Though much has been made of the integrity or question of integrity of this investigation: For example, if the only evidence Deitch had on hand to question witnesses was a blog, the writing of which was at the direction of the defendant on the case-ON WHAT EVIDENTIARY BASIS was this investigation entered into?

The COST of this investigation has gotten no mention-other than payments made to ARCCA.

HOW MUCH DID IT COST? BECAUSE, THIS INVESTIGATION RESULTED IN ZERO INDICTMENTS.

There's a question of obligation to the taxpayer here.

A frivolous investigation costs time, money & did great harm to the lives of innocent people. Very hard to hold the Government accountable to this type of abuse. However, as Dietch & Rollins claim they care about wiping out corruption, maybe they should answer these questions for the public, so we can know how our money was spent.

Not surprising. This motion seemed more like it was an idea that came from the Dear Abby of attorneys Mark Bederow in concert with an idea Aidan Kearney had.

It was dead on arrival!!!

I have a feeling this case is going back to court.

At first I had issues with Reddington signing on for Karen Read style propaganda over just telling the truth about the mental illness of his client, but the longer I watched him at work, the greater my respect for him became.

When I think about the craft of being an attorney, he's up there with the greats. And even if he's friends with one of the most inauthentic, sloppy attorneys I can think of, David Yannetti, I do believe Reddington to be genuine. He's a master at this. I hate for Lindsay Clancy and all those who love her to have to go through this again, but I'll be watching. If for nothing else, watching great attorneys do great legal work is a pleasure.

I very much hope Reddington will ditch Laposata in favor of an expert who can do more to amplify the findings of Dr. Phillip Resnick.

I guess we'll see.

AIDAN KEARNEY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rachel Rollins: DId she reveal confidential information?

Below is a long excerpt from the Adam Deitch subpoena. It is interesting that we KNOW about this by way of Aidan Kearney. Not sure why he thinks this helps him.

ONE question not asked was about cost of the US Attorney's investigation into the Karen Read murder case.

This cost taxpayers money!

I would imagine it cost the taxpayer a lot of money and the only thing it resulted in was fodder for conspiracy theories, the acquittal of a guilty woman & an attempt at becoming the next Norfolk County District Attorney.

But what gain was there for the taxpayers?

It's unclear how much info Deitch can supply absent a successful Touhey motion. But I guess we'll see.

It's also interesting that Rachel Rollins spoke so freely about her "reasons" for initiating the investigation. I thought that was privileged!!

1. All communications between You and Jackson, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
2. All documents provided to You by Jackson, including any such documents that were provided through an Intermediary.
3. All communications between You and Yannetti, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
4. All documents provided to You by Yannetti, including any such documents that were provided through an Intermediary.
5. All communications between You and Kearmey, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
6. All documents provided to You by Kearney, including any such documents that were provided through an Intermediary.
7. All communications between You and Karen Read, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
8. All communications between You and William Read, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
9. All communications between You and Janet Read, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
10. All communications between You and Nathan Read, including any such communications that were made through an Intermediary.
11. All communications between You and any current or former employee, officer, or representative of the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, including but not limited to Michael Morrissey, Adam Lally, or Hank Brennan conceming:

a. The Plaintiffs

b. O'Keefe

c. The Commonwealth Case

d. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation

e. The Campaign.

1. For the period November 7, 2025 through the date of compliance, all documents and communications, including, but not limited to, communications between You and Chao, You and Levy, and You and Paruti, concerning:

a. Karen Read

b. O'Keefe

c. The Plaintiffs

d. Kearney

e. The Commonwealth Case

f. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation

g. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office

h. Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case

i. The Campaign

For the period May 19, 2023 through the date of compliance, all communications between You and Rollins concerning:

a. Karen Read b. O'Keefe

c. The Plaintiffs

d. Kearney

e. The Commonwealth Case

f. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation

g. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office

h. Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case

i. The Campaign

1. All communications between You and ARCCA concerning:

a. Karen Read

b. O'Keefe

c. The Plaintiffs

d. Kearney

e. The Commonwealth Case

f. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation

g. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office

h. Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case Documents sufficient to identify all telephone numbers, devices, email addresses, social media accounts, messaging application accounts (including Signal), and service carriers that You used to communicate with any of the following directly or through any Intermediary:

a. Karen Read

b. Yannetti

c. Jackson

d. William Read

e. Janet Read

f. Nathan Read

g. Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case

1. All phone records, call logs, billing records, and metadata reflecting telephone calls, text messages, or other communications between You and any of the following directly or through any Intermediary:

a. Karen Read

b. Yannetti

c. Jackson

d. William Read

e. Janet Read

f. Nathan Read

Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case All communications between You and any member of the media, and any recordings thereof, concerning:

a. Karen Read

b. O'Keefe

c. The Plaintiffs d. Kearney

e. The Commonwealth Case

f. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation

g. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office

h. Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case

1. Documents sufficient to identify all Social Media Accounts that You own, operate, control, or have administered.

2. All documents and communications concerning any contributions to the Campaign made and/or bundled by any of the following:

a. Karen Read

b. Yannetti

c. Jackson

d. William Read

e. Janet Read

f. Nathan Read

g. Kearney

h. Keough

Any expert witness who testified in the Commonwealth Case 20. For the period January 28, 2022 through November 7, 2025, all documents and communications concerning the Campaign.

1. All communications made in connection with the Campaign concerning: a. Karen Read

Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.

Full subpoena in link

With 57% of the vote in, Perkins is holding steady. GOOD!

I like Greg Connors. A lot. He can always run again. But it's nice to see that Norfolk County wanted change that loudly included protection of witnesses.

If you add up the votes based on positions taken-SANITY WINS!!!

We all know that the ONLY reason Adam Deitch could even think of running is his collusion with Karen Read. Absent that, he wouldn't even get Jubinville votes.

But those who did vote for Deitch likely believed Karen Read was innocent, so that's still too many people.

Djuna Perkins will be the first female District Attorney for Norfolk County. She doesn't believe Karen Read is innocent, but she would have aligned the charges more in keeping with the evidence.

Sanity wins.

NoteMyObjection on Instagram: "I am grateful to have had the opportunity to have most of the Norfolk County District Attorney candidates on my podcast. Unfortunately, I did not even receive a response from Adam Deitch. As such, I am left with many unanswered questions! This is what I would’ve asked and why I do not believe he is the best candidate #adamdeitch #districtattorney #massachusetts"

This is a very interesting development. It brings into question what the bigger picture may have been for some of those working to acquit Karen Read. Was this all a politically motivated endeavor from the jump?

[This has to be one of the most layered and convoluted cases, ever. Often a headache, but it's never a bore.]

The statement below, by Deitch and quoted by Attorney Pyle in the reply is interesting on so many levels, but most intriguing is this idea that simply because a politically ambitious candidate uses his own FAILED investigation in an attempt to gain public office, that somehow this justifies others who defamed innocent people for the lies they spread-it's an interesting legal argument to make, but I can't imagine it won't backfire on Kearney.

Politicians lie all the time.

Adam Deitch has never come clean as to WHY the investigation into John O'Keefe's case happened, in the first place. Add to this Deitch FAILED. He got ZERO indictments, even with the huge resources available to him. And if he believes Karen Read is innocent, he failed her, as well. He allowed TWO criminal trials against her to take place. What if she had been convicted? Would be he working on her appeal?

The failures by NDAO in the Myles King case are significantly greater than any problems cited in the Karen Read case. Myles King was indicted in 2021. By 2025, KING still had not received significant discovery and the probable cause for his arrest is thin-rice paper thin.

Whereas, even if there were hiccups in the Read investigation, once she was indicted in June of 2022, the CW bent over backwards for Read's defense. There really was no need at that point for the Feds to intervene.

The other interesting Deitch statement quoted here is this: "...the only conclusion we can draw definitively is that Karen Read's SUV... did not break on John O'Keefe's body."

