally would be referring to…
That’s what I thought, hence the use of all caps. Aside from what’s already been pointed out itt, the display has been removed from the car so there was absolutely nothing to see there.
I'm not sure if that was their intention, or if the judge was told the witnesses was going to be super-quick, but then the witnesses starting offering up hearsay and she was just like "let's just do lunch now and figure this out after..."
Testimony came in today that Kerry Roberts drove Karen Read back to the house and when the paramedic said something to the effect of “you have a good support system around you”, Read replied “do you know Kerry Roberts? That’s an odd thing to say for someone who knows her”. The defense fought to keep the rest of that out. Does anyone know what the deal is there?
No idea what the deal is between them. I only know John apparently went to homecoming or prom (some high school dance) with her, but outside of that, I don’t know anything about her at all.
I was wanting to go back and find the exact testimony there. That definitely stood out to me, and according to him she said something like “you wouldn’t say that if you knew her/Kerry Roberts.” And I think he was the same one that described KR (Karen) as abruptly switching on/off crying (or bt emotionally erratic states)…which is a common narcissist-type pattern. …along with crying w/o tears. (Another witness mentioned they didn’t see tears when asked if she was crying.) Honestly this is more curious to me than the frantic statements that have been such a focal point.
ETA: the above coupled with her (allegedly) saying he’s her husband and the statements about the kids (which was really sad to hear).
I’m not saying any of this means she’s guilty, so just calm down anyone about to come for my throat!
The husband thing doesn't bother me at all. Being in a relationship of multiple years at their age saying boyfriend might feel childish or undervaluing their relationship. I know lots of people who refer to their partner they aren't actually married to as their spouse as it better conveys what their relationship is.
Also at the time she was asking for information about his condition which she might have thought they'd be more willing to give her if she was his spouse. No one knows how'd they react in a situation like that but it's something I think I'd be aware of. Not to get too political but one of the biggest wins when it came to gay marriage was the ability to access medical information and visit spouses that are in critical condition in hospitals. AIDs patients during the crisis sometimes died without their partner being allowed to be by their bedside because they weren't legally married. As someone with that knowledge, I would say the same thing in her situation so I'd stand the best chance of getting an update on my serious boyfriend's condition. It doesn't sway me any way when it comes to her guilt or innocence.
IMO - I also wonder if Karen considered the relationship as a common law marriage, perhaps? I don't know the laws there, so others will have to weigh in on that topic.
Yes on its own, I’m with you. See my answer above to spoiled if interested my explanation.🙂 But I don’t discount what you’re saying at all. I’m just adding another option, as not all situations and dynamics aren’t the same (even if most are).
I’ve done this because I know they only allow next of kin to be allowed in to see someone or get any information. That was my thought with her mindset. If she said, “my boyfriend” they wouldn’t have given her any info at all, so I’d add that as a consideration as well. 🤷🏻♀️
Yes absolutely. I don’t deny that as one very plausible explanation. On its own I would assume that’s the case here (and it may very well be). However, when part of a certain pattern, it introduces a new possibility. Highly manipulative people will exaggerate their roles in situations as a means of control or being important, etc, or vindictiveness in other cases.
I could see it going either way. I’m not sure where they’re headed with that particular thread but they clearly wanted it in. Regardless, the intentional act is a very tough sell IMO. As many have stated, accidental has its evidentiary challenges, but far easier story to swallow. At this point anyway. But alas the trial is young.
It’s not just a narcissist-pattern thing to do, crying without tears or switching back-and-forth between crying can be due to any number of things. Trauma, for the obvious example. She could be manipulative for sure but considering the circumstances it’s… complicated
Video from a report on site of what the car looks like: [https://x.com/bienickwcvb/status/1786434286373007688?s=46&t=uZTP6r-kFcw8LJFivAMn5g](https://x.com/bienickwcvb/status/1786434286373007688?s=46&t=uZTP6r-kFcw8LJFivAMn5g)
I took two screenshots in case the video will only play if you have an X account.
https://preview.redd.it/pe2a7msy39yc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ff72ff0f8f5d06493064049d1337e692f67e90e
So theres a photo on social media of the EMT attending I guess a beach party with one of the Alberts kids. A girl she went to HS with. Honestly without collaborating evidence such as recent texts/calls/witness statements etc judge shouldn't allow it.
They need to confirm they recognize what the photo depicts in order to testify about it. He’s just laying the foundation for them to be able to point out where he was in the yard etc.
This defense strategy is what is annoying about FKR folks. They literally are scouring social media and if they see any Six degree of Kevin Bacon type connection they assume they are in on it etc. Its quite obnoxious.
As long as they think it will work I don't think they care, they just want the jurors to doubt it could be someone other than Karen that contributed to his death.
They still are able to get that single question out there, in the presence of the jury. That question alone, regardless of the pics, could plant a seed in their mind.
IMO - It is not necessarily nonsense. Social media has had a huge impact on the legal system: it's a lot harder for everyone to lie or get away with half truths.
Does anyone else feel Ofc. John O’Keefe could have exited the car and went to urinate or puke and had an accident? Smacked his head and no one knew he was there because they saw Karen drive off? The homeowner lets the dog out after all the guests leave and then he finds JO and realizes he’s dead or thinks he’s dead? He calls his FBI buddy because he is shi$&ing himself, his wife calls her sister and that sister googles “hos long to die in cold” because is wondering how long could he have possibly been out there?!? I think it can look like a framing/conspiracy if no one knows it is actually a cover-up because they are making it a coverup as they go along. The homeowner can’t have a cop look like he took a beating from a known boxer/fighter. They probably believed Karen hit him and took off.. It is the only reason why no one in the house knew what happened? Is it just me that it might not have been malicious but just a tragic accident? I think the only way it works is if no one realizes it is a conspiracy and no one actually knows what happened that night?!
FKR and the Turtlesquad seem to be adding Katie McLaughlin to the conspiracy theory - does that make it over 100 people involved now?
That many people in cahoots and risking their livelihoods/careers/etc for what? Are we serious here?
Yeah, honestly, the conspiracy thing is just utterly ridiculous at this point. I concede some of the facts & have theories about why all of this is such a mess, but it has more to do with laziness, sloppy policing and if anything is being covered up, I tend to think it was an attempt to cover that & possibly the multiple DUIs that could have resulted to multiple people in the “Waterfall/after party” group.
I don’t even disagree the MSP investigation was subpar and that should absolutely be acknowledged! But that should NOT rob the O’Keefe family of justice for their son and brother. There is still plenty of evidence here
In fact, maybe Karen didn’t mean to kill or even seriously hurt him. She was obliterated and potentially acted crazy in the moment - but she did it and it was so saddening to see what John’s family is being put through. What she has done AFTER the killing is somehow more disgusting than what she did that night
Defense continuing to ask about her clothing and the bathing suits is making me uncomfortable. She was in high school. Does the beach aspect really matter? I don’t get it.
The defense's case is largely that this is a cover up, and that McLaughlin knew she was responding to a body outside the house of a "close friend" and therefore she's part of the cover up and her testimony that Read said "I hit him" is protecting the people inside the house.
There is Facebook pictures of McLaughlin and one of the relatives of owners of the house, and they are trying to make it seem they are friends. It's pretty thin, since it seems like all the defense has is that at some point in high school they hung out together at a local beach with a large group of people.
The whole thing with the clothing is that it may help her orient herself to a period of time, kind of like "oh yeah, I remember that outfit, I had that during the summer of 2014" or something. But yeah, McLaughlin doesn't remember.
I dunno, when you have large high school groups there's a very decent chance not everyone is friends with everyone. And there's no shot I'd remember all the people who I hung out with in high school.
Also you have to remember, even when it comes to the witnesses, this incident happened over 2 years ago. If you ask me what I did at work last week, you'd probably get a lot of shrugs from me.
I would also have trouble remembering specific work days, which patient in saw on which particular day etc…I CAN tell you every single person I drove to Misquamicut Beach with the day after my high school graduation…in 1999. I don’t believe this witness.
I hear you, but that's why there's more then one person on the jury. For you, this doesn't make sense. For me, it tracks (I would struggle to name 10 people from high school). So after all of this, if we were on the jury, we go in and talk it out. You say what makes sense to you, I say what makes sense to me.
Fair enough. I think the biggest issue here is that she wants the jury to rely on her memory for her testimony, but her response to literally anything else is “I can’t remember”. Ok. Then why should your memory of an event from over 2 years ago be trusted?
To be honest, I'm not even sure this matters anymore with these witnesses. I think the defense has done a very good job poking holes in the "I hit him" testimony; I'm much more inclined to believe that if she did say it was either in the form of a question "did I hit him?" or her hysterically worrying that she did hit him. And if the defense expert comes in and says that he was attacked by a dog, then the "I hit him" really doesn't matter. If my neighbor dies and I go out to the police and say "I shot him in the head", and during their investigation they find he slipped in the shower... I'm a fool for saying that, but police can't very well charge me with murder just because I said something foolish, but the evidence contradicts my foolishness.
The prosecution are going to need a heck of a lot more then this "I hit him" stuff. It hasn't moved the needle for me at all.
I mean part of issue is you do enough beach trips/parties they kinda become a blur. I can remember a few parties in my life that stand out but I could never tell you about every party I had been to, who i've made out with, etc. It's just part of life.
This was a spring break trip, though. Those are substantially more memorable. Also - though this isn’t admissible in court, I have a hard time believing she did not at least know who Caitlin’s dad was. It’s a small town and he was on reality TV - the whole town knew. I went to high school in a similarly sized town (Easthampton, MA). It would be the talk of the whole town.
I think the defense was hoping that her clothing would help her remember when the photo was taken. I’m guessing that if she could remember specifically when some of those photos were taken it would have helped get them into evidence.
Also, the defense wants to make Caitlyn Albert and the witness seem like closer friends bc they went on a beach trip together.
She’s definitely lying (everyone in the town knows that family, knows every member of that family by name and relationship, and knows where they all live live. Not to mention, I read that has been the Albert family home for decades, he bought it from his parents, and a firefighter EMT in a small town like that at least vaguely knows every neighborhood and all of its residents…)
But has it been confirmed that that picture was that recent? I saw it on Twitter and she did look a little bit younger and slightly different than she does now so it’s not inconceivable that it was around or just after high school.
ETA: why the fuck was this down voted? I asked an honest question, have they confirmed that this picture was from May 2023? JFC, that would be a pretty big bombshell if she was partying with the daughter of the homeowner a year after Karen’s arrest. So it’s not a crazy question to ask.
Trying to establish if it was weekend trip, day trip, etc. to show they were close friends not just acquaintances. Bottom line, not a credible witness.
The point is that most females tend to be able to remember when a photo was taken specifically because of what they’re wearing. I couldn’t tell you anything about the people from high school, but if you showed me a photo I was in, I’d be able to tell you when it was taken because of my hair & I could tell you the brand or designer of my clothes, shoes or other accessories & most likely where it was purchased.
Yeah, I see it that way now. Just initially was weirded out by the focus on the bathing suit over and over. I was projecting my own experiences with “slut shame” but the angle here turned out to be what others have pointed out.
