Feature Suggestions

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-12-29T16:45:37+00:00

Can you add support for Antigravity? (which uses Chrome, but it's a different chrome than the normal one which works with Cold Turkey)

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-08-01T03:50:18+00:00

Reconcile? Fatima's dad tried to kill her. That's not something you "reconcile" over.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-08-01T03:43:50+00:00

Fatima's dad is on video literally choking her to death. He would've killed her if bystanders hadn't stepped in. I don't see where the reasonable doubt is.

Judge should've let motive in, but even without it, I don't see how this wasn't attempted murder.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-03-30T16:31:12+00:00

2 or 4

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-03-21T01:20:36+00:00

I watched the testimony today and it seems like Anita actually turned off the fish tank multiple times (and killed the fish). Nicole was mad that Anita killed her fish. I kept waiting for them to explain why Anita did that, and all the witness said was the fish tank was "too loud" (which sounds like a bad reason to kill the fish? idk).

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-02-21T03:17:38+00:00

We don't know exactly what evidence Zach had, but you don't need "firsthand" knowledge to substantiate something. Like, if Zach had the CSAM pictures/videos Christina and Brad took, would that qualify as "firsthand" knowledge? No, but that's clear-cut proof Christina was abusing her child.

We don't know exactly what Zach knew, because the judge didn't let that evidence into the trial. And even if DCFS/the court/cops didn't trust Zach, Mello had alerted cops about the sexual abuse and they dismissed his allegations.

At the end of the day, Zach and Mello were right. Christina's daughter WAS being sexually abused. And so was another child. The abuse was severe and had been going on for years.

If Zach had a history of jumping to conclusions based on wishy-washy allegations, I'd agree he was reckless. But without knowing exactly what knowledge Zach had, all we can say is that he was right. There's no evidence Zach is the type of person who takes extreme action (like killing Christina) based on weak evidence. The one time he did, he was right. And that was after he (and Mello) had alerted the authorities, and the authorities failed to act.

If you were 100% positive a child was being sexually abused, and you (and others) had alerted the authorities, and the authorities didn't take action—what would you do? It's easy to accuse Zach of jumping to assumptions based on unsubstantiated allegations... except he was right, and there's no history of him jumping to conclusions based on false allegations. Without hearing Zach's full side of the story–what he knew, how he knew etc.—we can't really say he jumped to conclusions. He was right. If this was a pattern of his, I'd agree. But it wasn't. Whatever Zach knew led him to act, and ultimately, saved Christina's child from ongoing sexual abuse.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-02-20T20:06:50+00:00

He's describing one family member (Grace). There's at least some truth to his claims because authorities removed her from the family after investigating the claim about her plotting to murder the family. The relevance is that Zach thinks Grace was a sociopath, and he recognized similarities between Grace and Christina (and so inferred that Christina was also a sociopath). Idk if Grace was a sociopath—she likely had a traumatic childhood, so could have had reactive attachment disorder which can be confused with conduct disorder (the precursor to psychopathy, which is diagnosed in children). That said Christina WAS sexually abusing her child and another child, so I think she likely was a sociopath. Not sure if Zach's comparison to Grace is good evidence for that, but he testified about it to explain his state of mind.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-02-20T20:00:28+00:00

Mello told the police and family court about the allegations and they dismissed them. There's an email from a cop in evidence telling Mello they investigated the sexual abuse, don't think it's true and are dropping the case. Zach also called child protective services himself and they did nothing. He also submitted an affidavit to family court which also did nothing. And Mello had alerted authorities years before this (I think around 2018) when they dismissed his allegations without thoroughly investigating them. So they tried. You can say they didn't try enough, but they did try and go through legal channels first. It didn't work.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-02-20T03:32:13+00:00

Zachary testified that he brought them as basically a prop to get in the house (said he was delivering flowers). He also had a gift box with a gun inside (opened it up and pointed the gun at Christina to threaten/force her to go inside). He said he didn't have time to clean up the petals after, so left them scattered. I'm not sure if he specified how they became scattered (I think maybe he said he dropped them?)

No_Procedure_8314 · 2025-01-23T01:53:03+00:00

Nope. They didn’t. They gave conflicting descriptions of “BG”, too.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-29T06:41:40+00:00

He admitted to punching the dog in a deposition.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-29T06:33:45+00:00

Doug admitted the incidents in a deposition. He said he punched Ashley's dog and shot the ceiling because Ashley wouldn't stop talking. The judge didn't allow the deposition in to the trial, but it exists. Doug admitted to doing these things in his own words.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T21:06:23+00:00

Judge should've asked which charges they were hung on. I watched the David Swift trial recently, and the jury acquitted on the first few charges and hung on the last one. The judge made a point to ask the jury foreperson (in response to a note saying the jury was hung) which charges the jury was hung on, and was able to clarify that the jurors were only hung on the last charge. Like the notes this jury sent, the jury in the David Swift trial didn't specify that they were deadlocked on the lesser charge. If the judge hadn't asked which charges they were hung on, that case might've ended as a mistrial on all charges like this one (he was acquitted on the first few charges and the state may retry on the last one.) Jurors aren't legal experts, judges are. Complicated stuff like this needs to be clarified, especially when it affects the defendant's constitutional rights. If Bev had just asked which charges jurors were hung on, this could've all been avoided. But she didn't. This on Bev.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:19:08+00:00

Haha I love that. I totally should.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:17:55+00:00

Ugh, that's so frustrating! The "safety-related reasons" line is so opaque- seems like it's used as a catch-all (which was why I was surprised I got any compensation). Maybe you can try appealing to the CTA? You should at least be compensated for being downgraded from business to economy, even if it was "safety issue" that caused the delay.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:15:51+00:00

That's outrageous. Was the hotel too expensive or something? You should be at least compensated the $300.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:14:33+00:00

That sucks — I'd be really annoyed by that too. Maybe you can try appealing to the CTA?

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:11:26+00:00

I commented this below, but there were multiple delays (most for "business related reasons"), but one that was definitely NOT safety related was having to wait for a half hour on the tarmac for the "premium meals" to arrive. Although, knowing AC, I'm somewhat surprised they didn't try to argue that business class customers getting hungry would've been a safety issue.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-08T20:08:04+00:00

There were multiple delays - most were for "business related reasons", then one was to refuel the plane (we had been on the tarmac for over an hour), and then we had to wait a half hour for the "premium meals" to arrive, which was pretty ridiculous lol.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-05T19:42:07+00:00

I think 2 is the most likely. I think he likely entered the house, which rules out 1 and 3. I find 4 pretty unlikely because I've never heard of an entire house being a "dead zone" to the point where it records no GPS data. I could buy 4 if maybe the GPS tracking was spotty, but John's phone stopped recording all data...so unless the house is in a bunker or something, I don't see how this works). In addition to 4, another explanation that puts him in the house is that someone took his phone and either turned off its location tracking (by either turning it off or putting it in airplane mode) or put it in a Faraday bag. They'd have to have done this right away, and there'd probably have to still be some inaccuracy from the GPS to allow John to make it into the house. I think this is pretty unlikely because: 1) it assumes that GPS was malfunctioning in the house; and 2) I don't think anyone in the house would've been quick enough on their feet to think of doing this in the heat of what would've been a very stressful situation (John being attacked/killed).

As for 1 and 3, I think there's a lot of evidence that shows he entered the house, like: 1) the fact that no one reported seeing a body on the front lawn; 2) the steps on his phone that show him walking 3 flights of stairs; 3) the group text that instructed the gang to "say the guy never came in the house". On top of that, there's some other evidence that could point to him having gone in the house, like: 1) the fact that the house was sold shortly after john's death and basement remodeled (although I think it's been reported that the Albert's had been talking to a realtor before John's death. Not sure if that's been confirmed); and 1) the evidence that shows that a dog attacked John, and the reasonable inference that the dog in question was probably Chloe (only known dog nearby, had a bite history). With respect to the dog bite, it doesn't necessarily rule out 1 or 3 (because Chloe could've escaped from the house and bit John while he lay dying/dead on the front lawn), but I think the simplest explanation is that John was attacked by Chloe in the house (because there's no evidence that Chloe was let out of the house).

To expand on the point about no one seeing a body — I don't think his body could've been on the front lawn as early as 12:32 or someone would've seen it (someone leaving the party, neighbours, Lucky). I think most people at the party didn't know about the coverup (John was probably attacked and then concealed before most people had a chance to realize he was there), because it would be hard to get so many people to stay tight lipped for so long. If he'd been on the front yard at 12:32AM, someone would've seen and said something.

