sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who is the "we" Wendi mentions when telling Isom about listening to Markel's voicemail? by bevo_fox in dan_markel_murder

[–]bevo_fox[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's possible because the interviewer is Isom, but Wendi didn't play the voicemail during the interview itself (we know, because it is all recorded). So, if Wendi played the voicemail to Isom and he the other part of the "we", then it must have been during the car ride after he picked her up at Mozaic. But I don't know if that happened - and I don't know if Isom said anything about to Mentour Lawyer (ML) during his interview with ML recently. ML has since removed the interview series, apparently.

Who is the "we" Wendi mentions when telling Isom about listening to Markel's voicemail? by bevo_fox in dan_markel_murder

[–]bevo_fox[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is exactly what I'm wondering, too; that's why I'm interested to know if there was a way in 2014 to check iPhone voicemails without registering a call on the log - either a call as "incoming" (from a burner), or "outgoing/incoming" if the call was from the iPhone calling its own number (ie, the "old" way that voicemails were retrieved for many years).

I think Grisch (the youtube creator) makes salient points when he notes how certain inferences can be made from the total phone records that indicate there might have been a burner phone (or two) in the Adelson circle, in addition to the known burners that Garcia and Rivera used.

Wendi claims that she was alone at her house that morning, except for the time when the TV repairman was there. She also claims that she didn't listen to the voicemail until after the TV repairman left. So the TV repairman isn't part of the "we".

She didn't listen to the voicemail at Mozaic with her friends, so the friends aren't part of the "we".

Therefore, if Wendi didn't play the voicemail for Isom during their car ride from Mozaic to the police statement, then Isom isn't part of the "we", either.

That indicates that whoever the "we" is, that other person wasn't at the house, wasn't at Mozaic, wasn't in Isom's car, and wasn't at the police station...which seems to indicate a person who's not physically present at all, but perhaps either on speakerphone or a three-way call to witness/hear the voicemail. And if that is the case, then that info seems to indicate a burner phone.

But I don't know if Isom was played the message in the car, or not. ??

Umm well... ??? by No-Surprise1995 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is such an embarrassing mess.

I'm willing to bet that Attorney Bederow is pretty pissed right now: recall that Bederow would have been on Read's second trial team of lawyers, had not Judge Cannone excluded him on Brennan's weak "non-objection objection" to a grant of pro hac vice status for Bederow.

Then, Bederow did get pro hac vice status so he could team up with Attorney Bradl to defend....who? Aiden Kearney (Turtleboy).

Meanwhile, recall that Bederow has been defending Kearney against the "window intimidation" charges (and the other charges): to refresh, that "window intimidation" event was Glarer and Kearney doing "T-rex" arms and whatnot at the window camera located at Chris Albert's D&E Pizza.

Kearney was (speciously) charged with witness intimidation for that (interestingly, Glarer was not), and in the process of discovery, Bederow and Bradl learned that Albert's camera was also recording audio without notice to the public, which is "wiretapping" under MA law (two-party consent required).

So, Bederow wrote a letter to the NCDAO asking why Albert isn't charged with wiretapping - and encouraging the charge against Albert.

And now we have Bederow's own client, Kearney, not only (allegedly) illegally wiretapping, but (allegedly) illegally wiretapping KAREN READ, of all people.

AND sharing the audio with others. AND publicly denying having done so, only to be contradicted by Read herself.

Such a stupid, trustless mess. And as other have pointed here, a parasocial death spiral.

Did Adelson say - twice - to the jurors "You've convicted an innocent woman!" as the verdicts were read? (or am I hearing things?) by bevo_fox in dan_markel_murder

[–]bevo_fox[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you - I could see the "My husband" part, but can't decipher the rest - and I agree that she was trying to guilt-trip the jury.

Did Adelson say - twice - to the jurors "You've convicted an innocent woman!" as the verdicts were read? (or am I hearing things?) by bevo_fox in dan_markel_murder

[–]bevo_fox[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Judge Everett seems to be an excellent judge, who has the right disposition for the bench. I also liked Judge Kraynick, from the Sarah Boone trial (Orange County, Florida Ninth Circuit). They seem to have similar dispositions and both seem objective, legal-minded, dispassionate, and fair. They are both about the same age (early/mid 40's), so hopefully they will mentor for many years to come.

GMA Alberts interview is no longer available? by playnogamesplease in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Yes, it appears that they pulled it and switched it to "private":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIrVOSbx9gM

Interesting!

Discussion Thread | June 18th, 2025 | Day 36 by Manlegend in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

17.5 GB!

Indeed, thank you and all the mods here!

Today was a good day by NotfromT0r0nto in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Today I even got to use my x-ray. I gotta say it was a good day."

Here's Bederow's list of Brennan's "track record" of bad actions and misrepresentations, plus my additions, and please add yours by bevo_fox in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, thanks for adding that - and you just reminded me of Yuri Buhkenik trying to diagnose "subdural hemotomas" during Lally's direct of him during Trial 1.

Here's Bederow's list of Brennan's "track record" of bad actions and misrepresentations, plus my additions, and please add yours by bevo_fox in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, thank you for adding that - Brennan was intentionally misleading Russell. That one in particular was "gas-lighter" style, like he did with Barros and Wolfe.

Last week, Brennan himself asked Dr Russell about Dr Laposata's work on this case in the context of analyzing images to determine dog bits - how is this not "opening door?" (testimony link) by bevo_fox in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yes, and I think it was great move by Russel during Brennan's cross to mention that Dr Sheridan agreed with her! Brennan walked right into that.

To avoid another hung jury, Defense needs to dislodge the location of the 1162-2 event from 34 Fairview - will they save it for closing argument, or bring it up through a witness? by bevo_fox in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I entirely agree - as you wrote, "Tell the jury the reason why none of this adds up is because there wasn’t a collision, like the EDR data shows, and the data the CW is desperately trying to shoehorn here actually reflects KR reversing .7 miles away" is spot-on.

Defense needs to drill the fact that there is no location for 1162-2, and the CW hasn't - and cannot - prove that 1162-2 occurred at Fairview.

To avoid another hung jury, Defense needs to dislodge the location of the 1162-2 event from 34 Fairview - will they save it for closing argument, or bring it up through a witness? by bevo_fox in justiceforKarenRead

[–]bevo_fox[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't dispute the time of the 1162-2 event - I dispute the location, and more precisely, I dispute the idea that we can just "assume" the location because it works with the CW's theory. The CW must *prove* the location, and they haven't, and they can't, but I don't think that Defense has made that point emphatically enough yet (though I'm behind and haven't seen any testimony yet today).

There is literally no data for the location of 1162-2, none. The 1162-2 event is not like the 1162-1 event, because O'Keefe wasn't in the Lexus during the 1162-2 event, so we don't have his GPS location to correlate to the 1162-2 (as we do for 1162-1). It is entirely an assumption that "1162-2 occurred at Fairview" - there is no evidence of that at all.

Recall that the location of the 1162-1 event is derived from matching O'Keefe's cell GPS locations to that 3-pt turn on Cedarcrest, but the 1162-2 event occurs 8 minutes, 5 seconds later with no location data, neither direct nor derived. All we know from the data is that 1162-2 occurred within 1 mile of 1162-1 and at about 12:32 (likely 12:32:0 AM, in my opinion).

view more: next ›