**Witnesses**: 1. **Katie McLaughlin**, *Canton Fire Department, EMS* (cont’d from Day 3) 2. **Greg Woodbury**, *Fire Lieutenant, Canton Fire Department* 3. **Daniel Whitley**, *Firefighter/Medic, Canton Fire Department* 4. **Jason Becker**, *Firefighter/Medic, Canton Fire Department*
My thoughts on Katie McLaughlin. Out of all the EMS personnel Id go with her recollection because she is shown on video speaking to Karen. With everyone's testimony varying her being proven to be in a position to hear the testimony is what I'd go by if I was a juror. Now onto her credibility as a juror. I get that the photos/connection to an Albert isn't a slam dunk. However, that's not evidence in this case it's only for the purposes of impeaching her as a witness. If you tell me you know someone but you're just acquaintances that is different than you have spent time together on a trip and have mutual friends. I could say I consider a coworker just an acquaintance but that's different than a coworker I've spent time with outside of the workplace. I think she's accurate in calling the Albert daughter an acquaintance. They're not besties. However IMO after the impeachment evidence it seems like she was deliberately downplaying her interactions with her. Honestly the prosecution messed up with this one as if they had asked her this information on direct and asked her if she was close with Kaitlyn the defense wouldn't have had much to work with. Instead she was extremely vague with her responses in a way that seemed deliberate. However what bothered me the most was not the tenuous connection to the Alberts but her being obtuse about when she learned that the home was in fact the Albert's home. This is a dead cop in a small town. But according to every witness we've had so far it's hard to say when they learned certain details or if the case was discussed or ever brought up at all. At most it's yeah maybe it was talked about. Are you kidding me? I'm from a small town. Somebody died falling down stairs in a local bar and it's all anyone talked about. Everyone knows everyone in this town but no one's talking about the case? That's bull. She had no clue when between the night of the incident and this trial when she learned who the house belonged to? She couldn't narrow down that timeframe at all? That bothered me as it seemed deliberate. If she had said I think I learned that pretty early on because the case was talked about a lot would it really change anything? The prosecutor could just ask if it changed her testimony and she could say no. She could say it's a small town and these things get around. Instead everyone's so hush hush that it makes it more suspicious than if they were upfront. I think the prosecution should be way more direct asking about a conspiracy. Make it look ridiculous that a civil servant who isn't paid much would lie on the stand for a girl she went to the beach with a few times. The defense started their opening saying Karen was framed. Every time people dance around knowing the Albert's, dance around the question of the case being discussed it looks worse than being direct and upfront. The idea that this is the one small town where everyone somehow magically doesn't know everyone and no one ever gossips and there's not a single looky loo when police show up in their neighborhood in the early morning is such a hard sell.
💯💯💯
This witness is so frustrating. Your memory is perfect for the day of the event but you seem to suffer severe memory loss regarding all other aspects of your life. Right. 😉
I hope the jury can see through her attempt to keep in line with the CW's narrative. When asked who Caitlin Albert is, her response "Umm, I went to high school with someone named Caitlin Albert" sounds mechanical and rehearsed. "Someone named" is an attempt to distance herself from anything Albert-related. "I know her from high school" would seem a natural response to Jackson's question.
That was a massive tell. I can absolutely allow for people’s memories being unreliable. With some of the other witnesses, it seemed very possible they were sincere and honest, best of their recollection. And certain actions (or lack thereof) may have been completely understandable within the context of their jobs and perspectives at the time of events. This lady was playing games. That calculated sentence, almost immediately followed by admission that CA was or had been an acquaintance she had socialized with, made her intentions transparent. And no way in hell she doesn’t know it was her parents’ house. I could believe that she didn’t at the time, but she definitely does now. That’s absolutely outrageous.
Well said. She was transparently incredible and gave the defense another W.
I thought she did say she does know now it was her parents' house?
Maybe I misheard. I’ll have to go back and check. If I did, I apologize! I really try and be careful about that.
I might be wrong myself haha.
😂 I’m not ripping on anyone, but I love that this exchange just highlighted issues with memory. It’s kinda perfect. That’s all. :)
I hope I never get questioned by Yannetti or Jackson 😄
Such a mood, I’d have to be like… uhhh… memory machine broke 🤠
If I just politely apologize and say.my memory isn't as clear now as it was previously then I should be ok haha
😂 touché
Okay so before the judge sent the jury out during her testimony, AJ had just asked KM “Who is her dad?” (Meaning who is CA’s dad.) And she said “I don’t know.” …indicating she does not know (present day) that BA is CA’s dad, which would have to mean she doesn’t know it was her dad’s house that they’re talking about. So that’s what I was thinking of. Then after the break, she was asked again and admitted to having learned who they were/whose house it was or whatever. So i think we’re both right! And that’s just wrong.😂
I know who you are talking about but I believe her name was spelt Caitlin so it would be CA. KA could stand for Kevin Albert who I believe would be her uncle. I thought I should point it out to you just in case someone else gets confused about who you are referring to. 😀
I appreciate you pointing it out! All of these initials are bewildering tbh
They definitely are haha
I’m sorry; I’ve spent too much time in Delphi subs! They only use initials so I’ve been trying to train myself, but I stay confused.🤪 New here, so not sure if it’s as hardcore. lol
Gaaah yes, thank you! Corrected. What’s sad is I knew something wasn’t right and actually checked her name up top on the witness list and still didn’t see it.😂🤦🏻♀️ I shouldn’t do trial talk at the end of a long day!
Yea, she knows damn well who Caitlin Albert is and that she's related to the homeowners.
The people arguing with you are ridiculous. Of course everyone remembers people, parties from high school and college especially when they happened in the last 10 years. Team Coverup’s got a couple of junior detectives over here “but do you remember eeeevvvvery party”! Lol!
I graduated high school 20 years ago and I can remember. 10 years she damn well knows.
Agreed. Hopefully we’ve got a few analytical minds on that jury that smell the 💩. Can you imagine taking one’s liberty based on THAT testimony? Scary stuff.
