Karen Read Trial - Take 2 (1 Viewer)

[ASHES]

 

[gboisjo]

Jackson has tempered his aggression this time around IMO. Partly because there was no acquittal, stunned. Add to that there may have been a shitload of feedback on his blitzkrieg style of lawyering.

Either way he's more polite and less hostile this time around.

 

[ASHES]

The data doesn't lie, no matter how much Commonwealth witnesses do.

 

[ASHES]

The extraction before they fudged Cellebrite not to read the data (even though Axiom still does.)




Of course it looks terrible this incriminating search and the orchestrated cover-up of it by their star witness who heard the confession and all that, of course they're going to muddy the waters about what it means when Cellebrite says a search happened at a certain time. Won't see them doing that when they're using those same Google searches against defendants though.

 

[ASHES]

Back in court after lunch to resume testimony with Jessica Hyde, now on cross.

 

[ASHES]

She is asked about the papers she has. It's 5 different reports written for various other proceedings, like the previous trial, grand juries, etc.

She is now asked about her previous involvement in a Massachusetts case where she filed an amicus brief. She says she didn't do it to support the prosecution in that case. She is asked if the position she took in that case was "The frequent location history data is reliable and should be used." She answers

"The statement that frequent-I do not have that amicus in front of me, it has been a year and a half since I read it, um but that amicus does discuss frequent location history records and I want to be clear it speaks to the bias on both sides in negative and positive of (incoherent mumbling), and it is an unbiased writing and it was not specifically in support of the prosecution."

 

[ASHES]

She is asked if she wrote in a previous report that after examining O'Keefe's phone data, that he had no interactions with his phone after 12:20am. (He actually used his phone up to 12:32am according to the extraction and Whiffen).

Her answer is that there's no further evidence of interaction with the phone until it is picked up at 6:04am.

That doesn't answer the question, so he asks it again. He also refers her to page 15 in the report in question. He reads it to her while she reads along. "Using a variety of different artifacts, we can see active interaction with the mobile device up until 12:20:50am"

Then he asks her again if she wrote that in her report. She says yes.

He asks if after skipping a few sentences in the report, she wrote the following:

"From that point (12:20:50) there is no indication of interaction with the device."

She says Mhm and is corrected and then says "yes."

 

[ASHES]

I'm going to be going mostly afk but still listening the rest of the day. Will update with anything important if it happens.

 

[ASHES]

She's confronted with the activities of O'Keefe after 12:20:50, which is already in evidence, after saying what she said about it in her report was correct.



She was wrong about when he last used his phone.

 

[ASHES]

Many inconsistenties in her previous reports are pointed out. A previous one said it was unknown why the 2:27am search appeared. She's also met with Tully over 10 times to discuss her analysis.

 

[ASHES]

She previously testified it's important to verify results with multiple tools in an investigation. She used just Axiom and Cellebrite. She wrote in previous reports it could have been many things that caused the Google search artifact she just didn't know. Now she says what Whiffen says, that it's when the new tab was opened.

She testified at the last trial regarding the 2:27am artifact, "That means it wasn't in the regular database it was in the write ahead log, and to Cellebrite's credit, that tool actually parsed the write ahead log and displayed it where the other tools did not."

She says that's what she said according to the transcript. That means that at the time of her previous testimony, the Cellebrite software did see the 2:27am google search in a deleted state.

Now though, of course, after they updated it because of this trial, it doesn't see the artifact any more. Other software tools still do, like Axiom.

In a new report after the trial in December 2024, a year and a half after her May 2023 report from above, and months after she testified in the first trial, she looked through the data again for the 2:27am hos long to die time stamp, and it was no longer showing up in Cellebrite Physical Analyzer. Agrees Cellebrite removed it from automatically parsing and reporting.

 

[ASHES]

She used to be director of forensics at Magnet Axiom, so her ex employer's software still shows the search, but not Cellebrite.

Asked if she previously testified it was best practice and that she had used many multiple tools for her previous reports, she agrees. Regarding her report from the December 2024 analysis of the search of Jennifer McCabe at 2:27am for hos long to die in cold, she claims to have used 4 tools. Referring to the report, under relevant findings, she wrote "review of data from Cellebrite shows that the artifact of a Google search from a Safari suspended state tab with a search term 'hos long to die in cold'."

 

[ASHES]

She is questioned regarding release notes for Cellebrite listed in her December report. It said "Cellebrite removed the timestamp value from records."

She says that means Cellebrite no longer parses that result but it still exists in the data.

Asked if there's a reference in the conclusion of the report to any other company but Cellebrite, she says "in this report no."

Finally. That was the point.

 

[ASHES]

Stands by her previous trial testimony that it is important to use multiple tools. Says "absolutely."

