Canton Cover-Up Part 130: Disgraced FBI Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer Accidentally Reveals She Is Being Sent Information By DA Morrissey’s Office

 

– 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

In Part 111 of the Canton Cover-up series we wrote about disgraced FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer, who uses her Twitter account with 70K followers to post disinformation about the Karen Read case by presenting herself as an expert. She has no background in murders, and doesn’t know the first thing about how the courts work. She accidentally revealed in one post that Chris Albert was her source of information, as she loudly defended Colin Albert and claimed that he was not in the house the night John O’Keefe was murdered. One of the images she posted of Colin, which she claims was taken on February 9, appears to depict a photoshopped version of Colin’s knuckle.

But it appears as if Chris Albert is not the only person she is acting as a mouthpiece for. On August 31 Coffindaffer posted a ridiculous tweet that would normally be laughable it weren’t from a woman who spent most of her career in law enforcement. She attempted to explain why Michael Morrissey wasn’t lying when he said that Michael Proctor was not at 34 Fairview Road at all on January 29, 2022, despite the charging documents clearly stating that he was there on scene. Here’s what she posted:

This woman LOVES to use cop talk to make herself sound more enlightened than she actually is.

“rally up”

“Got the ticket to respond”

“when you are on call, and you get the call, you go” (as if in other jobs when you get the call you sit at home and do nothing)

“hustled to respond” (what does that even mean?)

“in the chain”

“interoffice correspondence” (she posted the charging documents, which are public record)

“in law enforcement we use on scene to refer to different scenes of response” (no, it’s used to describe whatever scene is being discussed in context)

You can tell this woman lives in a warm weather state and has no idea how the State Police operate in Massachusetts because she doesn’t realize that:

• Detectives like Proctor can bring their work cars home.
• Proctor lives in Canton, and the closest barracks to “rally up” with Bukhenik was three towns away in Milton.
• Proctor’s personal vehicle has all wheel drive, as does almost everyone’s car in New England.
• Bukhenik lives in Stoughton, one town away from Canton, and is not required to show up to “the scene” after carpooling with Proctor.
• It defies logic that if Proctor’s car couldn’t get to another home in Canton 5 minutes away due to snow, that that same car would be able to drive the much further distance to Milton to “rally up” with Bukhenik. 

But the most laughable part of her post was that she said “the scene” referred to in the charging documents was actually the Canton Police Department, not 34 Fairview Road. By the time Proctor had “rallied up” with Bukhenik by driving to Milton and then driving back to Canton, the scene at 34 Fairview Road had been cleared.

Because lead investigators in murders don’t go to the place where the murder took place.

You wouldn’t understand, you don’t work in law enforcement.

I thought this was a joke when I read her tweet, but the next day the Commonwealth filed a motion alleging EXACTLY what Coffindaffer posted as a fact in her tweet – that “the scene” referred to the Canton Police Department.

searchresults (31)

Obviously this is a ridiculous assertion, as another State Police report specifically lists “the scene” as 34 Fairview Road.

The charging documents say that Canton Police arrived at “the scene” of 34 Fairview Road, and that Proctor responded to the scene “as well,” which implies 34 Fairview Road to anyone with a basic understanding of the English language.

But the really troubling part is that Coffindaffer knew a day before that this exact argument would be what the Commonwealth put in their motion. How could she know that they would be THIS ridiculous?

The only explanation is that she’s being fed this information by the Commonwealth, either directly, or indirectly through the Alberts. (The same people who tried to gag the defense for using the media to affect a jury pool.) This information is so specific and absurd that she couldn’t just dream it up on her own. You can safely assume that everything this statist posts comes directly from Morrissey’s office, who she is now working on behalf of.

Like many, Jennifer Coffindaffer has no interest in discovering truth in this case. She only cares about pushing the state narrative and proving “the blogger” wrong who she condescendingly mentions all the time.

Coffindaffer’s obsession with Turtleboy is severely damaging her credibility. Yesterday she posted an extremely defamatory tweet about me, alleging that I was “scamming” Karen Read supporters by pocketing 40% on all money raised.

She posted a screenshot of a Facebook post made by a man named Nick Rocco, who was selling Free Karen Read magnets, and announced that 60% was going to the defense fund, and 40% was going to me. But she failed to realize that the reason for this was because the magnets had the Turtleboy logo on them, and therefore could not be sold without my permission.

Luckily I was happy to donate 60% of all sales to the Karen Read defense fund.

This is the definition of transparency, and the opposite of scamming, which many pointed out. She amended her tweet after I threatened her with a libel lawsuit that be impossible for her to defend.

But even that was wrong. I do not receive 40% of money donated to the Karen Read defense fund. As a matter of fact I have raised and donated over $3K to it. I only received 40% on the magnets because they have my logo on them. If anyone wants to donate to the Karen Read defense fund without me receiving a dime they are free to do so.

Guess they didn’t teach that in the academy.

Jennifer Coffindaffer has no interest in the truth. The only thing she cares about is proving to the world that she knows more about this case than a “blogger” who has been covering every aspect of it every day for 5 months straight. Her ego will not allow her to consider that Karen Read might be innocent, no matter how much evidence is provided that shows she is, because it would be an admittance that a “blogger” knows more about this case than a former FBI diversity hire.

For that reason she has also been trying to discredit Lucky Loughran, who told this reporter, a private investigator, and an FBI agent that John O’Keefe’s body was not on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road at 2:30 AM when he plowed the street. She admits that Proctor should have interviewed this eye witness, but said that Lucky didn’t see O’Keefe’s body because it was dark, snowing, he was too focused on the road, and his body was covered by 21 inches of snow.

Except:

• There was less than 2 inches of snow by the time the body was found, and most of the heavy snow came hours later
• Lucky specifically stated that he had good visibility, and that he would have seen a body if it was there because he always looks in front of him AND from side to side

This is how dishonest this woman is. In order to argue her position it requires putting words in the mouth of a veteran plow driver who told the same story about what he saw to three separate people. Lucky’s testimony is so damning to the Alberts and McCabes, but they know they can’t accuse him of lying, so their only option is to put words in his mouth.

Many people replied to her tweet to tell her how wrong she was, but she either ignored them or doubled down on the disinformation.

 

She also explained how none of the 6-10 witnesses in the house saw John’s body when they left the house.

“He was off to the side and not in their line of sight.”

Matt McCabe drove directly past the body on his way home, while Jen McCabe sat in the front seat. She would’ve been feet from the body as they drove by, and the ground would have been illuminated from the one inch of snow.

The best part is that she capped it all off by tweeting about another case in which she pointed out the reliability of a Google search in order to prove a defendant was guilty.

This is how you know this woman has no interest in seeking truth – she accepts evidence when it makes the defendant look guilty, but when it exonerates them it’s suddenly unreliable.