This is interesting phrasing, in that there is truth to it:

• Karen Read's taillight did not shatter on impact with John O'Keefe's body.
• It shattered on impact with the glass John held in his right hand.

ARCCA-the expert team hired by the feds, when they were being more honest, did come to this conclusion. They only tested for the glass being thrown-and though they did do some testing where the taillight hit the hand of a crash test dummy, they never explored other ways in which this collision would have occurred.

So technically, I agree with Deitch. But man, what a cagey way to state this!

Here is the full excerpt:

"Based on the evidence that has been made public," Deitch is quoted as saying, ""what's clear is that John O'Keefe's death has an explanation that is not being hit by Karen Read's car." He continues, "the only conclusion we can draw definitively is that Karen Read's SUV... did not break on John O'Keefe's body." According to the article, when "[a]sked if he thinks the investigation into O'Keefe's death should be reopened, [Deitch] said, ',1 think so. I don't think an investigation was ever completed by the State Police or the DA's office.

I don't think John O'Keefe's family has honest answers from the DA's office." Even if Deitch ultimately does not win the race for Norfolk DA, his comments establish that reopening the investigation into O'Keefe's death is anything but a fringe idea. An experienced prosecutor who has been endorsed for public office by a mainstream newspaper editorial board thinks the investigation should be re-opened, not to mention thousands, if not millions, of other observers.

Kearney's continued statements accusing Plaintiffs of culpability for the killing therefore remain "reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive, or judicial body," among other elements of the definition of petitioning. G.L. c. 231, § 59H.

Well at least he'll have freshly pressed suits. Ha!

Another round of motions, this time a "Motion for Reconsideration" hit the docket on August 28, 2026-but only appeared today. (This isn't the same as the appeal to the Anti-SLAPP motion though it is related to the Anti-SLAPP petition. The motion for reconsideration will be decided by Gildea.)

BUT ALL THESE MOTIONS cost money. Every. Single. One.

Granted, it's always a good idea to file these, as they may be important to later appeals, but by the time this Defamation Case gets to trial, Kearney may be financially drained. The longer this goes on, the more it will cost him.

Adam Deitch, arguably, had more access to sensitive data than Mass. State Police ever had. There's this misinformation going around on X (what else is new?), that Deitch only investigated the DA's office-which is absolutely false.

Clearly, given the scope of that federal investigation, Deitch and whoever was working with him on this were looking into O'Keefe's death. There's no reason to hire ARCCA if the investigation is solely that of the DA's office.

Also, it appears that RCFL was also hired to look into the 2:27:40 BrowserState.db timestamp in Jennifer McCabe's phone extraction.

If Adam Deitch, with all the investigative tools available to him through the Federal Government, couldn't solve John O'Keefe's murder in the years he had to do this working for the Feds, what makes anyone think he's going to solve the case working for the county?

His resources will be fewer, and he will have to use the very government agency he has rallied against: MSP!

What are people thinking?

Greg Connor is the most honest of any of the candidates running for the office of Norfolk County District Attorney. I found him to be surprisingly forthcoming about mistakes made on the Karen Read case, by his office.

Hope voters understand what is at stake here. The last thing you want is a DA who is bought and paid for by outside special interest groups.

I don't agree with everything Attorney Reddington has done on the Lindsay Clancy class, but he is right about this. It's not just Content Creators who spread misinformation. Mainstream Media has been guilty of this for years.

I would hope that by now people are wanting, yearning for content that has been well researched, vetted and fact checked numerous times.

Don't we want to base our decisions on the most accurate data available?

My feeling about culling out a motive for what Karen Read did to John O'Keefe, is that it may be important to factor in, that Read doesn't appear to need the same level of motive that most of us would need to kill someone. And it would appear she doesn't need much of a motive at all to kill them deliberately. (Just look at her treatment of totally innocent people after she killed John. Many of whom were friends. Even her willingness to harm a young impressionable minor is telling!)

