Top Tweets for #prokeefe
@anonymasslawyer @aliciastonesil @SlamminBjB FKR is so exhausting and tedious. @anonymasslawyer has apparently quit denying that he is plevin. He’s not plevin nor Kevin. Kevin is not plevin, either. Almost as insulting as being called McAlbert or AFKR. I am not anti anything. I am Pro-O’Keefe. #prokeefe
#prOKeefe
#justiceforJohn
#defendingthetruth
We will not stop fighting for John, his family and friends, the witnesses, and the people who will sadly become the next victims of the Cult and the pink mob!
https://t.co/8DJkT51UXc
‼️‼️‼️
#prOKeefe
As you know @DoctorTurtleboy, there is no evidence that John O'Keefe entered the Albert home. In fact, the objective phone and vehicle data point in the opposite direction.
Ryan Nagel, one of the three eyewitnesses, texted his sister while still on Cedarcrest at 12:23 a.m. The truck let Karen turn first at the stop sign by flashing its lights and remained behind the SUV from the stop sign to the front of the house. The SUV then stopped for the only time in front of the flagpole at 12:24:38 a.m.
The witnesses testified that they saw two occupants in the SUV at the stop sign and did not see anyone exit the vehicle or enter the house, while behind the SUV in front of the house by the flagpole.
Then look at John's phone:
12:31:56 — a brief 20-second step event begins.
12:32:09 — last user interaction.
12:32:04–12:32:12 — Burgess concluded the SUV reversed during this window.
12:32:16 — phone movement stops.
12:33:14 onward — 26,532 Doppler checks consistently registered a pocket state for more than five hours.
12:37 onward — battery temperature begins declining and continues dropping throughout the night.
Movement doesn't resume until 6:04:01 a.m., when Karen, Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe were performing CPR. The phone was underneath John, which explains the movement. At approximately 6:14 a.m., after John was moved onto the stretcher and the phone was exposed, it recorded its lowest temperature of the night/morning: 37°F.
At 6:15:01, dash-camera footage shows Kerry Roberts picking up the phone and baby blankets. The pocket state clears, and once the phone is placed in her pocket, the battery temperature begins rising.
Whiffin's opinion wasn't based on one data point. It was based on the convergence of multiple independent data streams: step data, Doppler pocket-state data, user interaction, battery temperature and location data. You can't simply select the eyewitness testimony that supports your theory and ignore the objective data that doesn't.
Whiffin concluded that John's phone never moved far from the flagpole area from shortly after 12:25 a.m. until it was recovered that morning.
You also can't “prove” John's head injury occurred inside the Albert home when you can't establish that John was ever inside the home.
The leafblower video doesn't prove the taillight was planted either. The area being searched in that footage was not the area where the taillight fragments were ultimately recovered. And more importantly, there was no realistic window to plant the taillight fragments in the way you're suggesting. The timeline matters.
Calling something “planted” doesn't make it so. You have to explain when, how, and by whom it supposedly happened.
And Michael Easter's opinion? He didn't testify, wasn't under oath, and wasn't cross-examined. Whatever opinion he may have expressed is not evidence presented at trial.
The dog argument has the same problem. There was no canine DNA establishing that John was bitten by Chloe. Dr. Russell didn't examine Chloe for measurements, despite the defense knowing where the dog was. And videos from Garrett Wing don't become expert testimony simply because someone posted them online.
The Apple Health “flights climbed” data doesn't establish that John was inside the Albert home either. Karen and John were together in the SUV during that drive, and the truck witnesses saw two occupants at the stop sign.
The high-accuracy Waze data places the SUV at:
12:20:43 — Maplecroft Road, traveling 10–20 mph.
12:22:43 — Oakdale, turning onto Cedarcrest, traveling 10–30 mph.
12:24:18 — turns onto Fairview after the three-point turn, traveling approximately 20 mph.
The timeframe of the “flights climbed” occurred during the drive.
The Ford Edge claim isn't nearly as definitive as you're presenting it either. Lucky's account of the location and timing changed repeatedly between interviews.
And ARCCA doesn't prove someone else killed John. They did not analyze the Techstream data, despite being experts in Techstream, nor did they incorporate all of the physical evidence into their testing. Most importantly, their Rescue Randy demonstration showed that the SUV could produce a clipping event consistent with the Commonwealth's theory. ARCCA did not "prove" John was never clipped by the Lexus.
As for Chloe, the defense knew where she was. Rehoming a dog because it repeatedly escaped the yard and chased other dogs isn't evidence that the dog attacked John. The prior bite involved Chloe and another dog fighting while a person intervened, not evidence that Chloe had a history of attacking people.
The Waterfall video also doesn't establish hostility. John is seen hugging people when he entered the bar, and multiple witnesses, including Karen, described everyone as being in a good mood.
The 2:27 Google search isn't the smoking gun you're presenting either. Two cell-phone experts concluded that the search occurred at 6:23 and 6:24 a.m., not 2:27 a.m., and that the searches were not user-deleted. The defense did not present an expert to contradict that testimony.
And saying Brian Albert, Brian Higgins and Jennifer McCabe “lied to federal investigators” is your conclusion, not something you can simply declare as fact without including context. The federal investigation was closed without charges or indictments.
