Canton Coverup Part 100 – Expert Attorney Who Told Court TV Karen Read Killed John O’Keefe Has Documented History Of Making Up Lies On TV Including Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax

 

– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– Donate to the Karen Read Legal Defense Fund
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos

On Wednesday night I was interviewed on Court TV by Vinnie Politano, and was followed by Karen Read’s attorneys David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. But it was another guest who was invited on after me, and who will now be a part of the official narrative, that did a disservice to this story. The 12 minute interview began at the 9 minute mark, and has elicited quite a bit of feedback.

The most memorable line of the interview has to be my accurate description of Karl Dugal, when Vinnie asked me who that was that we were booing. 

Karl Dugal. Local Moron.

Need that on a t-shirt.

Many have criticized Politano for interrupting (let me ask you something), and pressing me about the alleged harassment of John O’Keefe’s family. Personally, I saw no problem with that question, and I don’t necessarily think that this was his way of grilling me. The Lizzy Proctor crew had sent Court TV a bunch of emails making this allegation, and since the facts were on my side it was too our benefit that he ask this question so I could address it on national television. The fact of the matter is that I’m seen on video telling the crowd outside of the courthouse NOT to boo John’s mother, once I realized that they didn’t recognize her. Watch:

Perhaps you should listen to this.
I’m not a fan of Turtleboy but at least he attempted to calm the crowd when the parents walked by. pic.twitter.com/9FJlk8aJ5B

— loungelizard (@loungelizard9) August 8, 2023

So Vinnie actually gave me the opportunity to show a national audience that we are civil and that our detractors have to resort to lying to bolster their cause.

There was one time when I feel like I didn’t have a chance to make my point was the 13 minute mark. I was trying to explain was that the moment I realized how corrupt the DA’s office was, was when they announced in late April that they were not dropping the charges AFTER the Jen McCabe Google search was revealed. Everyone admits that if she Googled “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 AM then it means there was a conspiracy to cover up John O’Keefe’s murder. I assumed that the DA’s Office was an institution we could trust, and that they would have no choice but to drop the charges. When they doubled down I realized that this case was so much larger than the Alberts, McCabes, and Michael Proctor.

Karen’s lawyers did an amazing job, as always. They laid out the facts, called the prosecution of “walking zombie and they don’t even know it,” and said that the Lucky Loughran interview I conducted was “game over.”

But at the end Vinnie announced that he was bringing on this woman:

He introduced Attorney Wendy Murphy as an “independent mind,” and suggested she was an expert who could be trusted because “if you’re in Massachusetts there’s only one place you go,” if you want good legal analysis. He introduced her as a former child abuse prosecutor, and a law professor at New England Law.

But Wendy Murphy is none of those things. She’s an adjunct professor who constantly goes around promoting herself and looking for attention. And she gets it for some reason.

She also has a long and documented history of lying, but seems to suffer no consequences for it.

I first noticed her in June when she began tweeting things about the case at me which were completely untrue. She stated as a fact that the defense was asking for police officer’s personnel files so they could embarrass the cops, then use that information to broker a plea deal.

In other words, she’s accusing Karen Read’s attorneys of using blackmail as a strategy. Except they’ve never once asked for personnel files for any officers, and most of the people being accused aren’t cops (Colin Albert, Jen McCabe, Matt McCabe).

She claimed that Karen Read’s car had damage on its rear, and that John slammed his head on the driveway.

But there is no damage to Karen Read’s car, and John was found 20 yards from the driveway.

She doubled down on the driveway and 3 point turn lies, and alleged that John didn’t even land on his head.

She called it “over defending,” which isn’t a thing.

It was clear she hadn’t read a single thing about the case and was just an attention seeking boomer on social media trying to insert herself into something in her never ending quest to be on television.

 

When I saw that she was on Court TV I assumed that in the last 2 months she had done a little bit of research about the case so she didn’t embarrass herself or the network. But as it turns out she hadn’t when she began speaking at the 36 minute mark.

