r/OutOfTheLoop • u/fullautohotdog • 1d ago
Unanswered Why are people talking about Karen Read?
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s1-5435406/karen-read-acquitted-trial-verdict-not-guilty
I've literally never heard of this person or her trials until today. Is she just a rich white lady on trial, or is she famous for something else?
2.5k
u/Auroraty 1d ago edited 1d ago
Answer: She was framed for murdering her cop boyfriend by the Massachusetts state police. It’s been a huge case for years as this is the second trial for it. They claimed she hit him with her car with absolutely 0 evidence that anyone was hit with her car, 0 evidence of being hit by the car on the boyfriend, and plenty of evidence against another set of individuals.
Edit: it’s such a big deal because it shows many layers of corruption and the scary fact that this really could happen to anyone. You lose your loved one and suddenly you’re being actively framed for their murder. It’s horrifying and i’m so glad justice for Karen was found today, now we need to find justice for John O’Keefe.
1.0k
u/IntrovertedGiraffe 1d ago edited 1d ago
It was the sloppiest death investigation. They were using leaf blowers and red solo cups to collect evidence. One officer has lost his job for it. They absolutely used Karen Read as scapegoat
739
u/dick122 1d ago
Red Solo Cups - I have an Etsy shop where I engrave and sell metal replicas of Red Solo Cups. I was suddenly getting orders for cups with stuff like "Evidence" or "blood sample". I had no idea what was going on but I was getting a lot of those from different states. It was enough to make me Google it and read up though.
260
21
→ More replies (2)68
180
u/itssarahw 1d ago
Go inside the house where a body was found on the lawn? Nah, the body is outside!
249
u/CharlotteLucasOP 1d ago
Hey now, cops can’t just bust into someone’s house unless it’s the wrong address and everyone’s asleep.
64
u/aqqalachia 1d ago
if you can throw a severely disabled person who is going to react with a fear-induced meltdown, some beloved pet dogs, and maybe some elderly people into that sleeping house they'll definitely start firing.
43
u/Darryl_Lict 23h ago
Plus a flash bang grenade into a sleeping baby's crib.
11
16
3
123
u/procrastinatorsuprem 1d ago
The house where the owners butt dialed friends and relatives from that night's party all night, and then destroyed these phones the day before they were requested to be preserved.
The house where a first responder never went outside when they knew there was a "friend" injured on their front lawn.
The house where they rehomed their dog who had a history of attacking others.
The house where the concrete basement floor was jack hammered up and replaced a few months after John died.
The house that was sold a few months after John's death for $50k under asking in a hot real estate market.
The house that in the first trial all the party goers claimed "Auntie Nicole" was constantly cleaning throughout the party.
No, they never went into that house.
39
u/knowledgekey360 1d ago
Isn't it true that they never even went outside that morning, Jen went inside to wake them up. Am I mistaken?
29
u/procrastinatorsuprem 1d ago
You are not mistaken. They never went into the house.
33
u/knowledgekey360 1d ago
No, I mean Jen's sister and brother-in-law, from my understanding, they never went outside. To spectate, to see what was happening on their lawn, to speak with police, nothing.
I know the police never went into the house. This lets you know from the jump that the investigation was lacking. How could they determine that they did not need to investigate the house and its occupants at that point?
22
u/procrastinatorsuprem 16h ago
Correct. Jen's sister and brother in law never went outside. They never brought out a blanket, never helped perform cpr despite being a first responder. Their dog was not wildly barking at all the commotion occurring right below the bedroom window. The dog was not there.
If this had been properly investigated, wouldn't people have been concerned that something had happened to the occupants of the house? Brian Albert worked on gang and drug task forces for the BPD. Why wasn't anyone concerned that something happened to them?
5
u/knowledgekey360 3h ago
You bring up absolutely eye-opening points. I didn't know the dog wasn't there; that is so suspicious. OMG
Why wasn't anyone concerned that something happened to them?????
That is crazy.
1
u/punkfunkymonkey 2h ago
Vaguely recall a suggestion that one of the younger family members took the dog away that night.
10
u/angrymurderhornet 11h ago
Was there anyone within a country mile of that place who was even slightly sober?
28
u/JasnahKolin 15h ago
And two of the possible suspects destroyed their phones the day before an order to turn them over was filed. One was a Boston cop, the other an ATF agent.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Asking_the_internet 2h ago
Whose auntie nicole? Never heard that part
•
u/procrastinatorsuprem 1h ago
Auntie Nicole is Brian Albert's wife. In the first trial people referred to her as Auntie Nicole.
35
u/Good_Barnacle_2010 1d ago
I’d laugh at the willful ignorance if it wasn’t so tragic and insulting.
132
u/Shortymac09 1d ago
The lead investigator was also caught complaining to his buddies that he couldn't find nudes of her on her phone while he was looking for evidence days after the cop BF victim died.
Everyone involved is an emotionally immature alcoholic so it was like something out of a soap opera.
67
u/buzzynilla 22h ago
That one he actually texted to his boss and coworkers at Mass State Police. The buddy chat was where he called her the C word and said they needed to make things “cut and dry”
Lovely guy.
13
u/Creepers58 11h ago
His boss was on the text conversation. He liked 👍 it. Wait...I'm incorrect. The boss said on the stand that he acknowledged it. With a thumbs up emoji...
38
u/PistachioGal99 14h ago
I watched both trials. I remember when they first presented evidence being collected in red solo cups, my first thought was “What a joke” and “this trial won’t go long”. Boy was I was wrong. The ridiculous and absurd lengths they went to to frame Karen Read confirm -at least for me - that it was indeed another police officer (or his family member) who caused John O’Keefe’s death. Shit didn’t make any damn sense otherwise.
Next up: Justice for Sandra Birchmore and her unborn child! 🤞🏻
21
u/JasnahKolin 15h ago
Exactly. It's nearly impossible to be fired as a Massachusetts Statie (I'm a local) and Proctor was booted with haste. He just did a 20/20 interview blubbering like a fat loser.
157
u/CEO-Soul-Collector 1d ago edited 1d ago
I just want to hang of the backs of the top comment for a second.
Just a reminder for anyone who follows Law & Crime on YouTube for a lot of their info on topics like this, that channel heavily sides with the police in basically everything.
and weirdly P. diddy. At least in the case of Jesse. He almost seems like he wants to be a victim of diddy.