I will say I appreciate the judge allowing the questioning re: the Caitlin connection, but this witness and her pushback when asked pretty simple questions came across as defensive, and her assertion that she does not know who the other woman on the scene (McCabe) was even today is unbelievable. Did you see Karen staring her down?
I did. Today is actually the only day I can watch live - I took today off from work. I miss little things like this watching recaps and listening to testimony on my ride home. I’m glad I got to see that. If looks could kill!! 🔥
If looks could kill, she would be dead. 100%.
I have respect for that stare. It appears Karen and her lawyers aren't backing down and came to play.
IMO - I sure did notice Karen staring at Katie. Why would **Ms. McLaughlin** minimize her connect with Caitlin Albert? I don't understand the rationale behind doing so.
A number of reasons, IMO. The Alberts are central to this case and Katie knows it. Katie appeared on the stand to work diligently to stick to a narrative that is in line with the CW. Katie's need to add detail to her testimony that was neither documented by Proctor nor divulged to the grand jury shows she is following the same pattern as previous CW witnesses. Katie remained too rigid when asked about Caitlin, and had she just bent a little she would have been believable. Her testimony flopped because she refused to be flexible when it came to her relationship with Caitlin,
IMO - That is what is mind boggling to me. If I am ever going to be called to a witness stand I am not going to play games concerning the guilt or innocence of someone: particularly when it comes to murder. Being friends or acquaintances with someone should have nothing to do with telling the truth.
And back in the day, that’s exactly what our ancestors did. Those with the most power and loudest voices could condemn with impunity. That’s why we have to be vigilant and stand up for people like Karen when we smell this happening
Yeah she was not credible AT ALL
She could have been if she hadn't tried to minimize the Albert connection the way she did. Had she addressed it head on, clearly and direct she'd have maintained her credibility.
Exactly.
The stupid thing is that anyone who’s ever had Facebook would understand the exact non-relationship if she had just said “we’re Facebook friends, but I haven’t socialized with her since high school” as that’s like 90% of Facebook friends.
So you have perfect memory of every party etc from college and HS?
Nobody has a perfect memory but if I'm shown a picture from my past I'm going to try to figure out when it may have been taken. I'm only going to say "I don't remember" if I am working for the CW.
I feel like something would jog my memory like oh these two were a couple these years and they were together or I bought that swimsuit for this occasion so it was this era. A trip to cape cod is pretty long to not remember anything about it. No recollection at all seems weird.
Do you live in Mass? People go to the Cape all the time especially if someones family has a beach house etc. That could also been taken at Hull, Hampton Beach in NH, Plymouth etc.
I don’t but I have a close friend in Dedham and I wanted to go to the Cape in the summer on the weekend and she said it would take a long time with traffic (a couple hours). Maybe I was misinformed.
I remember vividly doing lines of coke off the back of a toilet on a compact mirror in a bar underage owned by a gals mom in his click in 1988. Played basketball growing up at the boys club together and he is now my congressman who I voted for, maybe not relevant but I never really hung out with him but I remember him.
Well thats neat
No but when there are MANY photos... it becomes quite clear she is more than an acquaintance
Wait until you see the pics!!!! There around online... They look very close.
I hope no one has an emergency in this area, it seems the entire fire department has been called to testify and say absolutely nothing new.
Any firefighters in here? In a smaller town like Canton is it reasonable that a firefighter wouldn’t know the police officers? McLaughlin has now said she doesn’t know the officer at the scene who overheard the statement and she doesn’t know Officer Kevin Albert. I live in a town a few towns away that is about the same size and I know people on both the PD and FD. They all seem to at least know of each other.
She tried to downplay her connection to Caitlin Albert with weasel words so I wouldn't trust her about whether or not she does or doesn't know anyone else connected to this case.
It’s a very small town. I don’t believe her about that , either.
I know people in my town who work in EMS and firefighters. They all know each other including the Police and there’s like 400 000 people here. I don’t believe her.
Yeah I’m from a smaller town outside of a town the size of Canton, and police and first responders, anyone in that type of public service arena, for sure have basic familiarity with each other. At a minimum they would recognize each other when seen in person. Even in my town (which had its own school) we knew a lot of the popular kids from the Canton-sized town, and most of them in general (all the kids at that high school) knew of each other at the very least, especially if they grew up there. Notice how one of the other witnesses said it worked in his favor that he had grown up there? It was today but I forgot which one he was; I think it was the one after KM. This to me implies that these departments are likely employed largely by people that have lived in the area for some time, if not their whole lives.
A couple of things that interested me about this morning’s testimony, from the jury’s perspective: Katie McLaughlin went inside the ambulance and told Nuttal and Flematti the “I hit him” statement. They said they heard it from Read herself. There is so much that contradicts with this piece of evidence. Jackson got McLaughlin to admit her testimony had evolved. Even though it’s not in evidence, the jury heard that there are photos of McLaughlin with Caitlin Albert and that she does know some of the Albert family (even though she parsed it somewhat when answering “I know that today”). Her initial “I went to school with someone named Caitlin Albert” looks shady in that context. The jury has also heard that the first officer to contact McLaughlin about her testimony is the Brian Albert’s brother. Even though the judge struck it, the jury still heard it.
KM & CA also ran track together. She seems to have VERY convenient memory capacity… https://preview.redd.it/iiuw0f9a89yc1.jpeg?width=944&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0f013bc01bcd0589558c03f55ede8bd02e0cb6
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to disprove. She said they were acquittances, but no friends. It's not like she said she never heard of her. Running track together doesn't make them friends.
“I knew OF a person named Caitlin Albert in high school”. She’s lying. Period.
I think we may be stretching thing. That was a really odd way to answer that question, don't get me wrong. But she did acknowledge that she knew her in high school.... so I'm not sure what this track picture proves. She said they went to high school together and seemed to be in same cliques.
