Top Tweets for #34Fairview

This clip of Karen Read's father has been weaponized by spokespeople of the Albert's, McCabe's and Higgins. They say she didn't endure trauma (as they say, she "caused" it) and evaded police by not opening the door. What they fail to mention is that these two officers, Brian Tully and John Fanning, now have a documented history of missing or deleted forensic or phone data in SEVERAL cases by either themselves or their subordinates. A few examples: 🔹️Karen Read's location data from her cell phone which was with her on January 29th, 2022 🔹️Sandra Birchmore's phone and laptop that she used to communicate with Matthew Farwell 🔹️Matthew Farwell's phone that received Birchmore's communications 🔹️Myles King's Norfolk County jail calls And some are wondering why Michael Proctor pled the fifth? Or why Karen Read, who was home alone, didn't immediately open the door as Fanning went around and attempted to open every first floor window on the property?

Dear X, Wanna know what unhinged looks like? Here is "Weekday Pamphlet" writing a booklet about "crazy conspiracy theories." Legend has it, Weekday worked on this "post" since the close of the Second Trial. She's had this one loaded since the BerlinRosen team took over. Gotta give her credit, she got all the main propoganda talking points in. Tuesday is worse than a rainy Monday, Ben

At the July 2026 federal hearing, Attorney James Tuxbury characterized Karen Read's lawsuit as "classic retaliation against witnesses." But what exactly are we supposed to make of reports that roughly a dozen or so independent content creators have been served with subpoenas seeking extensive communications and records? What does that look like from the outside? Are we, the public, really supposed to believe that issuing sweeping subpoenas to citizens covering these cases does not raise legitimate questions about the potential effect on public discourse surrounding the ongoing civil litigation? To me, there is a significant distinction here. Karen Read is an acquitted defendant who has brought civil claims against police officers and witnesses based on allegations arising from the investigation and the events surrounding John O'Keefe's death. Whatever one thinks of those claims, those allegations are being litigated through the courts. Independent content creators are not parties to that litigation. They are members of the public who have been documenting, analyzing, and discussing the publicly available record surrounding the investigation into John O'Keefe's death and the subsequent legal proceedings. So when a rumored significant number of creators reportedly find themselves facing subpoenas demanding extensive communications and records, it is entirely reasonable to ask what purpose that serves and what practical effect it could have on independent coverage of these cases. Because if the argument is that Karen Read's lawsuit amounts to "retaliation against witnesses," then the public is equally entitled to examine what this apparent wave of subpoenas looks like from the perspective of independent journalists, commentators, and content creators who are covering the litigation from outside the courtroom.

Spoiler: The house defendants absolutely have to affirmatively prove they didn’t kill John O’Keefe. This is either as stupid as stupid gets, or this confirms their own conspiracy to coverup murder by defaming Karen and Aidan. In fact, the McAlberts may already be in the “burden to disprove” stage at the moment. That happens first, followed by Aidan and Karen getting the opportunity (pretrial, mind you) to prove that it’s more likely than not they didn’t kill JO. If after those two stages there’s no settlement, they go to trial. Remember Depp v. Heard? Remember all the competing “experts?” Yeah, nothing has changed since then. Conspiracy is only a crime or harm, if the underlying activity is (in this case) false. Think about what news media would look like if they could be sued for reporting factual information that relied on a source. Because that’s exactly what this is; a journalist with a source reporting a matter of serious public interest. Grave public interest. If the information has no credible foundation of what it’s reporting, then a conspiracy can be considered. The very fact a dead Boston cop was found on the front yard of another Boston cop’s front yard, and only one of the two possible combination of perps was tried and found not guilty of the crime, twice, overcomes the defamation allegation by itself. The truth is an affirmative defense to every type of defamation claim. In fact, I’ve been suspecting the McAlberts have been intentionally spreading disinformation that ignores what I just explained, not because they don’t understand it, but because if they were honest in their own conspiracy to defame allegations (FOURensic, Reynolds, Peter), nobody would have donated to them. Seriously. If the Foreskin podcast and whoever else is on the McAlbert payroll said, “please donate to help us pay for an expert to prove we didn’t do it,” you think anyone would pony up? Hell no. Instead, they came out of the gate with an “assumptive” pitch, that made it sound like all they have to do is ask a judge to give them money, just like what this idiot Lama person is saying here. Read her tweet. That could not be more wrong. It assumes the question of defamation is already proven. The McAlberts are public figures for the purpose of the JO trial, and the JO murder is a matter of public interest. The McAlberts have to prove they didn’t do it. Thems the rules. And Jen directing her defame disinfo conspirators to use this specific pitch for donations and to defame, will make their failure much worse. Because they’re obviously hedging, and you can’t hedge forever. Yesterday was the biggest day for every lawsuit filed by everyone. If Dildo the lawyer didn’t cough up a new expert for his frivolous case, the O’Keefes and McAlberts lose, and Karen and Aidan wins. All of it. Everything. Congratulations Aidan and Karen. And let’s get busy indicting the McAlberts.

John was in the house. My theory is that he went through the breezeway door into the family room, where Brian Albert and Brian Higgins were. Everyone placed them there, but Albert claimed they were upstairs looking at photos. Odd. I believe Chloe was let in through the family room patio doors after being kept upstairs all night and let out by Albert. She attacked John, and he fell onto the brick fireplace. Dr. Laposata’s description of the fatal head injury describes the surface. The testimony about who used which door was unusually specific and contradictory. The emphasis on people leaving through the breezeway door when they didn’t was intended to establish that nothing happened in the family room. They don’t remember much, but the door and the family room are definitely triggers in their testimony. The butt-dials, Google searches, destroyed phones, Chloe’s absence the next morning and rehoming soon after, along with the destruction or manipulation of evidence, resulted in what has to be the most insane cover-up of a drunken accident and a series of bad decisions.