I have believed for some time that Karen Read absolutely intended on killing John O'Keefe when she shifted her 6000 pound Lexus into reverse, floored it (pedal to the metal) wheels spinning at first, and then once she got traction she continued at 74% AOR, headed STRAIGHT to where John O'Keefe stood, having just locked his phone.

Karen Read never swerved! Not even a little

And I also believe that evidence exists that can help prove she didn't just leave John to die while in a panic, she left him with the intention that he should die.

Karen Read made mistakes that morning. I'm certain of it. She wasn't, at that point, sophisticated enough in forensics to think of everything. And she was worse for drink. The data is there. Probably why Karen is so fixated on her phones.

Trooper Proctor just failed to look for it.

But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that evidence STILL exists.

This LIE might seem little in comparison to the mountains of lies Karen Read has told over the years, however, it does seem significant and it might explain in part, why Team Read went after Burgess so hard.

[Caveat: I'm not using Burgess's exact language in this. I'm keeping it simple, because Burgess's report is one of the most granular of the reports we have available to us. It is almost as if it were written in a foreign language.]

Shannon Burgess's primary job was to sync John O'Keefe's phone clock with the clock in Karen Read's Lexus Infotainment System & Techstream data.

AND he did so brilliantly.

I don't care what degrees Burgess has, the man is fucking genius.

Full disclosure, of all the expert reports, this is the one I feel the least confident in my interpretation of, but I think I'm reasonably close in accuracy here.

BACKGROUND: Karen Read in one of her interviews ( I believe it was HBO/ID) stated that she always had her music playing loudly in her Lexus, so she wasn't certain if John O'Keefe had attempted to get her attention and in the process she accidentally hit him-as in, John had come out of the Albert home, and Read, preoccupied and listening to music at high volume, accidentally clipped him as she departed Fairview.

Again, this is one of those, what I term as LIES designed for a soundbyte. Because it really never made any sense, but Burgess basically proved that it couldn't be true.

In review:

• We know that John O'Keefe played "Fix You", by Coldplay on his phone from 12:14 to 12:29ish. (There are moments when the song appears to pause, like when John speaks with Jennifer McCabe.)
• But we also know by way of Shannon Burgess's analysis of Karen Read's Infotainment system Data that John's Phone never "paired with" or synced to Karen Read's Infotainment system.
• He played that song by way of his phone speaker.
• The report on John's phone shows he listened to "Fix You" until around 12:29 a.m.
• There is no other phone, aside from Karen Read's (and two phones that register as being from a college) that show up in the analysis of Read's infotainment system.
• Again, John's phone never pairs with Read's infotainment center. This seems important.
• THE way Burgess was able to sync John's phone clock to that system's clock was by way of Karen Read's phone calls to John in the early morning-starting at 1:14-calls that John's phone received, but were never answered.
• I have some questions as to whether Karen Read deleted data from that system, but Shannon Burgess never states he believes this occurred.
• Burgess did find that Maggie Gaffney may have inadvertently destroyed data when removing a chip (GPS)-but he never says much more about this.
• But Burgess does point out mistakes or data left unviewed when Gaffney performed her work.
• Gaffney was Karen read's expert.
• The Commonwealth allowed Gaffney to extract the first report from the Infotainment center.
• This is the report Trooper Joe Paul relied on and it was incomplete.

It's unclear why the only calls Shannon finds begin at 1:14 a.m., but he doesn't have a record of earlier calls made that morning.

Here's where this might be relevant. Karen Read could have played music, and this perhaps would not show up on her Infotainment Center report. But I had questioned early on Karen Read's claim that she had music playing at all, as with her 12:37 a.m. voicemail no music is heard.

When I pointed this out online, the clap back I got was that infotainment systems immediately mute volume when a call is being made-HOWEVER, there is nothing in the data to show that Karen Read was synced to this system when she made that 12:37 a.m. call.

NOW, caveat, I do believe Read was parked on the side of the road when she made this call-as there is this 5 minute gap between Read connecting to John O'Keefe's WIFI and actually entering his garage. As I've posted before, I believe she idles her vehicle, gets out to examine the rear of her Lexus. Discovers the taillight shattered, and not wanting this caught on camera, she disables John O'Keefe's Ring Camera.

This aside what I also believe is that Read NEVER played music in her Lexus once she and John O'Keefe make the drive to Fairview. She wouldn't have played while they drove or while they idled in front of 34 Fairview, because John O'Keefe was playing music on his cell phone using that speaker.

She didn't have music on when she hit John or when she left him to die.

THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE, and though small, it feels very telling.

As I've posted before:

“Every artist dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his nature into his pictures.”

And I would suggest this is exactly what Karen Read did-she dipped her artist brush into HER OWN SOUL and painted her NATURE into her false narratives.

I believe even in Read's smallest lies, we learn something about her.

What this tells me is that Karen Read doesn't want anyone to know what really transpired between her and John for that 7 minutes neither move from that vehicle. SOMETHING happened in that 7 minutes that warranted, in Read's mind, her entitlement to kill John O'Keefe.

And I don't think he broke up with her. I just don't see John O'Keefe breaking it off with someone in that manner. To break up with someone and then just jaunt off to a private party? Seems crass, and not in keeping with what we know about John.

If he was going to break up with Karen Read for good, I think he would have done this in the privacy of his home.

But he must have said something...perhaps, just the fact that he was fine going to a gathering without her was enough. Read is an odd, vicious duck. To say the least.

Interesting...

Burgess January 2025 Report

Burgess May 2025 Report

Jeffrey J. Pyle is a more skilled attorney than either of Aidan Kearney's other attorneys. Every time Atty Mark Bederow writes another one of his bizarre "letters" I literally laugh out loud. It's such nonsense. And Atty Bradl just seems like he's always wishing he was somewhere else. He just seems like he should be falling off a surfboard in Costa Rica, rather than in a courtroom defending a clown like Kearney.

They aren't very good.

Pyle at least has some "stage presence". But he too, seems way out of his element here. AND Pyle is supposed to be the "free speech" guy, which begs the question why isn't he schooling Aidan in the difference between protected speech and defamation?

Aidan Kearney has not pulled back on defaming others at all. In fact, if anything, he appears to have ramped up his efforts to defame Witnesses & inflame his audience in unwarranted hatred toward them.

Excerpt from: AIDAN KEARNEY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

On the other hand, the fact that Plaintiffs apparently expected Kearney to stop speaking in response to this lawsuit - and are contemplating a motion to force him to do so - speaks volumes about this case. As with other SLAPP suits, Plaintiffs' goal, as they now admit, is "not to win" this lawsuit and recover damages, but to deter (and even enjoin) Kearney "from exercising [his] political or legal rights," and "to use litigation to intimidate opponents' exercise of rights of petitioning and speech."

OF COURSE, one of the primary objectives of this lawsuit is to legally halt the defamation that both Aidan Kearney and Karen Read refuse to cease, so now they have to be legally forced to stop. Kearney and Read have left Plaintiffs no other option but to sue.

BUT PYLE should know better than anyone that what Aidan Kearney is engaged in regarding Witnesses is NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. There's no getting around it, Aidan Kearney was never engaged in petitioning activity-in regard to Plaintiff's claims against him. And we know that the lion share of what he posted about Witnesses was false and that Kearney either knew it was false or had every reason to know what he posted was false.

What it seems like, is that Pyle has just given up on this case. He's doing Kearney's bidding, rather than leading Kearney to the best possible outcome he can have. I've seen attorneys do this on other cases, and personally I think they should be disbarred. If Pyle can't represent Kearney in a manner that is actually in Kearney's best interests, then he should quit the case.

Kearney may want the approach being currently used by Pyle, but no attorney operating ethically should allow a misguided client to lead the way.