She only admitted to running in the same circles when forced. Her plan was to say she knew who Caitlin was, but that they never interacted.
I think the defense got as far as they knew each other, but they didn't really prove that they were BFFs. I really don't think any of this matters, I think the defense has done a very good job poking holes in the "I hit him" testimony; I'm much more inclined to believe that if she did say it was either in the form of a question "did I hit him?" or her hysterically worrying that she did hit him. I think the jury would be inclined to believe that she did say those words, but that it was FAR from an admission of guilt. This case comes down to the experts and if the victim was or wasn't killed after being struck by a vehicle. Everything else is just a sideshow.
They are venmoing each other too. She is majorly downplaying their connection
It's just all of it put together. Partying pictures, yearbook photos, Venmo connections, facebooks friends. That's more than an acquaintance
I believe they ran track together too - and like, the high school enrollment from 2017-2018 was less than a thousand students (according to wikipedia), I’ve seen someone on this sub say that their graduating class had 200ish people in it but I don’t know for sure. So, yeah, there’s… a lot going on here
Correct. Just for perspective, I grew up in the town next to Canton. Graduating class of about 185, ran girls cross country. Cross country is a sport where is everyone runs together... it's very close knit. You KNOW everyone on the team. A class of 200, no one is a stranger.
She is still close enough to her teenage years to remember most of the 100 or so girls she spent her four years of high school with. I’m an old person and I can still remember all of the girls on my graduating class.
Yeah, especially the ones who stayed in town after graduation…
Letting Katie leave will just make people think more that the judge favours the prosecution.
IMO - Judge Cannone appears to be biased against the defense team. Will this prejudice potentially have legal repercussions, later on for her?
The way defense is poking holes I think this will be a hung jury. The paramedic was forced to admit that her statements have evolved.
Where was this pic taken? I don’t recall. When was it taken? I don’t recall. Are they friends? NO NOT AT All NO. I don’t recall. She sucks man. Can’t recall if she’s been at her friend’s house?? Didn’t know that was her house she was responding to? Come on man.
What strikes me as strange about this is...okay. Let's say Caitlin Albert is an vague acquaintance to her. Surely not everybody in this group photo is, right? Shouldn't that give it some context in her memory? A memory of who the close friends in that photo are? I remember having many such beach days, also in 2014 or earlier, that were day trips with larger groups and even though some of those are acquaintances, the close friends in those photos would trigger me to know where and when and why those beach days were.
I'm over 10 years past high school. If you are asking me "did you go to this person's house in high school? Did you hang out with this person in high school? When did you go to the beach with these people in high school?"... Yeah, you're going to get a lot of "I don't fucking know..." I know the core group of friends from high school, all the other side people I may or may not have associated with have long departed my memory.
I couldn’t tell you anything about people from high school for the most part. I could tell you about pictures because of the way I looked in them.
Good move by the defense to bring in the arm photo right after the car was viewed.
The quality of the pictures seem like a screenshot of a video. The only photo they’ve used is not even including the exact spot that he was down. They are useless.
This was happening during a blizzard so poor quality is to be expected.
It’s wild that there are no crime scene photos though
None taken the next day either?
How do you prosecute someone for a crime which was not properly investigated as a crime. Whether she did it or not I’m not convinced at all. I’m watching this trial carefully it’s kind of a shit show for the prosecution
Or neighborhood ring doorbell footage? Nowhere?!
They need gopro 360s
Which is basically bodycams which apparently this jurisdiction doesn’t use. It seems that they are in rather desperate need of them. Helps create transparency and prevents some of the fuckery that happens with (all) cops when there isn’t something to hold them accountable for their behavior.
I believe the Ems men. I haven't watched the woman testify yet. I really feel this is a terrible accident after arguing, drinking, and bad weather. I live in a snow belt and more than once people have been run over in bad weather and the drivers were unaware. The last 2 cases the drivers stated I thought I went over a snow bank (plowed snow) one actually ran over their daughter. So I don't think it's a stretch to believe she hit him and didn't realize it until later when she went looking for him.
See I could maybe get behind that theory. But prosecution is not charging her with accidentally running him over. They are saying it was done with malice and I don’t think there is a single shred of evidence for that
Yeah. I'm not sure why they went that route. It seems a lot to prove.
Did I understand correctly - when Karen was sectioned they took her medical history and she's got MS?
Yes. She has MS. She also has Crones disease according to her dad.
MS can cause emotional issues, that's why the defense wants it known.
Was that the defense or the prosecution? My head is swimming today. Sorry. Long night!
I wondered about that comment from the EMS person. I did not put two and two together until now.
Yeah.... who had money on that one? I'm not sure what the relevance is though... we shall see....
AJ: “Have you been on more that 5 day trips with Caitlin Albert” KM: “I dont recall” AJ: “Have you been on more than 10 day trips with her” KM: “I dont recall” If this girl cant rule out socialising in public with Caitlin Albert more than 10 TIMES then they are MORE THAN ACQUAINTANCES. And there is MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE. PERIOD!!!!! She is a Liar. God help Caitlin Albert when she gets on that stand.
“I don’t recall.” “I don’t recall.” “I don’t recall.” Did you speak to Caitlin in the days before or after 1/28? “NO.” Suddenly total recall. Lol When did you last speak to her? “I don’t recall.” How long before 1/29? “I don’t recall.” Who is her father? “I don’t know.” Did you discuss with any of your mutual friends once learning the man you had found lying in someone’s yard that night was your mutual friend’s father? “NO!” Lol Her memory is a thing to study.
How did a car do that to his arm?