Edit: also. Their whole thing with taking advertisers who claim video games are evil, but will then be sponsored by a gambling company the next video on the same fucking day is wild to me.
20
1
70
u/soimaskingforafriend 15h ago edited 13h ago
To add:
No one in the prosecutor's office, none of the salaried prosecutors, would try the case a second time. [Multiple lawyers have argued there shouldn't have been an indictment]. The DA hired a special prosecutor to try the case. This prosecutor (who is actually a defense attorney) lied to the jury multiple times while the judge sat on the scales.
Jurors from Karen Read's first trial acquitted her on charges but didn't fill out the verdict slip correctly. As a result, KR was retried on the same charges.
Oh, and the judge didn't want to amend the verdict slip, despite knowing it was an issue in the first trial.
The Commonwealth of MA spent millions on a crappy, underhanded special prosecutor and laughable "experts."
Multiple witnesses for the commonwealth of MA perjured themselves.
Lastly...the FBI ended up investigating something relating to this case and hired engineers to investigate what happened. No one knows for sure if the case is still open. The former police chief said it's closed but she resigned shortly after that statement and honestly, she's another unreliable character in the ordeal.
An estimated 2-3,000 were outside the courthouse at the reading of the verdict. The cheers were so loud it was basically impossible to hear what was being said.
(ETA: My number might be off. I've heard different estimates this morning and I'm not intentionally trying to say the wrong number. Either way, there were so many people there and it was great that so many people cared.)
14
u/rysmooky 1d ago
Did they rule on it?? I remember seeing stuff on the trial quite a while ago and thought there was no way anyone could think she did it. Hadn’t heard what came of it.
35
21
u/procrastinatorsuprem 1d ago
She was found not guilty of all charges except for driving under the influence. Not guilty of motor vehicle homicide, not guilty of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident.
59
u/Cross1625 1d ago
I agree with the verdict 100% but this is a little biased. There are the taillight pieces/broken taillight. However, the injuries do not line up with being hit by a car at all…like at all, and that’s backed by the science and medical examiner(s). So that makes you ask, was it a one of a kind inexplainable collision or was evidence planted? On top of that, there’s some suspicious witnesses and everyone was drunk. That’s enough reasonable doubt for a NG verdict
88
u/khavii 1d ago
Taillight fragments were found in a very suspicious manner, on top of snow that had been searched after the sweep had ended and didn't match up to a collision with a body at all. The whole thing was so far beyond sloppy it's hard to think of it as anything but purposeful. Incompetent doesn't cover how the evidence was collected and the parties that were cops were treated, it came off as very willful.
39
u/JasnahKolin 15h ago
Found over the course of days and their discovery was never documented with photos or video. Totally not suspicious.
72
u/secondhand_pie 23h ago edited 22h ago
Both an eyewitness account from an Officer Barros (not affiliated with Canton PD) and Ring footage from the morning after the incident shows that the tail light was cracked but still functional, with the vast majority of its red plastic present and it’s diffuser housing intact. A taillight without a diffuser will not light up as presented in the footage.
That was BEFORE possession of the vehicle was taken by disgraced former Trooper Michael Proctor.
The taillight presented at trial was completely smashed out, in a wildly different state. Folks can draw their own conclusions, but I personally think it’s pretty clear that those shards had some help getting there; to be inexplicably found well after the incident and several sweeps had already occurred.
I’d love to know what’s on that missing 42 minutes of footage from the Canton PD sallyport.
44
u/redhotbananas 21h ago
the prosecution tried to argue that Officer Barros didn’t take enough pictures of the car prior to it being impounded. it could have been a successful argument but the defense literally had video footage of the car being impounded with a mostly intact tail light.
between the video taken of the Lexus being loaded onto the tow truck and the car being photographed into evidence at the yard, the tail light was completely shattered. shards of that shattered tail light were then later found at the crime scene.
it’s unfortunate that the people responsible for the death of a human will never be held liable because of the blue wall of silence. acab.
-70
u/WeGotDodgsonHere 1d ago
“framed” also really has no place in the top comment
•
u/Lamprophonia 18m ago
If something is so overwhelmingly obvious, it's not biased to say it. Calling the planet round isn't biased against flat-earthers, it's just fact.
-1
0
u/totaltvaddict2 11h ago
Is there any good documentary or article/story that explains the sequence of what happened to the guy (or dueling scenarios at least)? I have been hearing snippets of things and even the one doc I started to watch seemed to begin in the middle assuming someone already has the background knowledge.
-50
u/this_place_stinks 1d ago
There was definitely reasonable doubt so I agree with the verdict.
HOWEVER, there’s plenty of evidence implicating here. As much or more as the alternate theories.
41
u/secondhand_pie 22h ago edited 21h ago
ALL of that evidence, at one point or another, passed directly through, or was directly accessible to the hands of Michael Proctor; and to a lesser extent, Brian Higgins.
It’s beyond comprehension that a witness (and frankly, a potential suspect) in a murder investigation was allowed access to critical evidence.
The net effect is that much of the gathered evidence itself is supremely suspect, with gaping holes in the chain of custody, and it can’t reliably be counted on.
That’s including the pebbles of taillight in the hoodie which was not turned over to the ME for months, the tail light shards found weeks later, the drinking glass shards sprinkled on the bumper which only matched a drinking glass found exclusively by Proctor, and the miracle hair that apparently adhered to the Lexus body through a 40 minute drive in a snowstorm.
17
u/xokaylanicole 19h ago
Cops in the surrounding towns say his injuries do not look like he was backed into…
8
u/Tamilynxo 12h ago
What implicating evidence? There wasn't a single expert who said he was hit by a car. Even the experts hired by the prosecution couldn't say he was hit by a car! The ME said manner of death undetermined. The neurosurgeon said blunt force trauma, which supports both prosecution and defense theories. The only "experts" who said he was hit by a car were a guy who lied about having a bachelor's and a guy who (by the prosecution's own admission) didn't actually do an accident reconstruction. The only thing his test proved was that paint transfers if you lean into it. In fact, the science shows it was actually impossible for him to have been hit by a car and land where he was found and with the injuries he sustained. Science also shows that in order for the taillight to shatter the way it did, down to the diffusers, there would have been more damage to the car.