Going back to the report in December of 2024 where the only tool named in the conclusion is Cellebrite, she is asked about Apple source code. She agrees it is closed source.

She won't agree that having access to the source code would be helpful in finding the most accurate data available in the phone. Now she's asked of her opinion of Whiffen. She thinks he's great, she's reviewed some of his previous work and recommended him to the Commonwealth.

Going back to the hos long searches, she says 0 of the 3 (or 2 depending on who you believe) hos long to die in cold search artifacts were located in the history.db database (where they should be if she'd visited them.)

 

[ASHES]

She is continuously interrupting him and trying to finish his questions. It's very annoying. Always trying to get out in front and predict where he's going.

She's getting spanked by her boy Whiffen's own reports regarding the unsigned hash value for McCabe's phone and/or the pdf created by the extraction.

 

[ASHES]

Now he's letting her prattle on about best practice for extracting a phone for evidence. Bunch of stuff that the Commonwealth of course didn't do with O'Keefe or McCabe's phones.

She's released for redirect.

 

[ASHES]

Her understanding is that it's not a reliable timestamp so Cellebrite removed it.

It's not reliable because it implicates guilty knowledge by the prosecution's star witness.

 

[ASHES]

On recross, asked if Cellebrite lists any reason why they wrote "not unreliable timestamp" in the release notes for the update that removed the McCabe search artifact from results, she says they received further research but not what it is.

Says it's correct that currently Axiom does recover the artifact, and Cellebrite does not.

She finishes by agreeing protocol regarding data preservation wasn't followed, and that the last interaction on O'Keefe's phone was him taking steps from 12:31:56 until 12:32:16.

That's it for the day.

 

[ASHES]

This is a great video that compares Jennifer McCabe's various testimonies and some of the inconsistenties between them.

Just 21 minutes.


:30 Skip intro

2:07-6:30 Some of the inconsistenties in her testimony. When her testimony is inconsistent with Proctor's reports or Tully's reports, she claims the reports are inaccurate:



6:31- 10:32 More inconsistencies in her testimonies and reports.


10:33-12:38 A couple more things


12:39-16:57 The group chat texts

• DISCUSSION ABOUT MEDIA PRESENCE:
• INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE NARRATIVE ABOUT JOHN O KEEFE:
• MONITORING AND REPORTING ON WITNESS INTERVIEWS:
• CONCERNS ABOUT CARRIE ROBERTS' STATEMENTS:
• DISCUSSION ABOUT KAREN READ'S POTENTIAL ACTIONS:
• EXPRESSION OF IMPATIENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION:

16:58-19:34 The Judge regarding rulings on the group texts

19:35-20:52 Conclusion

 

[Josie]

Another day where I'll say the defense is doing a much better job than the first trial.

However, the jury has to be wondering ---- why haven't we heard from the lead investigator yet?

 

[ASHES]

Another day where I'll say the defense is doing a much better job than the first trial.

However, the jury has to be wondering ---- why haven't we heard from the lead investigator yet?

No lead investigator, no medical expert, no crash expert by day 11.

 

[Josie]

I think the testimony of the phone expert was incredibly confusing. Alessi wasn't great.

 

[daeler]

I am sure the defense will put on an interesting display when the ME and Proctor are called.

I would think the prosecution would just leave Proctor off since he is such a horrible witness for this case.

 

[ASHES]

I am sure the defense will put on an interesting display when the ME and Proctor are called.

We have seen them both crossed before. Bad for the Commonwealth is the ME, who says no hypothermia or frostbite, and the injuries were consistent with being beaten/a dog or animal attack and aren't consistent with car pedestrian injuries (lack of bruises, fractured bones in the limbs or torso.)

I would think the prosecution would just leave Proctor off since he is such a horrible witness for this case.

They would, but then it looks worse when the defense brings him and his "pin it on the girl with the leaky ass the homeowner has nothing to worry about he's a Boston cop too thanks get my wife the gift not me" texts.

 

[daeler]

We have seen them both crossed before. Bad for the Commonwealth is the ME, who says no hypothermia or frostbite, and the injuries were consistent with being beaten/a dog or animal attack and aren't consistent with car pedestrian injuries (lack of bruises, fractured bones in the limbs or torso.)

To be fair the ME said the injuries being caused by a beating with fists were "possible" and the marks on the arm being dog bites were "possible"

They would, but then it looks worse when the defense brings him and his "pin it on the girl with the leaky ass the homeowner has nothing to worry about he's a Boston cop too thanks get my wife the gift not me" texts.

Those were all very bad for the cop, good for the defense. I imagine the prosecution has prepped Proctor to be better on the stand.