If the Commonwealth truly believed Jen McCabe didn’t make the incriminating “hos long to die in cold” Google search at 2:27am, they’re well aware they could’ve easily disproved it in about 2 seconds flat by subpoenaing Google. That costs them nothing, and they have subpoena power. But that is, of course, if they were actually confident and believed this search didn’t occur. Why haven’t they subpoenaed Google? Don’t they want to get at the truth of the matter? Seems like they’re afraid of what the truth will show. That alone is alarming, and should concern every member of the public. This is another reason why defendants seldom pursue a third party culpability defense. Why? Because unlike the defense, the state has subpoena power and can immediately obtain third-party records, like from Google and Verizon for instance, that could easily get at the truth of the matter and refute a defendant’s claims—that is, if their claims are untrue. This is why if a defendant is truly guilty, it’s ill-advised to pursue a third-party culpability defense because it can easily be shot down. Particularly such a targeted and precise third party culpability defense as Read’s. This theory of defense, however, would be pursued by an individual who cares more about justice—say, for their loved one—and about exonerating herself. A guilty person cares more about getting off. An innocent person cares more about the truth. The state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, why would a defendant who’s guilty pursue a theory of defense that essentially shifts this burden when they only have to raise reasonable doubt? Hint: they wouldn’t. The Commonwealth’s case against Karen Read has enough reasonable doubt to drive a Mack truck through it—and that’s an understatement. Karen Read appears to be a smart woman. Do you really think if she were at all guilty she would pursue a theory that the state could easily disprove? The state can’t even prove their OWN case, as is—of course she wouldn’t! If Karen Read were truly guilty, why would she be asking, practically begging, the state to hand over evidence that would incriminate her? Probably because they know it wouldn’t incriminate her. And/or probably because they know it would incriminate others. And if she were truly guilty, and the evidence would incriminate her, then why has the state, at every turn, fought against turning over the evidence? In fact, they’ve even gone great lengths to sabotage or avoid getting Court-ordered evidence, by sending improper preservation letters or asking Ring Security how long their data is stored in their systems (90 days) so they could intentionally run out the clock and file a search warrant for the system nearly a year later so this data would forever be lost, for instance. These actions appear to reflect overwhelming Brady violations (withholding of exculpatory evidence) by the state. The Touhy evidence, however, will likely recuperate many of these discrepancies—recovering much of this withheld, “lost”, sabotaged, or “destroyed” exculpatory evidence. The Feds didn’t turn over 3,000+ pages of nothing-burgers! This will be BIG! And the Commonwealth only has themselves to thank for they’ve made their own beds. Just a reminder, The DOJ informed DA Michael Morrissey’s Office that: “Based on my understanding from that discussion with USA Levy, his office has a very different opinion of the circumstances in this case than as presented in Mr. Morrissey's letter.” Do the actions of DA Michael Morrissey’s Office, or The Commonwealth, reflect a prosecution that cares more about getting at the truth of the matter—getting justice for Officer #JohnOKeefe, who was so callously murdered, or trying to confirm their bias in their attempts to prove their case against #KarenRead? What evidence are you most eager to see? #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonMA #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption

Explaining to your dad how to open Peacock for the millionth time