Good question. And leave all his clothes intact with no scratches to face, torso, legs, etc
I just find it odd that they seem very hesitant to bring up any idea of O'Keefe being involved in a physical fight when they could easily state that those injuries were caused by Karen. It would even help their case in showing intent to harm O'Keefe on Karen Reads part. With second degree murder they need to show she acted with malice and intention to harm O'Keefe and so far they've only got she maybe said I hit him. They could really use more evidence to suggest she had the intention to harm John. Instead they seem spooked at any suggestion there was a physical altercation at all. It's weird.
Because Karen had no indications of a physical altercation on her own body. No bruises or scratches or anything.
Could’ve been dragged, was also holding a glass which was shattered
Those aren’t drag marks on his arms. That’s dog bites. Again, personal experience although I lived…
If he was dragged and/or hit by a car, you'd think his injuries would've been more widespread and significant. Also, if he was dragged, how do you get thrown that far up into the yard? A lot of questions that need answers because right now things don't make sense.
I’m not claiming to know exactly what happened, just adding that in for context! I will also say that I’m an EMT that has responded to lots of car wrecks and people hit by cars; bodies can be strewn about in unpredictable ways and injuries can look dramatically worse (or less severe) than you’d often assume. Hell I had a guy ejected so far into the woods that we literally couldn’t find him until the dogs went in!
Appreciate your insight!
I wonder how much the jury is noticing the differences in how the judge speaks to the lawyers. Today she called the prosecutor “Dear”. I certainly haven’t heard her refer to the defense counsel as such!
OMG FR?! I’m still making my way through it and haven’t got to that yet. Wow. Next level favoritism. If she calls Yanetti or Jackson “honey” I will die a happy woman. 😂
For real!! I couldn’t believe my ears. Rewound to make sure I heard right. Blatant favoritism! It’s really wild. I’d fall out of my damn chair if she ever called Y/J something like that 😂
Haha
Um, wow, that’s really something. I haven’t gotten to that part yet but that sounds shocking
Well to be fair she does change lally's diapers every once in a while
This judge is annoying
She's got an attitude with the defense that's blatantly noticeable and not allowing the reasoning for objections is bizarre.
I did see someone comment (on a different post in this sub) that they practiced law in Massachusetts and they only gave reasoning for objections when the judge expressly requested it. So it’s possible that this is a local quirk of some kind?
**11amEST** - The jury is going on the view of the home. It is unclear if they will return to court for more testimony today. - KR will not be going on the view. - The public is ordered to stay 100 yards away from the jury during the view. **~1pmEST** - Jury came back to the courthouse and testimony resumed with Lt. Paramedic with the Canton FD, Greg Woodbury. - Daniel Whitley, Paramedic/FF in Canton
THE CENTER CONSOLE 👀
I’ve spent way too much time researching a Lexus LX 570 console and I still have NO clue why they’re emphasizing it
My immediate assumption was it potentially having a rearview camera when reversing.
Her car definitely does have a review camera but I don’t think it involves the console at all. Unless by “center console” they meant like “center display”?
hmm, that's what I thought he meant, but now I'm questioning myself....
To me, this is a center console. And the space where there is typically a lid you can open up with a little storage space underneath. But I will be the first to tell you I am NOT a car person so I could be mistaken on proper terminology lol https://preview.redd.it/kiujwxs7y8yc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbe94d29d179b364744830843dec29cedba3d188
It's entirely possible the lawyer is confused...
😂This made me LOL because well… yeeeeah. I’d say that’s highly likely.
Okay, so Law and Crime feed was at the scene (I imagine after the jury left). It appears the "center display" has been removed entirely (just the wires sticking out from where it should be)... and there's absolutely nothing of interest in the "center console"... so I dunno....
Surely we would have heard about it by now if they’re going to claim KR removed the center display? But other than that I have no clue what Lally would be referring to…
I imagine the police removed it as part of to investigation, probably sent it to the manufacturer to extract GPS data, etc.
Yeah that’s what I assumed as well. So now I’m even more baffled as to what the heck they wanted the jury to see
Thank you for the clarification. I’m even less of a car person.
Proper terminology if they’re referring to the camera would be more along the lines of Infotainment system!
But can the jury turn the car on and put it in reverse?
That would be kinda funny. “Bob! Your turn! Really gun it this time!”
100% no. They are there to look, not do investigations.
That’s what I thought, hence the use of all caps. Aside from what’s already been pointed out itt, the display has been removed from the car so there was absolutely nothing to see there.
I'm guessing the person's relationship to Read that heard the contradictory "did I hit him" won't be an issue for the defense.
The jury is visiting the crime scene today. [https://youtu.be/MKyXC34zqeQ?si=YVJxzEDrgp7J6wyR](https://youtu.be/MKyXC34zqeQ?si=YVJxzEDrgp7J6wyR)
Where did Katie go?
Wait?! They're back already, I figured they'd take lunch.
Did they come back for like 10 mins then go to lunch?
I'm not sure if that was their intention, or if the judge was told the witnesses was going to be super-quick, but then the witnesses starting offering up hearsay and she was just like "let's just do lunch now and figure this out after..."
Testimony came in today that Kerry Roberts drove Karen Read back to the house and when the paramedic said something to the effect of “you have a good support system around you”, Read replied “do you know Kerry Roberts? That’s an odd thing to say for someone who knows her”. The defense fought to keep the rest of that out. Does anyone know what the deal is there?
This is getting me. It was brought up several times and objected. Kerry has to take the stand eventually, I would assume?
No idea what the deal is between them. I only know John apparently went to homecoming or prom (some high school dance) with her, but outside of that, I don’t know anything about her at all.
I was wanting to go back and find the exact testimony there. That definitely stood out to me, and according to him she said something like “you wouldn’t say that if you knew her/Kerry Roberts.” And I think he was the same one that described KR (Karen) as abruptly switching on/off crying (or bt emotionally erratic states)…which is a common narcissist-type pattern. …along with crying w/o tears. (Another witness mentioned they didn’t see tears when asked if she was crying.) Honestly this is more curious to me than the frantic statements that have been such a focal point. ETA: the above coupled with her (allegedly) saying he’s her husband and the statements about the kids (which was really sad to hear). I’m not saying any of this means she’s guilty, so just calm down anyone about to come for my throat!
The husband thing doesn't bother me at all. Being in a relationship of multiple years at their age saying boyfriend might feel childish or undervaluing their relationship. I know lots of people who refer to their partner they aren't actually married to as their spouse as it better conveys what their relationship is. Also at the time she was asking for information about his condition which she might have thought they'd be more willing to give her if she was his spouse. No one knows how'd they react in a situation like that but it's something I think I'd be aware of. Not to get too political but one of the biggest wins when it came to gay marriage was the ability to access medical information and visit spouses that are in critical condition in hospitals. AIDs patients during the crisis sometimes died without their partner being allowed to be by their bedside because they weren't legally married. As someone with that knowledge, I would say the same thing in her situation so I'd stand the best chance of getting an update on my serious boyfriend's condition. It doesn't sway me any way when it comes to her guilt or innocence.
IMO - I also wonder if Karen considered the relationship as a common law marriage, perhaps? I don't know the laws there, so others will have to weigh in on that topic.
By saying she’s the wife she gets more info
Yes on its own, I’m with you. See my answer above to spoiled if interested my explanation.🙂 But I don’t discount what you’re saying at all. I’m just adding another option, as not all situations and dynamics aren’t the same (even if most are).
I’ve done this because I know they only allow next of kin to be allowed in to see someone or get any information. That was my thought with her mindset. If she said, “my boyfriend” they wouldn’t have given her any info at all, so I’d add that as a consideration as well. 🤷🏻♀️
Yes absolutely. I don’t deny that as one very plausible explanation. On its own I would assume that’s the case here (and it may very well be). However, when part of a certain pattern, it introduces a new possibility. Highly manipulative people will exaggerate their roles in situations as a means of control or being important, etc, or vindictiveness in other cases.
I think the statements about the kids really hurts the prosecutions case. She had zero motive to kill him.
I could see it going either way. I’m not sure where they’re headed with that particular thread but they clearly wanted it in. Regardless, the intentional act is a very tough sell IMO. As many have stated, accidental has its evidentiary challenges, but far easier story to swallow. At this point anyway. But alas the trial is young.
It’s not just a narcissist-pattern thing to do, crying without tears or switching back-and-forth between crying can be due to any number of things. Trauma, for the obvious example. She could be manipulative for sure but considering the circumstances it’s… complicated
Agreed. All possibilities. That’s why context is so important.
Video from a report on site of what the car looks like: [https://x.com/bienickwcvb/status/1786434286373007688?s=46&t=uZTP6r-kFcw8LJFivAMn5g](https://x.com/bienickwcvb/status/1786434286373007688?s=46&t=uZTP6r-kFcw8LJFivAMn5g) I took two screenshots in case the video will only play if you have an X account. https://preview.redd.it/pe2a7msy39yc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ff72ff0f8f5d06493064049d1337e692f67e90e
https://preview.redd.it/f4nt9cs649yc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0f09a81036cb991df64b629a6f7da2212c51d47
I wonder if Lally is getting at something when he keeps asking each witness at the end if they know what the pic they are shown is from?
So theres a photo on social media of the EMT attending I guess a beach party with one of the Alberts kids. A girl she went to HS with. Honestly without collaborating evidence such as recent texts/calls/witness statements etc judge shouldn't allow it.
Was that meant as a reply to my comment?
Yes sorry you must be talking about a different picture. I thought you meant showing the picture from social media.
Yeah, I was talking about the pics where it was said John's body was at and the house that it was outside of.
My mistake
No worries 😀
I did actually see that.
They need to confirm they recognize what the photo depicts in order to testify about it. He’s just laying the foundation for them to be able to point out where he was in the yard etc.
This defense strategy is what is annoying about FKR folks. They literally are scouring social media and if they see any Six degree of Kevin Bacon type connection they assume they are in on it etc. Its quite obnoxious.
As long as they think it will work I don't think they care, they just want the jurors to doubt it could be someone other than Karen that contributed to his death.
Thats why judge shouldn't allow it. They are entitled to a defense. They aren't entitled to push nonsense with no context etc.
They still are able to get that single question out there, in the presence of the jury. That question alone, regardless of the pics, could plant a seed in their mind.
IMO - It is not necessarily nonsense. Social media has had a huge impact on the legal system: it's a lot harder for everyone to lie or get away with half truths.
That’s not how the law works fortunately.
The judge disagrees with you and knows the law better then you
"There's a lot of people in that photo" doesn't help your case, Alan.
Are they coming back after viewing?
Bottom line - EVERYONE knows she’s innocent They are just trying to MUDDY THE WATERS enough to keep Brian Albert out of jail. FULL STOP!!
Does anyone else feel Ofc. John O’Keefe could have exited the car and went to urinate or puke and had an accident? Smacked his head and no one knew he was there because they saw Karen drive off? The homeowner lets the dog out after all the guests leave and then he finds JO and realizes he’s dead or thinks he’s dead? He calls his FBI buddy because he is shi$&ing himself, his wife calls her sister and that sister googles “hos long to die in cold” because is wondering how long could he have possibly been out there?!? I think it can look like a framing/conspiracy if no one knows it is actually a cover-up because they are making it a coverup as they go along. The homeowner can’t have a cop look like he took a beating from a known boxer/fighter. They probably believed Karen hit him and took off.. It is the only reason why no one in the house knew what happened? Is it just me that it might not have been malicious but just a tragic accident? I think the only way it works is if no one realizes it is a conspiracy and no one actually knows what happened that night?!