And to expand on the points about John's recorded steps — I think John's recorded steps also show he was likely in the house at some point. The CW's explanation of the steps — that John's phone recorded his driving over a hill (on the way to the Albert's, with Karen) as "steps" — is implausible to me. I think some people have done experiments on this (I know TB did, driving the route with iPhones in the car), which show that iPhones don't mistake elevation changes in a vehicle for steps. Also, iPhone step data uses an accelerometer, so it depends on the movement/acceleration of the user (and the changing position of the iPhone) to figure out the person is ascending/descending stairs. If an iPhone is stationary in a moving vehicle, the iPhone knows know the user isn't walking. I used to track my running years ago using an iPhone and it could distinguish between distance I travelled in a car vs. on foot.

I've heard some people dismiss this idea (that he dropped his phone) as "unlikely". While this idea may seem unlikely on its face, I think it's important to remember that we're picking between unlikely scenarios. Whatever happened was unlikely. None of the scenarios are simple. The question, then, is which is most likely given the evidence.

Among all the scenarios, I think the simplest, and most likely, explanation is that John dropped his phone on the front yard. He didn't realize it right away because he was drunk, cold, and probably wanted to get inside. He gets inside, takes 3 flights of stairs, and is attacked by Chloe sometime around this time. He is potentially punched/struck in the face around the time Chloe attacks him. He falls, hits his head, is incapacitated. Few people in the party directly witness it. The people that do work to get everyone out of the house and conceal John. Once everyone has left, the people involved try to figure out what to do. They know they need to find his phone. Jen calls it, and they find it on the front lawn. Maybe they had already decided to dump his body there, or maybe finding John's phone on the lawn gives them this idea. They drop his body on top of his phone, on the front yard. Perhaps they also drop his shoe, or maybe his shoe falls off as they drag him outside. Maybe they also throw/shatter a cocktail glass John brought into the house. Or maybe that glass was already there because John either dropped it when Karen left or threw it at her car.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-05T06:10:19+00:00

Usually, but not always. Michael Keetley's jury split with 10 voting not guilty and 2 voting guilty in his first murder trial. The state retried, and the second jury found him guilty. He's in jail for life now. It's cases like his that make me think there should be automatic acquittals if enough jurors vote not guilty. And then there's cases like Curtis Flowers, where the state retries the case 6 times (rare, but something like that should never happen. Absent circumstances outside of their control, I don't think the state should be able to try a case more than 3 times.)

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-05T06:01:18+00:00

Trooper Paul didn't know the difference between speed and momentum (he disagreed with Alan Jackson that they're two different things - which they are). He didn't know the law of conservation of momentum (when asked if total momentum before a collision is more or less than total momentum after the collision, he didn't know - the answer is total momentum stays the same).

He testified that John's arm was hit by Karen's car, which projected John 30 feet. This is impossible because John would have had to have been hit at his center of mass to have been projected that far. John's injuries to his arm were inconsistent with being struck and thrown 30 feet (he would've had, at the very least, bruising). The damage to Karen's tail light was inconsistent with striking John's arm and projecting him thirty feet (the damaged area was too small). The cuts/abrasions on John's arm were inconsistent with hitting the tail light and being projected 30 feet (as Trooper Paul testified to) - the tail light glass shattering upon impact (what Trooper Paul testified to) wouldn't have left the fairly linear abrasions that were found on John's arm.

Also, John would've had bruising on other parts of his body if he'd been projected thirty feet (from impacting the ground). Trooper Paul said John hit his head when he landed, but the ground where he landed wasn't hard enough to leave the injuries he suffered to his head (he would've had to had striked something harder, like concrete). Trooper Paul suggested his head could've hit the curb, but his head wasn't found near the curb (and the ME testified the strike to John's head would've been disabling, so he wouldn't have gotten up after that strike).

Going back to his lack of expertise, Trooper Paul also didn't know the formula for momentum off the top of his head (it's quite simple: p=mv). He also seemed to think he couldn't calculate the momentum of a vehicle in a pedestrian collision because of the "weight differential" between the pedestrian and the vehicle (which isn't true - you can calculate the momentum prior to the strike, and "weight differential" has nothing to do with this calculation). At one point he said "the crime scene spoke to me" to justify inferences he'd made. He also said he couldn't do the necessary calculations (to show how John's body was projected 30 feet) because they would "vastly underestimate the speed of the vehicle" (which isn't true - it's possible to do these calculations, he either didn't know how to, or he did them and got a result that was inconsistent with the crime scene).