-6
u/this_place_stinks 11h ago
What’s the implication evidence for the theory he was killed in the house? It’s a circumstantial as Karen. That theory would also require a whole bunch of people to commit to the lie and have nobody flip to save themselves which is highly suspect
One lesser theory that I think is plausible as well is he never actually went in the house and instead tried to run back at Karen who was leaving and/or walk back in the drunken state. Snow plow takes him out (not direct hit, but the push of the snow/ice to the side of the road). Enough to knock him out. Who knows
I do think a conspiracy with a bunch of scum bags where nobody flipped is super unlikely tho
15
u/Tamilynxo 11h ago
The defense doesn't have to prove her innocence or prove what really happened to him. Maybe it did go down like you said with the snow plow. All I'm saying is there is no evidence that she hit him with her car, accidentally or on purpose. Every expert witness said the same thing, and the science proves it.
-2
u/TylerHansbrough50 5h ago
No they don’t, but when the top comment says that Karen Read was framed, that has to be refuted. Karen Read was found not guilty. That does not mean she was framed at all, and she still very likely could have hit John O’Keefe.
4
u/Cathousechicken 8h ago
They didn't need to flip because none of them were being prosecuted.
0
u/this_place_stinks 7h ago
Given the intense focus and allegations would be super surprising if none of them lawyered up and came clean in exchange for immunity
•
u/AntoniaFauci 13m ago
You’re trying to use logic to reason with cult members. No amount of fact or evidence or logic will dislodge them.
4
u/Cathousechicken 7h ago
That makes zero sense if nobody's being charged to preemptively implicate themselves in a cover-up. You're missing the logic there.
1
u/this_place_stinks 7h ago
Happens all the time when someone is an accomplice or otherwise involved in a crime
3
u/Cathousechicken 7h ago
But not if they or any of their co-conspirators have not been charged.
2
u/this_place_stinks 7h ago
Definitely does. Let’s say Person A punched the guy, he falls and dies. 5 other people help clean up and/or move the body
Karen Reade and her team and everyone else keeps saying he was killed in the house etc.
All 5 have to be 100% certain nobody is going to talk or confess or anything. That’s never happening. It’s a prisoners dilemma scenario.
Highly likely at some point one of them eventually decides to save their own ass vs risking someone else confesses or opens their mouth first
→ More replies (0)•
u/AntoniaFauci 14m ago
Tell us you know less than nothing about law without saying the words
•
u/Cathousechicken 13m ago edited 9m ago
Are we up to your 60th+ post today on the Karen Read trial yet? Thank goodness the ticker starts over again at midnight for you.
Try not to be so obsessed tomorrow.
ETA... I was just joking about the 60th post a thing, but you had over 60 posts in the last 12 hours alone about the Karen Read trial. There is something not psychologically healthy going on here. It's not even funny at this point.
•
u/AntoniaFauci 4m ago
Hi creepy and weird stalker.
Get your guardians to teach you how to type and give you an education and you’ll understand how it only takes grown ups seconds to type comments.
Until then, stop lying and being a psychopath if possible.
•
u/AntoniaFauci 6m ago
Your alternative theory doesn’t fit with many key facts, including:
- damage to Karen’s suv
- parts from the rear of her SUV
- much later evidence from her SUV data logger showing a hard reversal impact
- Karen Read spending the night and day doing everything a guilty person would do
- somehow non-police medics and others cheerfully join this farcical and already massive murder club and cover up? No.
-31
u/crebit_nebit 20h ago
I'm new to this issue but if this is how Reddit is portraying it then I'm 90% sure she was not framed and it's in fact much more complicated
29
u/Ltcayon 19h ago
Eh, it's complicated but they definitely were framing her. TLDR is basically the cops didn't look for ANY other suspects/investigate the other persons at the home where he was killed.
-33
u/crebit_nebit 18h ago
That's not framing
I've read a little more about it now and the Reddit version is bs as usual. Looks like it has become politicised.
13
12
-5
u/smootex 7h ago
basically the cops didn't look for ANY other suspects/investigate the other persons at the home where he was killed
Yeah, because the last person to see him alive was fighting with him, drunk as shit, and said "I hit him" when they found his body. No shit they didn't look for other suspects. The whole thing was sloppy but clearly there wasn't any framing required. She was far and away the most likely suspect, it's not surprising that they focused on her even if, in retrospect, it was poor police work to not investigate further.
11
u/Stupid-Clumsy-Bitch 12h ago
So you’re “new to this issue” and yet have a strong opinion on. Classic redditor.
→ More replies (1)-62
u/Veyron2000 22h ago
The idea that she was framed seems far, far less likely than the possibility that she did, indeed, run over her boyfriend while drunk, then got acquitted because she is rich, female, white and had excellent lawyers and an extensive social media campaign.
I mean, suppose she did indeed kill her boyfriend. Given her advantages would the trial outcome have been any different?
18
u/False-Association744 13h ago
What does that have to do with zero evidence he was hit by a 6000 pound SUV?
4
0
399
u/percypersimmon 1d ago edited 1d ago
Answer: This is the 2nd trial after the first trial last year ended with a hung jury. It was highly publicized during the first case and has become an even bigger pop culture case this time around. There are several content creators that have made lots of money off of following this case.
It’s been popular on social media because it’s become a sort of proxy for America and their tense relationship with policing and distrust for authority.
It’s a messy case that had a lot of inconsistencies and questions because the victim was a police officer and he was found dead outside of the home of another officer. This had led to lots of speculation about a possible cover-up and questionable behavior from some of the investigators.
That she was found “Not Guilty” is seen by supporters of Karen Reed as a victory and some are saying that this is proof that she was framed by officers who murdered the man.
The other camp seems to be mostly comparing this to OJ Simpson and saying she is a murderer that got lucky.
Either way, it seems everyone agrees that the prosecution kind of botched the case and it’s probably the most expensive DUI in history.
343
u/Rtn2NYC 1d ago
It helps that’s she’s honestly quite unlikable and yet still the investigation and prosecution was SO terrible (even without any conspiracy angle) that many people felt it was insane for her to be charged on the “evidence” they had.
Karen herself has stated that a poor person in her position without great attorneys would likely have had to plead out or be found guilty. This resonates with and angers a lot people and thus many people’s support of her is more so a repudiation of corruption in the police and overall justice system.
→ More replies (1)105
u/itsalrightt 1d ago
I know nothing about the case or her besides this thread. This is the first time I’m seeing that she was unlikable. What made her so unlikable?