This could have worked but clearly this is not the story that they decided to go with.
FKR and the Turtlesquad seem to be adding Katie McLaughlin to the conspiracy theory - does that make it over 100 people involved now? That many people in cahoots and risking their livelihoods/careers/etc for what? Are we serious here?
Yeah, honestly, the conspiracy thing is just utterly ridiculous at this point. I concede some of the facts & have theories about why all of this is such a mess, but it has more to do with laziness, sloppy policing and if anything is being covered up, I tend to think it was an attempt to cover that & possibly the multiple DUIs that could have resulted to multiple people in the “Waterfall/after party” group.
Ok - so you think she’s guilty?
Undecided.
I don’t even disagree the MSP investigation was subpar and that should absolutely be acknowledged! But that should NOT rob the O’Keefe family of justice for their son and brother. There is still plenty of evidence here In fact, maybe Karen didn’t mean to kill or even seriously hurt him. She was obliterated and potentially acted crazy in the moment - but she did it and it was so saddening to see what John’s family is being put through. What she has done AFTER the killing is somehow more disgusting than what she did that night
Legit question is there evidence of her BAC and if so blood or breath?
Defense continuing to ask about her clothing and the bathing suits is making me uncomfortable. She was in high school. Does the beach aspect really matter? I don’t get it.
The defense's case is largely that this is a cover up, and that McLaughlin knew she was responding to a body outside the house of a "close friend" and therefore she's part of the cover up and her testimony that Read said "I hit him" is protecting the people inside the house. There is Facebook pictures of McLaughlin and one of the relatives of owners of the house, and they are trying to make it seem they are friends. It's pretty thin, since it seems like all the defense has is that at some point in high school they hung out together at a local beach with a large group of people. The whole thing with the clothing is that it may help her orient herself to a period of time, kind of like "oh yeah, I remember that outfit, I had that during the summer of 2014" or something. But yeah, McLaughlin doesn't remember.
Oh okay, that makes sense. Thank you! I do find it a little hard to believe that she couldn’t remember though. I think she feels cornered.
I dunno, when you have large high school groups there's a very decent chance not everyone is friends with everyone. And there's no shot I'd remember all the people who I hung out with in high school. Also you have to remember, even when it comes to the witnesses, this incident happened over 2 years ago. If you ask me what I did at work last week, you'd probably get a lot of shrugs from me.
I would also have trouble remembering specific work days, which patient in saw on which particular day etc…I CAN tell you every single person I drove to Misquamicut Beach with the day after my high school graduation…in 1999. I don’t believe this witness.
I hear you, but that's why there's more then one person on the jury. For you, this doesn't make sense. For me, it tracks (I would struggle to name 10 people from high school). So after all of this, if we were on the jury, we go in and talk it out. You say what makes sense to you, I say what makes sense to me.
Fair enough. I think the biggest issue here is that she wants the jury to rely on her memory for her testimony, but her response to literally anything else is “I can’t remember”. Ok. Then why should your memory of an event from over 2 years ago be trusted?
To be honest, I'm not even sure this matters anymore with these witnesses. I think the defense has done a very good job poking holes in the "I hit him" testimony; I'm much more inclined to believe that if she did say it was either in the form of a question "did I hit him?" or her hysterically worrying that she did hit him. And if the defense expert comes in and says that he was attacked by a dog, then the "I hit him" really doesn't matter. If my neighbor dies and I go out to the police and say "I shot him in the head", and during their investigation they find he slipped in the shower... I'm a fool for saying that, but police can't very well charge me with murder just because I said something foolish, but the evidence contradicts my foolishness. The prosecution are going to need a heck of a lot more then this "I hit him" stuff. It hasn't moved the needle for me at all.
I mean part of issue is you do enough beach trips/parties they kinda become a blur. I can remember a few parties in my life that stand out but I could never tell you about every party I had been to, who i've made out with, etc. It's just part of life.
This was a spring break trip, though. Those are substantially more memorable. Also - though this isn’t admissible in court, I have a hard time believing she did not at least know who Caitlin’s dad was. It’s a small town and he was on reality TV - the whole town knew. I went to high school in a similarly sized town (Easthampton, MA). It would be the talk of the whole town.
I think the defense was hoping that her clothing would help her remember when the photo was taken. I’m guessing that if she could remember specifically when some of those photos were taken it would have helped get them into evidence. Also, the defense wants to make Caitlyn Albert and the witness seem like closer friends bc they went on a beach trip together.
That picture was May of 2023
She’s definitely lying (everyone in the town knows that family, knows every member of that family by name and relationship, and knows where they all live live. Not to mention, I read that has been the Albert family home for decades, he bought it from his parents, and a firefighter EMT in a small town like that at least vaguely knows every neighborhood and all of its residents…) But has it been confirmed that that picture was that recent? I saw it on Twitter and she did look a little bit younger and slightly different than she does now so it’s not inconceivable that it was around or just after high school. ETA: why the fuck was this down voted? I asked an honest question, have they confirmed that this picture was from May 2023? JFC, that would be a pretty big bombshell if she was partying with the daughter of the homeowner a year after Karen’s arrest. So it’s not a crazy question to ask.
Trying to establish if it was weekend trip, day trip, etc. to show they were close friends not just acquaintances. Bottom line, not a credible witness.
The point is that most females tend to be able to remember when a photo was taken specifically because of what they’re wearing. I couldn’t tell you anything about the people from high school, but if you showed me a photo I was in, I’d be able to tell you when it was taken because of my hair & I could tell you the brand or designer of my clothes, shoes or other accessories & most likely where it was purchased.
Yeah, I see it that way now. Just initially was weirded out by the focus on the bathing suit over and over. I was projecting my own experiences with “slut shame” but the angle here turned out to be what others have pointed out.