Judge Rules: Karen Read was not Misled.
Tuesday Briefing: Recent hearing summary, and more filings on the docket.
It’s Tuesday!
Here’s what you may have missed this past week in the Karen Read case.
Hearing Summary for 2/6/22 -
This past Thursday’s hearing primarily focused on arguments regarding the Defense’s motion seeking monetary reimbursement from the Commonwealth.
As you may recall…
Karen Read was asking the state to foot the bill for her digital tech expert’s full travel expenses when he flew out from Arizona to Massachusetts.
The defense claimed that the Commonwealth misled them into believing that the original security footage (from 3 years prior) was still accessible from the police station’s surveillance system. When their expert arrived at the station, he learned that the footage was actually not available due to it being overwritten in the system. The expert’s trip was therefore fruitless.
The Commonwealth argued back that they never misled the defense.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan says he spoke with Defense attorney Alan Jackson on the phone, and Brennan actually concurred with Jackson that it was not a guarantee that any footage from three years prior would still be on the system. It was a risk, but Brennan said they were welcome to try if they wanted to. The defense then asked to have no one touch the system until their expert arrived, and that request was granted.
When the tech expert arrived to the police station, he discovered that zero of the footage was available on the system any longer. It had been written over due to time and memory space, which they knew was a possibility.
The judge asked Defense Attorney Alan Jackson if Prosecutor Brennan did in fact agree with him over the risk, and Jackson danced around the question without answering it.
We know what that means…
Brennan was being truthful, and Jackson was trying to manipulate and mislead the court.
In fact —
Jackson danced around the entire motion that was scheduled to be argued. Instead, he spent time arguing what both the CW and the judge noted as a completely different motion that has yet to be even filed.
So in conclusion…
The judge denied Karen’s request for reimbursement.
You might be asking yourself…
Why does the defense want to access the security system if they were already provided the footage last trial via a digital link?
Excellent question.
The defense claims that they want the raw data to see if they can recover missing footage. They assert that the footage in discovery has an accumulation of missing time, and that they believe it was intentionally deleted.
Last trial…
It was testified that the security cameras are ‘motion-activated' and that the time gaps are simply short bursts of time frames that were not triggered by a sensor, however the defense disagrees with this.
(If you have followed this case for years now, like myself, you’re likely rolling your eyes as well because we’ve heard relentless claims about things being missing, which ended up not being missing at all. For example: Some Karen Read advocates demanded that the victim’s belt, hat, sweatshirt, and shoe were missing from evidence. Alleging that these missing items were proof that John went into the Albert home. Some people even claimed they were buried in a backyard pool. The Albert dog was also rumored to be missing. The defense never cleared this info up, and simply let it help craft their narrative in the public.)
Now…
Whether the defense actually believes there is missing security footage, or this is just another attempt to paint an ordinary event in a nefarious light is up for debate. You can probably guess my feelings on this topic.
There’s even more to discuss about the defense’s arguments regarding the police station footage that I already touched on in this update, so to avoid being redundant and long-winded, I will let you head to that article if you need a refresher.
I think it’s fair to expect this video footage topic to be part of the larger filing to dismiss that Alan Jackson said in court that they are “thinking” about filing, so stay tuned on that.
New Noteworthy Filings:
Defense is seeking more time to respond to new discovery provided by the Commonwealth. This includes vehicle data updates.
Judge Cannone approves Journalist Gretchen Voss’ request for reconsideration regarding her handwritten notes for an off-record portion of the interview with Karen Read back in 2023. The handwritten notes will not be part of the trial.
Here’s the summary of Voss’ affidavit if you need a refresher:
