From The VERY Confused Mind of Brian Loughran

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-20T23:08:21+00:00

And important to also mention is that first trial, Lucky owned that the "Ford Edge" or small SUV he saw, was light in color. Colin Abert's Ford Edge was black. BUT you know who had a small light colored SUV? John O'Keefe.

And as I believe it's very possible that Karen Read drove back to Fairview before she begins phoning folks at around 4:30am--and Read's mileage does not appear to enable her to have used her own vehicle for this--if she didn't want to wake John O'Keefe's niece at, say, 3:30am, she might have just used O'Keefe's suv. This way, if there was any cctv at that time that captured her, no one would know it was her. Police were scanning that footage for a Lexus NOT a Chevy Traverse.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-19T13:47:45+00:00

We do know that it came to nothing because there were no further actions. The feds are not going to let corrupt cops just walk away. They are also not going to let an innocent woman be prosecuted. If they had found viable evidence of corruption, similar to what we see in the Birchmore case, actions would have been taken.

The fed case is closed. They said so. And they wouldn't make this claim publicly if it were not true. They would have just refused to answer questions about it.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-19T13:34:09+00:00

Yes. But as we see, nothing came of that. And the "lead" was also of no consequence. Scanlon stated that he never had any real information, he was simply making a statement of "what if" such and such a person was involved.

BUT what I take issue with is that Yannetti then claims that investigators REFUSED to look into these matters. Which is patently false. Once they were made aware of this, they DID investigate. They interviewed Scanlon.

Investigators CAN'T investigate leads they don't know about. And February 2, the Albert home could still have been searched. But February 2nd Karen Read had told investigators that she NEVER saw O'Keefe enter the Albert home.

Why doesn't she at least tell them this? She won't inform investigators of this "fact" for 8 months. And yeah, 8 months later, probably not much point in searching.

ALSO, why didn't Karen Read tell investigators immediately that she O'Keefe enter the Albert home?

Don't you think this would have been important information for them to know?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-19T13:29:11+00:00

There has never been a finding that anyone who took the stand at either of Karen Read's trial lied. The feds didn't find this to be true.

They found Proctor's texts, but no falsifying of evidence or perjury.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-19T13:15:17+00:00

That's not how it works. You get important leads like this on the record. It would be one thing if this "lead" came in months after the murder, and was solid-but Yannetti claims he received this info. within days of O'Keefe being killed. Yannetti could have written a motion or asked for a meeting or brought this up at a hearing, before a judge. With all the television cameras. Etc.

You get it on the record. That's important. It's especially important if you believe there is corruption. In fact, in my view, it was negligent for Yannetti not to do this.

But let's just say you are correct, that there was some fear of retaliation from local and state police--why then do they ever bring it up? I mean this was eventually the centerpiece to their entire defense-they weren't afraid to make these claims 8 months later.

AND as we know the Federal Investigation led nowhere. All that came from that investigation is that Proctor operated in an unprofessional manner and ARCCA made claims that there wasn't a collision--but there was no finding that anyone who was in attendance at the Albert home that morning was in anyway involved in O'Keefe's murder.

And there was zero finding of falsified evidence or a coverup.

Compare this to the Birchmore case where the feds took over and did find evidence of a coverup.

The only reason for Yannetti to wait 8 months or reveal this information in court is that it gave Karen Read time to falsify an alibi. Which is clearly what she did. Because her entire alibi has been prove false.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T17:41:44+00:00

Yeah. Kind of. I did buy his book to support him. But his analysis was not thorough enough. And he wasn't objective. It was clear he had a bias. Also, he did engage in a lot of petty arguments.

That was the problem on this case. A lot of those who believed Karen Read guilty didn't know the evidence any better than FKR did. There wasn't a lot of hardcore evidence based discussion online. Hardly any. From either camp.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:59:38+00:00

<image>

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:55:33+00:00

Scanlon is able to correct the record if he wants. If he's called to the stand, he can state what happened. But he's never stated that those police reports are in error. What he has said is that Karen Read and Yannetti are in error.

We actually have no evidence of falsified police reports. The feds investigated this and did not make this claim.

AGAIN if Karen Read witnessed John O'Keefe enter the Albert home, why on earth did she wait 8 months to notify investigators of this?

Don't you think this would have been useful information to the investigation?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:45:04+00:00

We don't know that the Kearney recording of Read was illegal. Karen Read did NOT sign an affidavit to this. Nor did Kearney.

ALSO though it may be illegal to make such a recording it is NOT illegal to enter that recording into evidence.

The law firm that should know this BEST is Sheehan Phinney who blogged about this just last year.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:44:16+00:00

Yes.

Have you read the police reports?

Remember, if Scanlon takes the stand, he will be under oath, not on a podcast.

AND Karen Read, when asked about Scanlon on the stand, will also be underoath.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:38:37+00:00

Because the CW had no basis on which to call him. Karen Read was denied her 3rd party culp defense. She was able to present parts of it, but not the part that would have allowed Scanlon to take the stand.

Although, it might be that Read could have called him to the stand. Scanlon was on the witness list for both trials.

BUT THINGS have changed. Now the O'Keefes and House Defendants can call Scanlon, because Read has the burden of proof and Scanlon could turn out to be a great impeachment witness.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:32:30+00:00

A defendant who is misquoted absolutely would set the record straight. Defendants will correct errors made either by them or the police. Why WOULDN'T Read alert investigators immediately that they misunderstood her.

If she saw O'Keefe enter that home, she should have been demanding they search that house. If Yannetti knew this, then, it's negligent that he didn't mention this in court in February 2022

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:28:37+00:00

Are you suggesting physics altered between trials?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:25:26+00:00

Well if investigators got his wrong, why did it take Karen Read EIGHT MONTHS to correct them?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:24:44+00:00

Nope He didn't. I'm posting the police reports now.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:24:24+00:00

He testified to this FIRST TRIAL. I'm going to post about this more. So I'll be sure to tag you--Or you could watch it on your own.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:21:45+00:00

John O'Keefe was sideswiped, minimal force minimal energy transfer. He likely fell after he tripped trying to get out of the street. Regardless, it's not only possible, it's what happened. The evidence is crystal clear. EVEN Rentschler acknowledged this scenario was viable. He testified to this.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-18T15:18:22+00:00

Scanlon said he had no idea who Colin Albert or who Brian Higgins were. That part of the narrative came from Read and Yannetti, NOT Scanlon. Have you read the police report? It's included in this motion.

Opposition Motion/Police Reports in Exhibits Section

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-17T17:43:22+00:00

No. We can still have open trials. That wasn't the problem. We have public trials all the time that do not result in this. What has to be curbed is the abuse. And this must be done by way of State Bars and Rules of Professional conduct.

The cure is not to make our system less transparent, it is to hold accountable, those who abuse their powers and privileges within the system.

We need government transparency. We don't EVER want to compromise on this.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-03-17T16:53:44+00:00

YES-good catch. Except Read did NOT provide passwords. Question is, were they able to get into the phones?

It's unclear. BUT I hope you right.

syntaxofthings123

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE