![Martha Rush O'Mara Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1445093274491015196/APXK-2Un_x96.jpg)
Martha Rush O'Mara
@mromara30
Followers
2K
Following
247K
Statuses
104K
Child Welfare Attorney 🟦 No, I’m not retired yet.
Boston, MA
Joined June 2014
RT @Acyn: Garcia: I find it ironic that Marjorie Taylor Greene is in charge of running this committee. In the last congress she literally s…
0
7K
0
RT @McFaul: Everyone keeps talking about what Zelenskyy has to give up for peace. Why doesn’t anyone talk about what Putin needs to give up…
0
8K
0
RT @atrupar: Trudeau: "There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Canada will ever be the 51st state"
0
4K
0
RT @DisavowTrump20: 🚨NEW: Federal Judge James Boasberg has blocked the Department of Justice from removing January 6th videos from a public…
0
7K
0
Someone above us is cringing!
@TuesdayGazette Remember when he said God chose Karen ? And that he and Jackson are "Godly?" Only the darkest of souls manipulate religious beliefs to control other people.
1
0
4
RT @TheSpiciestLRQ: As my dad would say - his face is a map of Ireland. I will haunt the people who have done harm to him and his family. E…
0
2
0
Among the highlights…who & how does someone use “toxic” to describe their relationship with their boyfriend’s children? Who is the adult? Children are NOT toxic!
Karen Read and the "Impeachment Discovery" Yesterday, the Read team filed a motion to suggest they not be required to turn over "impeachment" discovery prior to trial. Additionally, last night the defendant herself, Karen Read, called into a live show being done by disgraced former teacher turned low level sensationalist Aidan Kearney, who is facing 18 counts including felony witness intimidation charges related to his harassment of witnesses in the murder case, to tell him to inform his audience that there is no requirement to turn over impeachment discovery by the defense. The motion was filled with unfounded accusations and dramatic, inflammatory language which seemed, like Read's call to Kearney, designed to incite supporters. The basis of their request seems to be speculation without facts. According to Read using the witnesses' trial testimony, the only reason certain witnesses answered questions a certain way was due to the CW sharing impeachment discovery with the witnesses. The first example was with Jennifer McCabe. According to the defense, the only reason Jennifer McCabe was able to answer the question about any meeting occurring between people involved in the case on January 30, 2022 with the information that she and Kerry Roberts had stopped by CPD Officer Lank's home to drop off Roberts' daughter who is friends with Lank's daughter was because the defense turned over Jen McCabe's location data in their "impeachment" discovery. On the surface, this seems eyebrow raising, except for the fact that the CW had a forensic extraction of McCabe's phone, including location data. The defense didn't give anything to the CW in this instance that they didn't already have. The next example was with John's young nephew. According to the defense, the nephew had previously testified in the grand jury that Read yelled at him for eating steak tips she had bought him too slowly and the nephew thought she yelled at him because he didn't "appreciate" Read. The defense claims they turned over a video during which Read was joking around "playfully" with the nephew while he ate in an attempt to refute the nephew's account which caused the nephew to change his testimony from steak tips to "take out." Setting aside the fact that the defense intended to call the nephew a liar during the trial to save Karen's image and not only did they proceed to do just that here, the idea that Read yelled at this child is not far fetched. Read herself described the situation with the children as "toxic" and her propensity to yell in anger is well established in the voicemails she left John that night. Given the trauma this child has been through, the idea that he might misremember or misstate what food he was eating is not only expected, to suggest otherwise to protect the defendant's "reputation" is sickening. The final instance used had absolutely nothing to do with "impeachment" discovery and rather had to do with Proctor informing Lally via text he did not intend to watch Jackson's closing. Within the text Proctor called Jackson an "asshole." This seemed to be thrown in solely for the collusion effect and to once again "garner" a reaction from Read's supporters that by "violating" a sequestration order that is doesn't appear Proctor was even under at the time, MSP and the NCDAO are "dirty." The biggest question at this point would be if the defense is not required to turn over "impeachment" discovery, why the need for such an inflammatory motion and why would the defendant be calling into YouTube shows to reach supporters? The answer is likely threefold: 1. In hopes the media will pick it up and run with the cOrRuPtIoN aspect, 2. A call to arms for her supporters and 3. Desperation.
1
0
4
If he’s an award winner, why is he still anonymous. 🤔 Asking for a friend.
@AJ1801511284612 Another award winning journalist! X is just full of them.
0
0
1
Oh… she has a reputation? 😳
Karen Read has been clear that above all, public perception of her is of the utmost importance. She's done several media interview to salvage her image, and she told Julie Miller in the Vanity Fair article that she "googles herself every morning." These media attempts as well as her presence on social media platforms attempting to control the narrative support the image over everything campaign she has been on. Yesterday, she took this to another level when in a motion she accused John's young nephew of lying about her under oath. Listen to the video below to hear just how important her "reputation" is to her.
0
0
0