Karen Read Autographs Her Own Mugshot.
Tuesday Briefing: In limine filings, a new documentary series, and another bizarre giveaway. Grab your coffee, let's do this!
Countdown is on…
Karen Read’s trial is set to begin in TWO weeks.
I think it’s fair to say that most — if not all — of us are beyond ready to get this new trial in front of a jury. It’s been a long, rumor-filled road with lots of online debates and relentless conspiracy propaganda being tossed around.
(Speaking of conspiracies, if you haven’t checked it out yet, I wrote a guest post over at True Crime Times about how we can avoid falling down nonsensical rabbit holes.)
Today we will cover what’s happened —
👉OUTSIDE OF COURT
👉ON THE DOCKET
OUTSIDE OF COURT:
Karen Read’s fundraising takes another bizarre turn. As if raffling off a dinner date with the murder defendant (and her attorneys) wasn’t tacky enough, there’s currently a giveaway to win a signed copy of Karen’s framed mugshot.
The girlfriend of Turtleboy (a man who is charged with over a dozen felonies for harassing witnesses in Karen’s case), is throwing this giveaway in celebration of her own birthday.
The winner gets a shoutout from both Turtleboy’s girlfriend and “Auntie Deb”. Auntie Deb is a man who has mockingly dressed up as the Judge presiding over Karen’s trial. He did a ‘comedic speech’ at a dinner party that Karen Read hosted back in November 2024 where he got on stage and fat-shamed a young female witness in the case, as well as made demeaning comments about a female member of the Albert family.
The audience — filled with Karen’s favorite people — laughed along.
Investigation Discovery aired a documentary on Karen Read on 3/17/25. This interview needs an entire post on its own. I will try and do a write up on it soon, but I highly suggest watching it to gain some insight into Karen’s behaviors and statements regarding John’s death.
One thing to note is that in this interview Karen talks about a phone call she made to John 2-3 minutes after he allegedly entered the Albert home. She says he never answered, which made her upset. She then waited for about ten minutes before driving away.
The problem is…
That call does not exist in the phone records.
The first call she actually makes to him is after she drove away from the property. She made this mistake in her Dateline interview as well, and I believe both those interviews were done prior to Trooper Guarino’s testimony showing that the first call was actually made about a minute before connecting to John’s home wifi. In other interviews filmed after the first trial, her storyline doesn’t mention making that call.
ON THE DOCKET:
Lots of ‘in limine’ fillings dominated the docket in the past week. (In limine is basically a type of motion requesting to include or exclude particular evidence).
A lot of the requests filed were seemingly standard, while others appear more like hopeful attempts to get things removed or approved for trial.
I gathered a handful that I deemed most interesting below…
✅Commonwealth filed an opposition regarding the defense’s motion to allow evidence of lack of bias. This motion is an interesting read if you have the time.
✅Defense seeks to exclude Karen’s BAC blood alcohol content testing results. Her levels were around a .08% when she had her blood drawn that morning, and a specialist did a retrograde extrapolation to show the range of how intoxicated Karen was around the timeframe of when she last saw John. The numbers show she was between .13%-.29%.
✅Defense seeks to exclude witnesses past criminal history. (Impounded) I can only assume this motion is regarding the criminal past of defense’s tech expert, Richard Green. He was charged with making a false police report years ago at a place called McNasty’s Bar in Florida.
✅Commonwealth seeks to protect jurors’ names and identification.
✅Defense seeks the court to reconsider their denied request to exclude Commonwealth’s dog expert - The filing in this link is to their initial request, since I do not have access to the motion for reconsideration. I assume their main arguments are close to the same, but can’t confirm that entirely without the document.
✅Defense seeks to exclude the Commonwealth’s vehicle reconstruction expert, and the CW opposes that motion.
✅Commonwealth seeks to exclude defense’s dog trainer expert Garret Wing.
✅Commonwealth seeks for a buffer zone and order prohibiting signs or clothing in favor of either party or law enforcement.
✅Commonwealth seeks to exclude defense’s expert Michael Easter's opinion of the investigation. The defense wants to have a retired FBI agent (who was not involved in the actual federal investigation) to testify that the investigation was done poorly. The Commonwealth opposes this idea because proving an investigation was done poorly can and should happen on cross-examination of the actual witnesses involved in the investigation. CW states that this man’s opinion is devoid of critical information, as well as not taking into consideration the blizzard weather circumstances involved in the crime scene. CW also states that there is no inclination that this person has training or experience in investigating homicides, specifically in the first few critical days of an investigation.
⭐️Two hearings are taking place this week.