Likewise, saying Karen Read “never lied” to federal investigators doesn't establish anything about the truth of the underlying allegations, particularly when there are questions about the circumstances under which the federal investigation was initiated.
And finally, the jury's verdict does not establish that John was killed inside the Albert home. It established that the Commonwealth did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, although many believe the extraordinary public campaign surrounding this case amounted to jury-pool tainting and influenced the environment in which that trial took place.
That's an important distinction.
You use the word “prove” repeatedly throughout your post. But much of what you've listed isn't proof at all. It's interpretation, inference, disputed testimony, or information that was never tested through sworn testimony and cross-examination.
You can believe your theory. You're entitled to it, even if it's a conclusion you reached while being spoon-fed the narrative by the defendant and her defense team in real time.
But if you're going to repeatedly say “I can prove,” then the evidence actually has to prove it, not simply fit the conclusion you were fed while ignoring the objective data that contradicts it.
We played audio of a recording of Jenna Rocco last night during our show.
I incorrectly introduced the clip as another audio of Rocco wherein she's speaking about Karen Read's intermediary.
The clip we played was actually of Rocco accusing Aidan Kearney of extorting Karen Read and the full audio is below.
For those of you who went to bed last night at a reasonable hour two important things happened in the Aidan Kearney/Karen Read saga:
1. For his paying audience, Kearney read what appeared to be an undocketed motion from the plaintiffs in the defamation case. It appeared to be in response to Kearney's Motion for Reconsideration. Kearney also read parts of the supposed Sur Reply drafted by his attorney Jeffrey Pyle and shared parts of his private conversation with Pyle wherein he claims they were "laughing" at the plaintiffs. None of these filings are available yet to the general public.
2. Within the motion, Kearney claims the plaintiffs have subpoenaed former U.S. Attorney Adam Deitch.
A clip of what Kearney claims was in the motion about Deitch is below.
We will monitor the docket today and see if the filing becomes available.
Aidan Kearney is currently sharing a plaintiff's motion that has not yet been docketed in the defamation case with his audience.
Good job, jackass. @DoctorTurtleboy @BradlLawPC @Bederowlaw @ChrisMatteiCT
Docket below on left, Kearney on right.
Apparently, according to Kearney, the undocketed motion says @adamdeitch has been subpoenaed.
The Karen Read Files: Your Phone? Evidence. Hers? Private. https://t.co/xKPcWpeBgc
On one of the Spaces the other day, I can't remember who said it but he stated he is Pro John O'Keefe. This is going to be my new status. I am no longer AFKR. I am now ~~~PJOK 💙💙💙~~~ The three blue hearts stand for - Truth, Justice and the American way!
FAMILY OF BOSTON POLICE OFFICER JOHN O'KEEFE RELEASE FORMAL ENDORSEMENT IN SUPPORT OF GREG CONNOR FOR NORFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. ⬇️
John O'Keefe grew up in Braintree, MA. He became a valued member in the Canton, MA community as a "funcle" raising his niece/nephew before his untimely death on January 29, 2022.
Primary election takes place September 1st.
In this episode of "The Karen Read Files", we’re diving into the long-running fight over phone evidence - and the double standard at the heart of it: your phone is evidence, but Karen Read's? PRIVATE. At least according to Read.
We’ll walk through the many times she has fought to keep her phone out of scrutiny, but we won’t be leaving Aidan Kearney out of this one either. We’ll take a look at his ongoing fight to keep his phone private, too.
And we’re super excited to have NEW (@NEW__Pod ) joining us to chat all things phones and the battles over what should - and shouldn’t - be seen.
This is going to be a good one. We hope you’ll join us, this Thursday at 7PM ET!
https://t.co/BjvN8wHQbu
According to Aidan Kearney, he knows "exactly what happened" to John O'Keefe.
I cannot begin to tell you how damaging this statement alone will be for him in the defamation case. This statement implies he has proof.
And now he will have to provide it.
Keep talking, moron.
Every time you open your mouth you ensure your future will be filled with pure misery.
When was that Yannetti? When you did your little thing with him together to smear innocent people? Front row seat you say? Interesting.
https://t.co/W6hzHduZAA
#PrOKeefe
Haven't you realized yet that the days when you could intimidate people are over? At some point, you should realize that you're no longer in the majority and that the #prOkeefe site can no longer be silenced. You can scream all you want. Karen will go down just like the rest of the gang. It might take some time. But we're good at waiting 😉
https://t.co/9Rfn3AoBR9
#PrOKeefe
David Yannetti claims that the afternoon Karen Read was arraigned a "tipster" called his office and named "Brian Albert and his nephew" as being responsible for John O'Keefe's death.
The story has been told ad nauseam by the Read team replete with meticulous details. It has been repeated in interview after interview and put on the record in open court.
But, I have a few questions for @BostonDefender.
Why sir, at 6:49pm that day, after the time you've claimed that call took place did you post on Twitter that the case was "overreach" if you had knowledge he was murdered by Brian Albert?
Why did you call it a "horrible tragedy"?