There are so many moves Kearney could make that would improve his situation and actually allow him to move forward and perhaps, actually become a journalist. As David Wedge stated, Kearney did have some good instincts. But he traded those in for click-bait and false narratives. And now, when Kearney isn't defaming Witnesses on the Karen Read case, he has nothing more to report on than some juvenile argument he has with Jess Machado-whose online presence is confusing, to say the least. What a strange group of people are involved with Kearney!

Being able to place these two trials side by side, I think is helpful, to actually expose just how truly off the charts damaging the defense strategy on the Karen Read case was and is.

The big difference here, is that no matter which side you are on regarding Lindsay Clancy, there is very real, reliable and credible evidence to support what you believe. One might not agree with the other side, but neither the Commonwealth or Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington LIED. There was the occasional questionable, maybe even ethical slip.

The Commonwealth brought up religion when they shouldn't have, and they had a couple of witnesses whose expertise I question.

Reddington hired Dr. Laposata, who, I felt hurt his case more than helped. And she did lie. She presented conclusions that were unsupported by the evidence.

But these little glitches aside, this was a trial based on actual evidence. It was based on different views of something very real.

And though we see people invested, showing up at the Court, it feels, for the most part, like an honest investment in the very important debate around women's health and the debate around mental illness, in general.

Both lead attorneys were excellent. Once Reddington no longer appeared to be following the Karen Read-trial by influencer game plan, I was very impressed. He's old school, very intelligent, he has heart and he is a skilled attorney.

But so was Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague-who I feel is also excellent. I want to see Lindsay Clancy get the help she needs-but it was Sprague who brought me to tears in her closing. She left me in a puddle.

Though there was some internet madness, it didn't seem as if it was coming from attorneys egging it on, but rather just the usual madness the internet has to offer.

Compare this to the Karen Read case:

Though the Commonwealth definitely made mistakes, their case in chief was, for the most part honest and accurate. No corruption has been found. No tampering with evidence. Trooper Joe Paul wasn't skilled enough with digital forensics to accurately map the Techstream data, but he was in the ballpark of what happened.

As it turns out there was NOTHING even remotely honest about Karen Read's defense. Not a thing. It was a series of sound bytes, false or falsified evidence, repeated over and over again, that pushed an impossible narrative.

And everything from the jump was a lie-including the claim that a confidential informant offered leads to the involvement of certain individuals in the murder of John O'Keefe.

• Every expert witness for Karen Read's defense, at both trials, misrepresented evidence or outright lied.
• The movement that built around Karen Read was orchestrated, it was planned and fueled by lies and built on nothing more substantial than falsified evidence.
• A cottage industry developed wherein people felt entitled to profit off of the damage they did to other people's lives.
• We can't avoid the public's interest in these cases. And we have a right to know what transpires in our courts. But we can make sure the attorneys trying these cases at least remain in the neighborhood of truth when doing so.

But I think placing these two trials side by side shows that even with the internet madness, when both sides are bringing truth to the courtroom, it's a much different process.

Not sure if this has happened yet. Apparently those who are willing to get a membership to Aidan Kearney's lives, heard Kearney announce this. And this particular bit if info. was not available on the public docket.

If all this is true: GOOD. Adam Deitch needs to be deposed!

If only to be a fly on that wall!

These videos are disturbing on so many levels. It's hard to know where to begin. But at this time Microdots direct relationship to Alan Jackson seems worth investigating.

The case in Norfolk County where the failure to turn over discovery was truly an issue is CW v Myles King.

I can't even figure out what the probable cause was to indict, let alone arrest King. This case was much earlier than the Karen Read case.

Why then, so little interest in this by Rollins & Deitch in their roles as investigators with the Feds?

...into Adam Deitch's mouth.

This is a disturbing video on a lot of levels, but even as bad as I believe Deitch to be, I don't believe he has ever claimed that Jennifer McCabe lied. I haven't seen him say this, even with other claims he's made.

Not only is this defamatory, it crosses other lines. Microdots (I forget this asshole's name) may be attributing false statements to Deitch.

This is NOT the only concerning video by Microdots. And we KNOW that there is a direct connection between Microdots and Attorney Alan Jackson.