“She probably hit him, he banged his head on the driveway….”

No.

“He was covered by the snow, which was why no one found him until the following day.”

1. There was less than two of inches of snow that had fallen when John’s body was discovered. Here’s an image of the unsecured crime scene taken two hours after finding his body.

2. She’s suggesting that so much snow had fallen that it hid his body and they didn’t discover him there until the following day. His body was discovered no more than 2-3 hours after it was placed there by Brian Albert. Even the prosecution contends that he was there for 5.5 hours at most.

“If they can get the judge to buy into the idea that it might have been someone in the house, then they’re going to access to all the police employment files, and that’s gonna give Karen Read the leverage she needs to lower the charge to manslaughter.”

Literally nothing about that statement is even remotely close to being true. She just made it all up out of thin air. She seems to be so lost that she believes everyone inside 34 Fairview Road was a cop. Karen Read does not want personnel files on high school senior Colin Albert or soccer Mom Jen McCabe. She is not trying to use these imaginary files as leverage to plea to a lesser charge, because Karen Read would NEVER plea to anything. These are things anyone with a basic understanding of this case would know.

But instead of correcting or interrupting her which he did with me, Vinnie asked her if potential jurors had an anti-police mindset. This gave her the opportunity the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard on television:

“When the prosecution overcharges someone and they blame police for why there’s an overcharge, there’s a chance the jury will come back and punish the prosecution for doing that. If the jury thinks this was an accident they’re gonna be angry that she was charged with murder, and that could end in an outright not guilty verdict as a way of bringing democracy to the case and punishing the government for doing that.”

This woman went on national television and said that a jury would be so angry with the prosecution charging her with murder, that not only would they acquit her of murder, they would also acquit her of a lesser charge like manslaughter, even though they believe she is guilty of that, as a way of punishing the prosecution. She just made that all up because she likes to hear herself talk.

She then suggested that BLM is the reason Karen Read will get off.

“This is a country where the climate around police is not good, and it’s a shame that that’s tainting that.”

The real capper was when she called it an “over defense,” which isn’t a thing. All of that got her no pushback from Vinnie.

After that she continued to humiliate herself on Twitter. First she said that Karen backed into him, knocked him on his butt, and pieces of tail light were found at the scene.

Except no tail light was found by the Canton Police, and if he was knocked on his ass it means he didn’t his his head. So how did she explain the head injuries and scratches on the arm? Simple – as he sat on his ass she slammed into his face, causing the tail light to break, and then a plow came by and dragged him 20 yards from the driveway, over the lawn, before leaving him to die in the grass.

Someone pointed out that since she said John was in the driveway it would be impossible for a plow to hit him. She had an explanation.

The driveway was plowed by the town. Except they’d obviously never do that for a citizen, it would make no sense to plow a driveway until all the snow had fallen, and pictures from 9 AM that morning shows the McCabes and Alberts car in the completely unplowed driveway.

She wasn’t done though. She also accused the defense of hiring a PR firm to “whip the public into a frenzy about some cockamamie theory.”

I have yet to receive my check from the PR company, but there’s nothing “cockamamie” about their theory. The “conspiracy theory” makes a lot more sense than anything the Commonwealth has alleged. I wanna bang my head on the wall reading her tweets.

 

I wouldn’t care about this woman if she didn’t spew outright lies to millions of people who may not have heard of this story before, and assume that she knows what she’s talking about because she’s an attorney who Court TV has vouched for.

This is not the first time she has done this either. In 2006 three members of the Duke Lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape by a stripper who has since gone on to be convicted of murder. Wendy Murphy  did several media appearances on CNN and MSNBC, in which she definitively stated that the Duke players were guilty. On June 5, 2006 Murphy was the featured legal analyst on CNN’s The Situation, and this is what she had to say:

“To suggest [the indicted players] were well behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?”