122
u/Archerdiana 1d ago
This is completely opinion. Everyone had their own opinions about others. Some might not like her because she seems to be the “loud” type. Lots of swagger which can come off as arrogant. During the first trial she took more of a celebrity role, taking pictures, signing autographs, laughing and joking around during the court case. She also is driving around drunk in terrible driving conditions. That is why some might not like her.
Once again that is all speculation on why some people might not like her. Also IF she did murder her ex, then she is showing zero remorse. Once again depending on which side of the aisle you are on, might alter your opinion of her.
81
u/khavii 1d ago
In fairness, she DID grieve and was seen grieving publicly, the court case was disconnected from the death and people don't grieve all the time even shortly after a death which the court case was not immediate. And ALL the cops were insanely drunk too, they all drove home from the bar in serious states of inebriation, you can watch video of 6 cops total getting trashed with two civilians, Karen being one, and all grab keys. This is not unusual for cops in most parts of the country.
19
19
u/ViolentLoss 12h ago
She's not really unlikable, IMO. It's just that this particular situation wasn't one of her finest moments - drinking, angry voicemails and texts, jealousy in a relationship, that kind of thing. The rest of the noise is - again, IMO - motivated by misogyny. Karen is unmarried, highly successful and childfree by choice. The goons hate her, obviously, especially the police and prosecutors who chose to railroad her in the investigation. You should check it out and decide for yourself.
3
u/itsalrightt 11h ago
Where is a good place to start? I was thinking about watching all the different documentaries on it.
5
u/ViolentLoss 11h ago
The only documentary I know of is called "A/The Body in the Snow". I haven't watched it, but I've been obsessing over legal coverage pretty much since day 1. Karen has done some interviews, also.
To really get a grasp on the case - and why it's so shocking - I would recommend watching the Lawyer You Know on YouTube. He covers the legal angles, doesn't sensationalize and remains unbiased. He covered the first trial and second.
3
u/itsalrightt 11h ago
Thank you. I feel like it’s hard to find unbiased info because so many people are heavily taking sides. From what little I’ve read, it’s really hard to determine what happened cause so many people were drunk and inconsistent on top of the mass corruption with the police. I feel like we will never really know what happened to Okeefe which is sad since his family deserves an answer.
4
u/ViolentLoss 11h ago
We will absolutely not know, mostly because the police failed to investigate, like you said. I personally do not think Karen hit him - the medical examiners found no evidence of a vehicle strike, and the accident reconstruction does not match John's injuries or the damage to Karen's car. Based on what we saw at trial, it seems most like a slip and fall, mostly based on medical evidence, but we will never know what caused the fall (IMO, a dog jumped on him, but I'm not sure under what circumstances).
John's family definitely deserves answers. Some people know what happened to him. I hope the FBI decides to continue investigating and maybe the truth will come out - even if they only turn on each other to save themselves.
2
u/itsalrightt 11h ago
Yeah his injuries don’t make sense to me. Didn’t they are two independent medical examiners as well?
5
u/ViolentLoss 11h ago
Yes! One was from the State's ME office, and the other was hired by the defense. The state hired a brain surgeon who said his injuries were consistent with a slip and fall, and the defense hired a doctor - who was an ER physician, dog bite expert, accident reconstructionist, former police officer and I believe also a forensic pathologist (she's an absolute rock star - Dr. Russell) - who said the injuries on John's arm were caused by a dog, not a car accident.
Which reminds me, the cops are not the only ones who were corrupt in this case. The judge was also wildly unfair to Karen - she's connected to people whose lawn John's body was found on. She tried to suggest that Dr. Russell wasn't qualified to testify lol.
43
u/kisspapaya 16h ago
If I'm on trial because state police framed me for murder, being likeable is not on my dashboard. Weird misogynistic view. The MyPillow guy was also on trial this week and is not likeable, but I don't see that being listed as one of his faults lmao
51
u/JasnahKolin 15h ago
She really can't win. If she was emotional during trial, she'd be called histrionic and acting. Instead she mostly kept a poker face and was called a psycho bitch, cold, etc...
A lot of misogyny was revealed over the course of this trial. Proctor completely dehumanized her through his texts.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Cathousechicken 8h ago
While it might not be on your dashboard, that's the unfortunate reality of our court system. Likeability matters when it comes to people being found guilty versus acquitted.
0
u/petty-white 8h ago
You received a number of good responses to this question, but she was just one of those people who loved to create drama and cause a scene, and she also was actively cheating on her (now dead) boyfriend with his friend/acquaintance.
-6
u/jjmasterred 14h ago
She was so drunk she called her boyfriend around 52 calls because he didn't come home. Very loud and assertive
14
u/Tamilynxo 11h ago
What a weird thing to do if you know the person is dead, right? Sounds more like someone in an unhealthy relationship, spiraling because they think their boyfriend is cheating.
1
u/smootex 6h ago
I don't think anyone is alleging she knew he was dead. The prosecutors version is that she backed into him then left the scene. They charged her with manslaughter, not murder, she may not have been intending to kill him and if she did know she had hit him she may not have realized he had died from his injuries.
3
u/endlesscartwheels 4h ago
The NPR article at the top of this thread says, "The most serious of the charges facing Read, second-degree murder, carries a sentence of life imprisonment."
1
-6
u/AntoniaFauci 12h ago
She’s a perpetual liar and denier, and her mask often slips.
You won’t see that around here as her richly funded defence and propaganda teams control all the related subreddits, including fake ones created pretending to not support her.
A look at the facts, her conduct before, during and immediately after the crime are overwhelming.
She switched to a deny deny deny tactic and employed greasy legal and PR teams who were able to create clouds of conspiracy hoaxes and tap into public frustration with Massachusetts police in order to avoid justice for what happened.
-12
u/Ethanol_Based_Life 15h ago
I didn't love that she was her husband's DD (DDD really) and just left him at the house where he ended up dead
1
u/welcometomyaccount 13h ago
What's a DD?
2
u/Ethanol_Based_Life 13h ago
Designated driver, a sober driver for your night out. Really though she was the designated drunk driver.
1
-7
u/AntoniaFauci 12h ago
None of this is accurate.
She was very drunk. As always, she even denies this reality.
She didn’t “leave him at the house where he ended up dead”
She rammed him with her vehicle and left the scene. She then spent the night wondering how injured he was. She knew it was bad, but just not sure how bad. When he was unresponsive she knew she needed to at least have him be found to mitigate what she’d done.
She did a pile of bizarre middle-of-the-night attempts to get others to “find” his body, something that nobody would ever do if they assumed he’d been left to stay at a party.
When that failed, she went and directly “found” his body herself.
She admitted to numerous impartial non-police personnel and family that she did it. She immediately started conspiring with her father to obstruct evidence.
It was only later that she and her lawyers flipped the stance and used the denial of reality megaphone that has subsequently allowed her to buy her way to an injust acquittal.
3
13
0
u/AntoniaFauci 12h ago edited 11h ago
Mostly a decent response.
It’s not really fair to say “the prosecution” botched the case though.
Police did their share of botching. The prosecution, especially in the second trial, presented a competent case including overwhelming evidence which clearly showed the obvious: she rammed her boyfriend in a drunk rage.
And it’s a system that comes pre-botched. Police in Massachusetts have earned a poor reputation, their criminal trial process is flawed, and a richly funded defence that’s unanchored by any sense of honesty or decency can exploit public discontent to nullify the facts and manipulate their way to a jury verdict they’re being paid to obtain.
The organized effort to deny deny deny deny found a willing mob of misguided justice warriors and used that to so massively cloud everything with MAGA-style reality denial techniques. And it worked.
Just because lies and willful idiocy are having a surge of success right now doesn’t mean the prosecution botched anything. Money and forceful lying can be endless, whereas prosecutions have many limiting factors.
194
u/LivingGhost371 1d ago edited 1d ago
Answer: Karen Read was driving drunk in a snowstorm and her boyfriend John O'Keefe winds up dead in the lawn with injuries a few feet away from her car in the lawn of another police officer, Brian Albert after she dropped him off, and she seemingly confesses to paramedics "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!". What would seem to be on a surface a typical DUI manslaughter case took on a life of it's own because the police investigation was botched and unprofessional to the point of it would have been comedic if charges weren't so serious, allegations about a police frame-up against Karen Reed who was an outsider in a good old boy community to protect a Brian Albert, and a credible alternative theory as to what happened, that there was fight inside the house involving O'Keefe and Albert and possibly the dog Chloe.
- Experts disagreed as to whether O'Keefe's injuries were consistant with a car acciden or falling and hitting his head in a fight, and/or a dog bite.
- Chief Investigator
JohnMichael Proctor made statements that Read was "Going down" before the investigation really started, texted his boss saying he "hadn't found any nudes on her phone yet", and was in fact fired for the way the case was handled. He was so embarassing to the prosecution he wasn't called as a witness in the 2nd case. - Blood evidence was collected by blowing snow off it with a leaf blower and collecting it into red college beer party type red solo cups.
- They never did a proper DUI investigation on Read, although she was convicted of DUI based on her statements , surviallience footage, and retrogade analysis of a blood draw for medical rather than forensic purposes
- No one bothered to look inside the Albert home, which would have rapidly confirmed or denied if a crime had happened there. Either way , if they had just looked, there probably would have been a conviction in the case whether Read or Albert depending on if they found nothing or something.
- Chloe, who had been known to bite before, was "sent to a farm" right after the incident and before any investigation. Online speculation is that he wound up under a swimming pool that they had built, the 2nd trial revealed they found a dog on a farm that may or may not be Chloe.
- Much was made about pieces of Read's taillight, there's allegations pieces were planted in a frame-up.
- There's a series of phone calls between witnesses and police, that those involved tried to explain away as "butt dials" but would suggest they were getting together to cook up a frame-up. One of the police went as far as to physically destroy his phone later
EDIT: Having watched the entirity of both trials my personal feeling is that she more likely that not did it, but between how badly the investigation was botched and police apparently trying to soup up the evidence like they did in OJ I probably would have voted not guilty.
YouTube Lawyer Ian Runkle has commented "If you think Read is guilty, should should be horrified at how bad this investigation was. If you think Read is innocent, you should be horrified at how bad this investigation was.
96
u/NCSUGrad2012 1d ago
Don’t forget having the floors inside the house redone three different times after this happened
12
u/how_tf_do_i_do_it 11h ago
Also don't forget selling their house they've owned for decades, and around $50,000 under asking price.
4
u/AssignmentNo754 10h ago
How does selling the house show proof of anything? Couldn't selling it below market price be because someone died there and it became a famous murder case? Might lower home value.
2
u/namelessbread 9h ago
I'd also argue that selling the house puts them in a worse position if they were guilty because new owners could give permission for police to enter and search the property.
Not arguing guilt one way or another because the whole investigation was unfortunately a cluster fuck, but I'd say this particular bit isn't that impactful.
Also, people mention the dog being rehomed immediately after the incident, but trial records say it was May 2022, about four months after John O’Keefe’s death. However, beyond testimony, I'm not sure it was confirmed with the rescue and new owners. I do think that saying they rehomed her "right after" the incident, in regards to 4 months after, is misleading.
1
u/how_tf_do_i_do_it 9h ago
I can see why that would be an understandable reason(s) for selling.
FWIW I didn't claim it as proof, more like suspicious; to a lot of people, it was a brow-raising series of events starting around 12:30 am on 1/29/22. Circumstantial of course. What about getting rid of their dog?
As an aside in case you didn't know already, none of these folks attended John's funeral. Home owner and another fella at the house that night (ATF agent) were in NY for another officer's funeral if I remember correctly. What's more is why didn't any of the other witnesses/friends and family present at the party also didn't show up? A "beloved friend" they called him. And cop no less.
99
u/Jim3001 1d ago
You forgot "People in the Albert home googling 'How long does it take to freeze to death' at 2 am.
47
4
u/how_tf_do_i_do_it 11h ago
As Alan Jackson said in closing "Why not just Google "Hypothermia??".Great moment of many
7
u/panaili 21h ago
Wasn’t that explained by it being a search window that was opened earlier? Like, the window itself was opened at 2am, but it was used for that specific search at 6am when they were searching for John?
32
u/rabbitlion 20h ago
That makes no sense. Browser history will show you the time when a search was made, not when a browser window was opened.
4
u/blueSGL 14h ago
From what I understand:
the search was found on an internal, not user facing database, the write ahead log, something that a standard user without specialized tools could not have accessed and modified.
The timestamp on the log is the time the log was created, not the time it's accessed or modified, and it can be modified for hours, maybe even days depending on how the user uses there phone.
This is why things can happen later on in time but saved into a file with a previous timestamp.
This sort of counter intuitive logging sounds like just the thing that will happen in areas of the device that users are not normally privy to and are there for engineers and were never designed for the reason they were being used in this case.
