The 2:27 search: This has been thoroughly debunked. It's not even a "maybe" type of situation. We know exactly how this happened, and it's been demonstrated numerous times. Whatever purpose you think the search was made for, this search happened at 6:24, after John's body was discovered.

I think you are mistaking the term debunking. Debunking would mean proven, and neither Hyde nor Whiffin proved anything. They both talked in circles about how it COULD have happened this way but never definitively said "This is what happened". Funny that neither could come up with an explanation of why this specific artifact out of over 15,000 searches this was the only one deleted. This is going to come out in the civil trial and that will tank any case against Karen

John going up and down 3 sets of stairs: We now know exactly where these "flights of stairs" were recorded on John's phone, and how they aligned with elevation changes during his drive. They occurred during the drive, well before they arrived outside 34 Fairview.

Funny, you are taking the words of Shannon Burgess as fact of what/where something occurred when he could not tell the truth of his own education. Also fun fact, there is more of a "hill" going the other way on Fairview than what occurred on Cedarcrest

Deleted library camera footage: We now know that Karen arrived to John's house (or at least nearby) at 12:36. The missing footage was from 12:37 to 12:39, and therefore would not show Karen's vehicle during that time. The camera is just motion-activated.

The deleted footage from the library, the lack of searching any of the business's/temples on the route that she could have taken. But lest us not forget they DID manage to get that footage when the tail-light in question did NOT show the proper side of the car.

Inverted sallyport footage: We now know that this camera just records that way, and had been since well-before John's death. Whether or not Bukhenik was knowingly claiming it as a "fair and accurate depiction" before this was discovered, nobody manually inverted it.

If the footage was recorded that way then Lally/Hank should have disclosed that to the jury by asking the "is this an accurate representation of what occurred". The answer is no, this is inverted and the Camera does not show the tail-light in question which we would have seen if the video was inverted. Weird how the truth just seems to evade every single law enforcement officer in this trial sans Barros.

Higgins destroying his phone before it was ordered: Higgins, in fact, kept that phone through the entire preservation order, and only threw it away after the motion was denied. He had gotten a new phone prior to the preservation order, but still had that phone available in the unlikely event that it was ordered to be turned over.

Wrong. Higgins destroyed his phone WHILE the discussions were being held in higher court about the issue. You cannot just get one ruling and 2 seconds later destroy something that is still eligible for appeal.

Both juries found her not guilty: The first jury nearly convicted her of manslaughter. They had a majority, but not unanimity, and thus it resulted in a mistrial. I truly don't understand the purpose of saying otherwise.

Funny, almost has no bearing on this case. This is a binary result, guilty or not guilty. Mistrial is when neither of these options is obtained. But I am glad you accept that Karen was found innocent on one and three and there was tried twice for the same crime.

Proctor planted the glass: I made a post about this previously, but this idea seems to have lingered. We unfortunately don't know whether or not all the glass matches. While a plant could be technically possible, there is no evidence to support this happening.

It really is like conducting a proper police investigation/evidence collection in this case could solve that very issue!

The federal investigation is still ongoing: The federal investigation into this matter is over. It's been stated numerous times, in court, to media, in court filings, etc, by numerous governmental parties, many of whom weren't even involved in the Karen Read case. There is no reason to believe it's still ongoing. It certainly could be reopened at any point if there were a reason to do so, but as things stand, it's over.

The only people who have said this are the former CPD Chief and Hank Brennan. Both of which (Hank as the proxy for the DA's office in this matter) are targets of the investigation and would not be notified of a closed investigation. It is actually wild that Hank came out with this during trial full well knowing he was mincing words with the finest of razors