cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,964
- Reaction score
- 30,814
4 days old but some might have missed it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not so sure. The state seems to be under the impression that Read and/or her family may have "hired' TB to intimidate witnesses on her behalf. TB has always claimed he has never communicated with Read, but we don't know if this is true or not. Even if it was through an intermediary, this could be problematic for her.This seems to me like a case of 'proving a negative' - as in the phones will likely NOT show any active involvement on Karen's part on the whole TB witness intimidation suit. It may show that TB or his associates reached out to her but that she didn't participate. MOO
![]()
Authorities seize 2 phones from Karen Read, move to monitor blogger’s conversations with lawyer, according to prosecutor - The Boston Globe
Police seized two phones from Read on Wednesday, and a special prosecutor filed what he acknowledged was an “extraordinary” request to monitor “Turtleboy” blogger Aidan Kearney’s conversations with his lawyer.www.bostonglobe.com
This seems to me like a case of 'proving a negative' - as in the phones will likely NOT show any active involvement on Karen's part on the whole TB witness intimidation suit. It may show that TB or his associates reached out to her but that she didn't participate. MOO
snipped
Might? I didn’t realize warrants and seizures against citizens could be based on a maybe. If they can be based on a maybe isn’t the defense allowed BA phones (or anyone’s in the home that night) because he/they “might” be involved?
They did have to convince a judge to issue a warrant for Read's phones. So presumably they had to demonstrate probable cause.
That can't happen because Karen Read is the one charged with murder. So there cannot be probable cause to seize the phones of the people in the house and a judge would deem any such request a fishing expedition. And I believe that's already happened.I understand. I’d just also think that the cell phones of all those that were inside the house during the night where a dead person was found on the property in the morning would also be sufficient probable cause.
That can't happen because Karen Read is the one charged with murder. So there cannot be probable cause to seize the phones of the people in the house and a judge would deem any such request a fishing expedition. And I believe that's already happened.
On a related note though it sounds like the Verizon phone records of Jennifer McCabe have been received.
What investigation? Neither the Canton PD nor the state troopers even entered the house. Not that morning or at any other time. Can't see anything if you don't look.I see what you’re saying ok. I guess my question should be directed toward why the cell phones of anyone in the house weren’t investigated during the investigation of the
What investigation? Neither the Canton PD nor the state troopers even entered the house. Not that morning or at any other time. Can't see anything if you don't look.
It's true that the "probably cause" standard might not apply, but in a criminal case, the defense has the right to subpoena such evidence as exculpatory. There are many circumstances in which judges have granted motions like this (and some no doubt deemed a fishing expedition). Otherwise the decks would be so stacked towards the prosecution that there would be no fair trial. Here, as a matter of strategy, if I were the defense attorney, I would make a big deal over the fact that the defense was not able to see the phones of the people in the house because I would argue it was highly probative. In fact, I do think it is highly relevant and if I were on the jury, knowing everything I know, I would think the prosecutor has hid so much potential evidence I would never convict. In fact if I were an appeals court, I would overrule denial of that subpoena as I think it is highly relevant. All MOO (I haven't practiced criminal law in over two decades).That can't happen because Karen Read is the one charged with murder. So there cannot be probable cause to seize the phones of the people in the house and a judge would deem any such request a fishing expedition. And I believe that's already happened.
On a related note though it sounds like the Verizon phone records of Jennifer McCabe have been received.
It's true that the "probably cause" standard might not apply, but in a criminal case, the defense has the right to subpoena such evidence as exculpatory. There are many circumstances in which judges have granted motions like this (and some no doubt deemed a fishing expedition). Otherwise the decks would be so stacked towards the prosecution that there would be no fair trial. Here, as a matter of strategy, if I were the defense attorney, I would make a big deal over the fact that the defense was not able to see the phones of the people in the house because I would argue it was highly probative.
this is an aspect of the law i have considered often lately.... shouldn't there be some restriction around what defense experts can testify to regarding a factual basis? not perjuring themselves doesn't apply there....I think that a defense team can get an expert to testify to anything if the price is right. They can just search for that expert until they find them.
There are restrictions. Expert witnesses have to be qualified in a pre-trial hearing based on scientific criteria. The federal courts and most states (including Massachusetts) use the Daubert Standard to determine if an expert can testify.this is an aspect of the law i have considered often lately.... shouldn't there be some restriction around what defense experts can testify to regarding a factual basis? not perjuring themselves doesn't apply there....