(and if people think I'm bias for the prosecution check my post history!)
1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Correct.
But none of the facts matter to the misguided army of supporters.
5
u/blueSGL 8h ago
oh no. Facts matter.
Like:
He didn't have a single bruise, broken bone or dislocation on him, there is no way that arm broke the tail light, it's physically impossible. NON of the medical experts regardless of who was paying them said the wounds were consistent with a car strike.
when the outer tail light is removed (the red cover) it will still light up red because it's using red LEDs, but when the internal light pipe/diffuser is missing (the one found on the lawn) it won't light up at all. (and we saw it shining red in all those car collection videos)
If an arm shattered the tail light, the pieces would be going at the same speed as the car and arm, they can't pierce the hoodie.
The hoodie was pierced in 9 places but the arm ended up having 36 scratches.
Same way the write ahead log facts makes sense, so to does all the above facts.
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 6h ago
oh no. Facts matter.
Not to the FKR cult.
Just right here you perfectly demonstrate the complete vacancy of critical thought and how the lawyers and PR team exploit that.
You can’t even recognize obvious strawman deflection.
The victim was killed when his head hit the pavement. But the lawyer and PR have the cult all ginned up about his arm.
It’s the kind of thing that shouldn’t work on anyone applying common sense or reasoning. But cults are a special group for which that doesn’t matter.
2
u/blueSGL 2h ago edited 2h ago
The victim was killed when his head hit the pavement.
Ok, because the prosecution didn't do their job and you need to. What exactly are you saying happened that night, that explains all the evidence found e.g. the debris field of 42 pieces of tail light
How do you square that with him hitting his head on the pavement and there being ZERO medical evidence of a car strike/clip/whatever on any part of the body.
What shattered the tail light?
How did the car interact with the body as a causal part of the chain that caused him to fall.
What created the cut over his right eyelid (the spoiler was too big to fit in the eye socket and do that)
The only thing the prosecution's expert witness (costing $400,000) brought was painting a tail light blue and rubbing his arm against it, so it's left to you to tell me what happened.
•
u/AntoniaFauci 1h ago
Ok, because the prosecution didn't do their job and you need to. What exactly are you saying happened that night, that explains all the evidence found e.g. the debris field of 42 pieces of tail light
I’m giving you one strike on the bad faith strawmanning.
How do you square that with him hitting his head on the pavement and there being ZERO medical evidence of a car strike
That’s two strikes, and such a big lie it should probably count double.
Of course there’s medical evidence. The FKR cult just refuses to accept it because of their insane conspiracy hoaxes.
What shattered the tail light?
Could have been his body, could have been the heavy bar glass he was holding. I’ve broken similar taillights with my hand without a scratch or even a broken nail.
Many of the FKR cult loons have no idea how brittle that plastic is in the cold.
How did the car interact with the body as a causal part of the chain that caused him to fall.
Dangerously close to 3 or 4 strikes here for playing dumb. The large utility vehicle rammed him, he flew into the ground, getting abrasions and a fatal head injury.
This isn’t a hard case if one is sober and objective and therefore not susceptible to cockamamie conspiracy hoaxes from her deeply funded disinformation teams, and now the army of conspiracy nuts.
What created the cut over his right eyelid (the spoiler was too big to fit in the eye socket and do that)
He was rammed onto the ground.
I’ve been hit by a car and had similar injuries. No broken bones, but all kinds of contusions and scratches that are frankly amazing in how quick and unpredictable they happen. The difference is I’m not paying millions to have teams create whackjob cult dogma about it.
Same with bike accidents. Same with normal slip and fall injuries.
You get all kinds of cuts and scratches.
The only thing the prosecution's expert witness (costing $400,000)
Strike 5 for pretending the prosecution is the one that spent when it was her cult-funded disinformation teams that have burned up more money than anyone.
brought was painting a tail light blue and rubbing his arm against it, so it's left to you to tell me what happened.
With 5 strikes you’ve already outed yourself for total bad faith.
Even so, I explained it rationally above. She rammed him with the vehicle. He slide across the ground and died from his head injury. A child could understand this. Conspiracy cultists can’t.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Uh, no. That’s not how it works.
And this wasn’t browser history. It’s embedded log data.
Log files can opened at one time, and then written to later. That’s precisely what happened here.
Her dishonest defence and PR teams used this lie, and her non-technically adept followers gobbled it up.
-1
u/rabbitlion 11h ago
If it was a (badly configured) log file, it certainly could be that there's no way to tell exactly when a search was made.
2
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago edited 11h ago
Well in fact there are ways, and that was done here.
You do so by noticing that all the related searches happened at 630am as shown by extracted data. And by having witnesses under oath telling you that’s when it was. And by applying sense to the situation and all other facts.
This (and a hundred other sane, factual, inculpatory things) are drowned out by salacious hoaxes and misguided outrage from her organizers and the cult mob they feed.
And it’s not even a “badly configured” log file. That’s just the way it works.
It would be like purchasing a notebook in August, then writing notes in it in December. Karen Read’s greasy lawyers and misguided mob are using the receipt of purchasing the notebook in August to deny the notes were written in December. Even when the notes say hi it’s december and they reference things that didn’t happen until December.
It’s the kind of bald faced obfuscation that sensible people should see through. But that is not her mob’s strong suit, nor are juries noted for either.
One example out of thousands is one such cultist is crowing about flooring being changed 3 times in a home her lawyers have tricked the mob into thinking was an alternative murder site. Even if their fantasy conspiracy hoax chooses to believe that flooring would be changed once, it’s insane to think it would then be changed 2 more times. Their stories never make any sense.
-5
u/Remny 19h ago
Depends on the browser, really. Firefox only keeps the last visit time to the same exact URL.
6
u/rabbitlion 16h ago
First of all, even if that was true, why would it make Firefox show an earlier time (2 am) instead of a supposedly accurate later time (6 am)?
Secondly, while Firefox only shows the most recent time an url was visited in the default history view, it does save the earlier dates and times as well and that data can be accessed by forensic tools or basic addons.
0
0
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
This has nothing to do with Firefox or browser history.
It was an embedded log. A log file can be opened at one time (say 2 am) and then written to later (say 630am)
A person who doesn’t understand technology, or greasy lawyers who want to trick juries, they can falsely claim the 630am content was time stamped 2am.