“I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”

She has her “own statistics” to show that no woman has ever falsely accused a man of rape. This idiot was given a platform to comment on Karen Read.

On May 3, 2006 she went on CNN Live and stated the following about the three falsely accused players whose lives she was helping to ruin:

“I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child.”

That case was similar to Karen Read’s, in that District Attorney Mike Nifong knew that the three accused players did not rape the alleged victim, and he intentionally did not turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense that would exonerate them. She praised him for his actions.

“Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants’ rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.”

Just like with Michael Morrissey, there was political pressure on Nifong to convict someone. When it was discovered that he had done this he was removed from the case by the AGO, charged, and spent one night in jail. Hopefully Morrissey will spend more time than that.

By December of 2006 it was clear that Nifong was in trouble, and that the whole thing was a hoax. USA Today for some reason allowed her to publish an op-ed in which she continued to defend Nifong anyway (it has since been pulled down). Here’s some more quotes from her throughout the process:

(22 December 2006) “One of the reasons I think she should be thought of as fairly credible is that she rejected a 2 million dollar plus offer by people on behalf of Duke at the outset.”

In fact, the accuser told police on June 30 that she had never been offered any money, by anyone, to drop the case.

(1 May 2006) “All the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.”

In fact, these photographs have been cited in various defense motions, and even Nifong hasn’t challenged their veracity.

(11 April 2006) “You know, these guys actually . . . some of them have been, according to neighbors, reportedly been involved in not only carousing activity but other sexual offenses.”

The Coleman Committee Report established that they had no such records.

(19 April 2006) “All of them took the Fifth. All of them refused to cooperate. All of them refused to give a DNA sample, until the court produced an order compelling them to do so.”

In fact, Dave Evans, Dan Flannery, and Matt Zash gave multi-hour statements to the police, voluntarily gave DNA samples, and offered to take lie-detector tests. No player has invoked the Fifth Amendment at any point in this case.

(27 April 2006) “It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn’t produce DNA when you put it inside someone.”

At no point in her myriad stories did the accuser claim she was raped with a broom.

(2 May 2006) “The broomstick DNA has not yet been revealed.”

No broomstick DNA existed because the police never seized a broomstick.

(5 April 2006) “She had a torn genital area.”

Even Mike Nifong conceded, “There is no scientific or other evidence independent of the [accuser’s] testimony that would corroborate specifically” a charge of rape.

(24 May 2006) “Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty.”

This is completely made up.

(2 May 2006) “She was under the influence of a date rape drug.”

In fact, a toxicology report indicated no such finding.

“And maybe what she said, which makes her particularly credible, is, ‘These guys didn’t ejaculate on or inside of my body,’ which means she deserves extra credibility because no one’s suggesting that she lied about whether there would be DNA found on her person.”

In fact, depending on which story she happened to be telling, the accuser claimed that either one or two of her alleged attackers ejaculated.

(5 April 2006) The players were “thinking, ‘I was entitled to do this. I’m a member of a wealthy white boy’s school in a community that allow me to do what I want when I want. They’ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time. Why not go home and celebrate?’ . . . The e-mail shows that these guys were of the mind that whatever had happened to this woman was just another day at the beach. They’ll rape her, sodomize her and tomorrow they’ll kill her.”

(May 2) “Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke . . . When they make administrative decisions about student behavior they don’t owe them any due process.”

(May 1) “I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.”

 “I want to vote [Nifong] up. Whatever, you know, next rung of the ladder prosecutors can go at, he deserves to be promoted and celebrated.” In light of the state bar’s filing of ethics charges, I doubt many people would consider Nifong a suitable candidate for promotion

How does someone this decades of documented lying and unethical behavior continuously get invited on major television stations as some sort of legitimate attorney? It’s unfortunate, because Court TV introduced this woman as an authority figure whose opinion should be trusted. How many people saw this and believed her outright lies? It should be unacceptable for this woman ever to be platformed again.