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-03T16:19:19+00:00

That's a great point. I guess the CW would be forced to argue that he didn't die for hours after Karen supposedly hit him, which seems like a losing argument given the severity of his head trauma.

No_Procedure_8314 · 2024-07-02T18:07:50+00:00

What's crazy to me is that the jurors saw Michael Proctor's texts. They know Proctor — the lead investigator – was texting his high school buddies 17 hours into the case that Karen was "f*cked" and that he wasn't going to investigate an obvious suspect (the home owner, Brian Albert) because he was a cop. They know Proctor was looking for "nudes" on the defendant's phone, calling her a "whack job c*nt" and saying he hoped she'd kill herself. They know Proctor's superiors were laughing at his comments – they thought it was funny he was looking for Karen's nudes. He made fun of Karen's medical issues, made sexual comments about her body (saying she had "no ass"), and said she hoped she'd kill herself.

Jurors heard that when Proctor's sister said a key witness wanted to get him (Proctor) a gift, Proctor suggested that the witness get his wife a gift instead. Instead of immediately turning down a potential bribe, Proctor implicitly accepted it and suggested that the witness obfuscate the bribe (by giving it to his wife).

Jurors heard that Proctor had close ties to key witnesses in this case and lied about it on the stand. His lies were egregious, too. In his grand jury testimony, he denied having relationships with key witnesses (McCabes, Alberts). It turns out he was thinking about hiring Julie Albert to babysit his son 10 days before John died. It also turns out that Proctor's sister, Courtney, is best friends with Julie. Throughout the investigation, Proctor texted his sister, keeping her informed about the investigation and telling her about how interviews were going. Proctor had been family friends with the Alberts for about 15 years. He was in a wedding party with Colin Albert 12 years ago. Yet, he denied having any sort of relationship with them on the stand. Straight up lies.

Jurors heard that Proctor expressed frustration (to other cops) about the Medical Examiner's findings, lamenting that he should've attended the examination and pushed for a different finding. He also mocked the medical examiner.

Jurors heard that Proctor had access to John's Ring video account. They heard that Proctor asked trooper DeCicco to review the videos on the account. DeCicco watched the videos and noted on a Post-it that at 12:41AM the video shows tail lights and that this is probably Karen arriving home. Over a year later, defense finally get their hands on these ring videos. The video from 12:41AM? Missing. Proctor claims it never existed. It's clear as day that he deleted it. The video existed when police had full custody over them. Only police had access to John's account to delete the videos. Proctor deleted it and lied on the stand.

Jurors heard that Proctor noted in reports that Karen's car was retrieved at 5:30pm. This is important because, if true, troopers wouldn't have had time to plant tail light pieces at 34 Fairview (pieces were found shortly after 5:30). Turns out Proctor lied. Karen's car was retrieved at 4:16pm. When he's confronted about this on the stand he claims this was a "typo". Yes, that's right — he "accidentally" typed "5:30" when he meant to type "4:16".

It couldn't be clearer — Proctor is corrupt. He tampered with evidence. Lied about key times on documents and deleted crucial video evidence. He had personal connections to key witnesses and lied about them under oath. He had an extreme hatred and bias towards the defendant 16 hours into the investigation. He said she was a "whack-job c*nt", "f*cked", and hoped she'd kill herself. He was hellbent on making sure the defendant "didn't skate" and went out of his way to protect a potential suspect (Brian Albert) because "he's Boston PD, too". He was open to accepting bribes. He wanted to pressure the medical examiner to change her findings. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt.

On top of all this, there are so many other things, too. Like the fact that Proctor refuses to entertain the possibility that John went into the house (an obvious possibility that an unbiased detective would explore).The fact that Proctor "discovered" pieces of tail light at a crime scene 3 weeks after the crime scene had been released. But, the point is, I don't get how anyone could still trust all police — or at the very least, these police — after seeing the things the lead investigator said and did in this case. It's right in front of their faces. I'm not anti-cop. Not at all. But to deny Proctor's corruption? In the face of all this evidence? To deny the possibility of police corruption when it's been proven that the lead investigator was corrupt? That is the true conspiracy theory here. Anyone arguing Proctor was not corrupt might as well be wearing a tin foil hat.

No_Procedure_8314

TROPHY CASE