Svk
@Svk440
Followers
10
Following
1K
Statuses
59
@_nikkiconway_ It's also quite funny, given their first choice of expert in the matter of dog bite identification was Frank Sheridan, MD – who offered the exact same conclusion as Marie Russell, MD, all the way back in February of 2023 per affidavit
0
0
3
@TedDanielnews I think that's the third incorrect spelling of ARCCA that I've seen Brennan use
2
0
14
@meredithoneil The identities of grand jurors are presumed public under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 234a, § 67, unless otherwise ordered: Sleuthie likely just got the document prior to the 04/10/2024 or 07/06/2024 impoundment order (#291 & #372)
0
0
7
@susanevaughn @saltyqueen2222 @ghoulia @bosoxgrl79 My apologies, it's from Commonwealth v. McLeod (1985): It is a very high bar, as the ruling makes clear (it even states that an unprejudiced grand jury is not a right); but to argue it has been met is nonetheless permissible speech
1
0
0
@susanevaughn @saltyqueen2222 @ghoulia @bosoxgrl79 Ok? Partiality of a grand juror (by familial ties) may be questioned: "(...) the defendant would be entitled to a hearing on a prima facie showing of “bias or prejudice so egregious as to result in an indictment based on ‘hatred or malice ” in violation of the grand jurors oath"
1
0
1
@susanevaughn @saltyqueen2222 @ghoulia @bosoxgrl79 I'd urge you to review Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 234a, § 67: Not only the identities of grand jurors are presumed public, but their addresses and dates of birth as well, unless otherwise ordered See also:
1
0
2
@TuesdayGazette You mean the one that Grant doxxed, by amplifying the reply of a rando – but yes, apart from them
NEW OVERNIGHT; A follower of blogger Aiden #TurtleBoy Kearney --himself under investigation for jury tampering in the context of the #KarenReadTrial-- has doxxed the foreperson of the jury from the first #KarenRead/#JohnOKeefe trial (in violation of an active court order protecting juror identities). The public post on social media late Sunday night (which I will not be releasing in an unredacted form) was a screenshot of a social media profile that matches with a juror that I, personally, saw in the courtroom sitting in first chair (this person was eventually selected as foreperson). If the Court will take action on this flagrant violation of an order protecting juror identities in the case is unclear. Jurors in the first #KarenReadTrial voted 9-3 guilty as to Read engaging in OUI manslaughter to cause John’s death (by hitting John with her car, while backing up at 24.2 MPH at exactly 12:31am on that fateful January morning). Then, according to the state’s evidence, Read left John to die in the snow, for over four hours, before returning to the crime scene, leaving John again, and then coming back to John’s body with two witnesses (at which point Karen then confessed to hitting John in front of multiple first responders and in front of those witnesses). Read is currently appealing a denied post-trial motion to dismiss, which will be heard by the state’s highest court (the SJC) sometime in November. Read’s re-trial will then begin in late January of 2025 (barring a delay for a change of venue). Read is scheduled to be re-tried starting in January of 2025. O'Keefe's family, further, filed a civil lawsuit against Read --and the bars that served Karen in the hours before John's death-- that is ongoing - Kearney, and a number of his followers, are also facing criminal charges for witness intimidation as to their work within Karen Read's pre-trial PR apparatus. More background here - #Dont #FreeKareRead #ConvictKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #JusticeForJJ
1
0
1
@TuesdayGazette Such a restriction exists for the federal court, as set down in D. Mass. Jury Plan (10)(f), but not so for the state courts: the identity of grand jurors is presumed public unless otherwise ordered, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 234A, § 67:
1
0
2
@TuesdayGazette I linked the Drive document in my reply– indictments are indeed public, they are listed as a type of public case information available at a courthouse terminal here: And available to the public online here:
1
0
0
@OnTheRecordSC Hey Steno, I don't believe this is really new, the indictment has been uploaded to one of the more popular public repositories since August of 2023 An indictment is a public record, so there's no legal issue with discussing the contents thereof:
1
0
7
@AbbyElizabt Gotcha, so you're saying they uploaded the floppy disk onto Michael W. Morrissey personal iCloud account
0
0
2
@AbbyElizabt Cheers, so likely not quite until say June 2nd, 2023 – the last modification date of a whole bunch of those files as shown in the brief file explorer shot at trial
1
0
1
@AbbyElizabt In your estimation, how many days of footage could potentially be stored on an 8TB DVR at the likely settings of the CPD cameras? (I suppose expressed as camera-days, to be divided per the total number of cameras)
1
0
1
@CancelWokeness That seems to be a search warrant, see:
@jude022low I'm afraid that's a search warrant that was turned over in discovery, likely related to the Geofence data included in the same notice You can tell by the 'SW' in the docket entry; the Stoughton docket itself is numbered 2255CR000066 ('CR' for criminal)
0
0
0
@jude022low I'm afraid that's a search warrant that was turned over in discovery, likely related to the Geofence data included in the same notice You can tell by the 'SW' in the docket entry; the Stoughton docket itself is numbered 2255CR000066 ('CR' for criminal)
0
0
2
@kreadisinnocent @BostonDefender See also this excerpt from the October 3rd, 2022 hearing when the motion to renew the Stoughton filings was argued:
1
0
10