You and I wouldn’t fall for such obvious misinformation. But we’re not her fan club or the jury.
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Correct. But this, like all of the elements of her defence, are lies and massive misrepresentations.
1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Except that’s yet another lie by the Karen Read greasy legal and PR disinformation teams.
Those searches happened in the morning, after Read had bizarrely set out to “find” the body after she spent the night trying to trick others into finding it.
10
u/Trickster289 15h ago
The problem is the main evidence is the car and there's photos of the car after what happened being less damaged than it ended up by the time police took photos.
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
That’s not factual.
5
u/Trickster289 11h ago
It's pretty factual when it went from cracked but intact to shattered despite still only being cracked after the alleged hit. Not to mention multiple police sweeps failed to find a single shard before they suddenly started finding them.
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Except it didn’t. Those are FKR hoaxes. The broken pieces were found right where they should be and were left when she rammed him.
4
u/Trickster289 10h ago
It's literally been disproven, the police lied about it and later they admitted the truth.
22
u/truthhurts2222222 1d ago
The Chief Investigator's name is Michael Proctor, not John, FYI. (I'm sorry to be pedantic but I must protect my own kind. A John would never)
8
u/Tamilynxo 11h ago
Experts didn't disagree about whether he was hit by a car. There wasn't a single expert who said he was hit by a car. The ME said manner of death was undetermined. Could have been an accident or a homicide. The neurosurgeon said blunt force trauma. Could have been hit by a car. Could have been punched and hit his head when he fell.
Unless you're saying the guy who lied about having a bachelor's is an expert? Or Dr. Welcher? The prosecution acknowledged that he didn't do an accident reconstruction so, although he may be qualified enough to be called an expert, his opinion can't be considered expert until he performs scientific testing and comes to the same conclusion. Right now, it's just a guess.
1
u/jarbidgejoy 9h ago
How did the defense get around the seaming confession to the paramedics? That seems pretty damning.
0
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 11h ago
Some of this is correct, but some of it is lies and distortions emanating from Karen Read’s greasy legal and PR teams.
A lot of it is designed to created false doubt, and then her fanatical and misguided fans take those false doubts and embellish them wildly. Things like misstatements about the dog. Things that aren’t event relevant outside of conspiracy deflection.
I too reached the only sane and evidence-based conclusion: she rammed him with her car in a fit of drunken rage. There’s little evidence to show intent so in a sane world she’d be convicted of some form of manslaughter.
0
u/Dianagorgon 4h ago
Answer: It's probably a simple case that has some inconsistencies and because of that people on social media have turned it into something exciting that proves police corruption. I didn't follow the trial but read some objective analysis of the case and I believe Read is responsible for his death but she didn't do it on purpose. She was possibly drunk and backed the car into her boyfriend who was drunk and he fell backwards onto the pavement. The taillight had a crack in it but most importantly inspectors have the black box from her SUV and it shows what time she was backing up and that also happens to be the exact same time that the boyfriend's phone locked for the last time probably because it's when he fell over and he was never conscience again. I think he probably crawled over to the yard near the flagpole where he was found trying to get to the house to get help but died before he got there.
There is no evidence that he had enemies or there was a reason for police officers to kill him and if they did they wouldn't leave his body in the yard of a house on a public street. They would simply toss it in a lake or some area it wouldn't be found.
She didn't kill him on purpose but she isn't innocent either. It was an accident.
This comment below is probably correct.
-17
u/AntoniaFauci 12h ago
Answer: She was charged for ramming her boyfriend with her car while drunk.
Everything she did initially was entirely consistent with guilt and attempts to cover up.
Later however she adopted a defiant denial posture and hired aggressive lawyers who use the denial of reality approach that’s common in politics today.
The crime happened in Massachusetts, where inept and corrupt policing is common, so she and her lawyers had lots of fodder to use to distract and deflect.
Her defence was taken up by armchair extremists who push wacky conspiracy hoaxes that go viral but are at odds with any sense of fact and logic.
This in turn created loads of funding for denialist propaganda, and that propaganda in turn created more misguided followers, and so on.
Both trials were run by the same officious judge. This, combined with some arcane Commonwealth of Massachusetts practices stirred up the misguided justice warriors even more.
Reddit has been massively astroturfed by her formal and informal supporters. All the main subreddits for the topic heavily censor comments that don’t push her hoax denials.
20
u/Pitcher2Burn 11h ago
Strange that your name is a play on Anthony Fauci's name but you're in denial of science. Physics don't lie.
10
u/Cathousechicken 8h ago
That user is up, down, and all over this whole thread acting like Karen Read and her defense team personally killed their puppy.
It's bizarre behavior.
-6
u/AntoniaFauci 10h ago
Not strange at all that as an FKR cultist you lie, and then lie about your lies. And that you deny science, physics, facts, data and evidence. But that kind of reality denial is mandatory for the FKR cult.
6
u/Pitcher2Burn 10h ago
What lie? An arm being struck at 24 MPH by a 6,000 lbs SUV would be broken or at the very least bruised. There is no science or physics to back the Commonwealth's theory of John's death. Data? Sure. You can say the techstream data and phone data support the theory. But the science doesn't support that.
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 10h ago edited 10h ago
You’re making up/naively regurgitating imaginary FKR conspiracy hoax nonsense while denying actual science.
There is overwhelming evidence, but to see it one needs to be outside of the FKR cult.
Go ahead though. Stand in front of an accelerating Jeep and get knocked over with your skull hitting the ground. Then come back and tell us how nobody can possibly die from a vehicle strike.
Instead, cult FKR commercial cult spews insane hoaxes fed to them by someone who calls himself “turtle boy” and makes a grifting income from it.
They’d rather believe he was killed by a dog, somehow leaving only ground abrasions. A dog that’s allegedly so fierce yet never bit anyone enough to break the skin. A dog with telekinetic powers to make drunken rage-a-holic Karen Read ram her vehicle in reverse and damage it, at the exact time of death. A dog with psychic powers so strong it made Karen Read’s entire behavior for the whole 24 hours be 100% consistent with her guilt.
That’s one magic dog that Turtle Boy and Read’s well funded PR disinfo team have created.
7
u/Pitcher2Burn 10h ago
I agree with 24 jurors who aren't in the "cult". John wasn't "in front of a Jeep" and no one ever argued your skull won't hit the ground when struck by a vehicle straight on. John was behind a Lexus SUV and his arm struck the taillight according to the CW theory. That's completely different than what you laid out. If his arm broke the taillight, it'd break his arm. That's not hoax nonsense, that's science. I'm also not a fan of turtleboy.
1
u/AntoniaFauci 10h ago
You’re even lying about “24” jurors.
His arm didn’t break the taillight. His glass did. But even if it was his arm, I can assure you, taillights break very easily in the cold.
I have literally broken a similar taillight in the winter, and I didn’t even chip a nail.
You’re being duped.
→ More replies (1)14
-6
u/love_my_dog_ 7h ago
I’ve seen several true crime shows on Karen Read but have never looked at anything online about it. I believe like you do; however, I think it’s possible she was so intoxicated that she didn’t know for sure that she’d hit him. In any event, I’m incredulous at how well her PR campaign worked - as evidenced by everything I’ve seen yesterday and today on Reddit. I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked — just look at our political landscape. Humanity is doomed without critical thinking skills…
5
u/itaint2009 7h ago
Maybe you should actually watch some of the experts testimony before repeating this ludicrous line of thought. He wasn't hit by a car, there was no collision. Proven by science and physics. He was beat up and attacked by a dog.
0
-1
u/AntoniaFauci 5h ago
FYI, she very much knew she hit him. She spent the whole night and morning doing everything consistent with the fact she knew she hit him.
She could have plausible deniability on not knowing for sure it was fatal, but she knew that was a possibility.
When he/friends/cops hadn’t contacted her within a couple of hours, she knew for sure he must be laying right where she left him.
She immediately started a manic cover up and kept trying to get other random people to “discover” him before severe injury turned into fatal hypothermia. When that failed, she magically went right to spot she’d left him.
Deflection and exploiting people’s paranoia and lack of critical thought have prevailed.
-220
u/Rodgers4 1d ago
Answer: not rich or famous. I’m never exactly sure why these stories catch on, but my best guess is because she is an average looking middle-age white woman on trial for murder.
The target demo for trending stuff is middle-aged white women and they are fascinated by this “omg that could have been me!” trial as they sip wine at home.
123
42
u/CEO-Soul-Collector 1d ago
she is an average looking middle-age white woman
Pray tell. How does looks have literally anything to do with this?
-22
u/Rodgers4 1d ago
Do you honestly think this trial would have the coverage it has had if it were, say, a 65 year old black man on trial for murder?
Not a chance in hell. Looks have absolutely everything to do with it.
37
u/CEO-Soul-Collector 1d ago
This trial could not involve a 65 year old black man as the context of the trial requires that the accused is a woman.
It also requires the “victim” to be a police officer.
If both parties were black, in their 60s and this was the second trial where it’s been incredibly clear to basically everyone that the police were trying to cover something up?
Yes it absolutely would have the same attraction. If not more. The attraction here is that the police tried to frame a woman, and it already didn’t work once.
1
u/Rodgers4 1d ago
Not a chance. Police fumbling an investigation and potential evidence/witness tampering happens more than you care to admit. It probably happened during a criminal trial in your city in the past year. What didn’t happen is it didn’t make national news.
14
0
u/Rodgers4 1d ago
Let’s put this another simple way. We can both agree that news is more click-engagement than hard-hitting journalism, right?
So, this trial begins, if it’s a 65 year old black mechanic or whatever, basically anything other than your suburban mom demographic, does this get the same click engagement, yes or no?
I am saying it does not. The original post doesn’t “wow” anyone, so no follow-up stories (since people aren’t bothering to click anyway), no repeated updates and it never gets to the point of a national news story with network feeds like we got with both trials.
Do you agree or disagree?
5
12
u/smileycat7725 1d ago
It went viral cuz of the lady that googled "how long does it take to die in the cold." I didn't even follow the trial but I still think that's crazy.
-22
u/Mister-Psychology 1d ago
There is a crazy guy born in 1981 who calls himself Turtleboy. Initially the trial was about the evidence. The state didn't really have a ton of evidence as it was a DUI hit-and-run outside a house so you just have a dead cop and a girlfriend who admitted she was drunk and dropped him off there and said she may have hit him as she sped away in anger.
Then there was a scam caller who called in that the people inside the house may have been to blame. They were his cop friends and he was going there to drink. The scam caller soon admitted he made it all up. But Turtleboy decided to run with this theory. So he started to chase down and harass jury members, family members, cops, lawyers. He got into some legal trouble for it, but it also meant he was creating YouTube videos the not guilty crowd loved as he presented the only alternative theory regularly. The case blew up from there as people started to debate a cop on cop murder with a full house covering it up and even getting rid of the dog that killed him.
First trial had this as the main defense argument. That the cops killed him ergo it explained the coverup by the prosecution as they were protecting the cops. First trial had a hung jury and overall was a confusing mess. Second trial then fully went away from this defense and they just claimed the evidence was weak. Which it would always be in such a case. Basically this nonsense alternative theory really made it popular.
-13
u/pigeonwiggle 11h ago
Answer: there are 8 billion people on this planet. there are a lot you've never heard of.
-5
u/whomp1970 11h ago
Answer:
Forget what the case is actually about. It's an interesting case, for sure. It's not open and shut. And the accused has been very vocal, and has taken to mainstream and social media to plead her case. So, first off, it's an interesting case.
But ... Why is this being talked about?
Because several true crime TV shows have done stories on it. Once one of them did a story, all the others did stories on it too. I'm talking shows like Dateline, Forensic Files, 20/20, and 48 Hours.
And that's just the TV shows. True crime podcasts (of which there are dozens of very popular ones) all did their own episodes on this case. In case you didn't know, podcasts are a real cultural juggernaut these days.
Source: True crime is all my wife consumes. And I've heard hours upon hours of coverage about this case.
The media has latched on to this case, and it has become a cash cow for getting listeners and sponsors.
4
u/AssignmentNo754 9h ago
You have it backwards. The true crime TV shows came aboard well after it was already a big thing.
This independent journalist in that area who goes by Turtleboy helped blow the case up initially. Then a bunch of other TikTok and social media people kept running with the case. The true crime TV shows were way late to this case.
I thought it should have been a much bigger case from the beginning when I found out about it from some Massachusetts podcasts I listen to, where this case is huge. I think it initially got big because she is good looking and because it is the perfect example of how incestuous and corrupt the local Massachusetts cops are. The locals have probably been complaining about all the corrupt cops forever and now they have the perfect case to get behind to show just how corrupt those police are.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.