Why did you say it "was not a crime"?
Why did you say "it is certainly not manslaughter"?
Strange things to say in defense of your client if you were aware, as you claimed oh so many times, in so many stories, in so many variations, that your client had been framed., that the people in the house killed John.
That's the thing about the truth, David.
No matter how many times you try to push it down, it always seems to rise to the surface. Sometimes, in the littlest of details.
You opened Pandora's box with your antics. Good luck shutting it.
After @MafiaMasshole released the Yanetti–Kearney text exchanges, I went back and re-read both of Gretchen Voss's longform Boston Magazine articles on the Karen Read case.
One thing stood out immediately: in September 2023, Boston Magazine journalist Gretchen Voss reported that "Both Kearney and Read's defense team say they have never been in contact with one another." At the time, readers were led to believe Turtleboy had independently discovered the case, independently developed the "Canton Cover-Up" theory, and had no relationship with Karen Read's lawyers.
The newly released text messages tell a very different story.
The first documented direct communication between David Yanetti and Aidan Kearney occurred on April 20, 2023, nearly five months before that article was published. That initial exchange was not casual. Kearney told Yanetti, "I think I have the contractor," and Yanetti immediately replied, "Holy shit. Can we call you?" From the beginning, there was an open line of communication involving investigative information related to the defense theory.
Then came April 22, Kearney livestreamed himself calling Jennifer McCabe and Brian Albert, accusing them of covering up John O'Keefe's murder, alleging an affair, and displaying an unredacted police report containing witnesses' personal information, including phone numbers, home addresses, and Social Security numbers.
After that broadcast, Yanetti texted:
"That was priceless, dude. GREAT fucking show, really enjoying the turtle reporting."
He then praised Kearney for mispronouncing his name before telling viewers that it "proves that I am not talking to them."
Yanetti replied:
"I loved how you followed it up."
Think about what that means. Yanetti and Kearney had already been communicating privately for two days. Yet Yanetti praised Kearney for publicly creating the impression that they weren't communicating at all.
This isn't about whether a defense attorney can speak to a member of the media. Of course they can. The issue is that the public was told there was no relationship, while the text messages show an active, open, private line of communication.
The reporting goes further. Voss writes that the defense team provided Kearney with information about the federal investigation, which he then published. Days later, Alan Jackson cited those public reports in court, and the defense argued they were merely repeating information that had already been reported publicly. According to Voss, it had been publicly reported because the defense team leaked it to Kearney in the first place.
That is not independent reporting but a circular information pipeline. The defense team provides information to Kearney. Kearney publishes it. The defense then points to Kearney's reporting as an independent public source while publicly denying any relationship exists.
The communications continued as Kearney's campaign against the witnesses escalated. After Kearney led a rolling rally through Canton, stopping outside witnesses' homes and calling them "cop killers" over a bullhorn, Yanetti texted:
"Thanks for your continued support."
When Jennifer McCabe's request for a harassment prevention order was denied, Yanetti promptly texted Kearney:
"HPO DENIED."
Kearney immediately published a post ending with:
"The bad news for Jen is that we're just getting started. Buckle up horse face."
The texts show the defense was providing information to Kearney and maintaining a close, supportive relationship as the harassment campaign against the witnesses intensified.
However, Yanetti warned Kearney:
"I am concerned they want you badly. They charge you, then a judge prohibits you from having contact with witnesses."
That message shows he understood Kearney's interactions with witnesses had become valuable to the false narrative and that criminal charges could end those contacts.
The text exchanges prove that Yanetti and Kearney were communicating privately and telling the public that there had been no contact. Yanetti praised Kearney immediately after the April 22 broadcast in which witnesses' personal information was exposed. It supports the view that Yanetti appreciated Kearney publicly reinforcing the false impression that they were not communicating. And it exposes the defense team's claim that Kearney was an independent voice, even though they maintained an ongoing behind-the-scenes information-sharing relationship with him.
The public was led to believe Turtleboy independently uncovered the "Canton Cover-Up" theory and pursued it without communicating with Karen Read's lawyers. The text messages and Gretchen Voss's reporting now show something very different: a private, cooperative information-sharing relationship that existed even as the public was told it did not.
Whether you believe Karen Read is guilty or innocent is beside the point. Transparency matters. So does honesty.
These aren't allegations pulled from anonymous social media accounts. They're text messages, court filings, and reporting published by one of Boston's premier magazines.
Once the defense team publicly denied having any contact with Aidan Kearney, the record later showed an ongoing private relationship. Where is the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (BBO)? Where is the Boston media? These are topics that deserve scrutiny.
Every defendant deserves a vigorous defense. Every lawyer is entitled to advocate zealously for a client. But if the public record shows lawyers publicly denying a relationship while privately communicating with someone who was shaping public opinion about a pending murder case, that deserves scrutiny. If the profession believes that conduct was appropriate, it should say so. If it believes it crossed ethical lines, it should say that, too.
Silence is not accountability. At some point, someone in a position of authority has to stand up and say, enough. The integrity of our justice system depends on the public believing that lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the media are held to standards that are higher than "anything goes."
Never again.
Have fun #prOkeefe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers