Canton Coverup Part 137: Brian Albert Owned A Google Nest Camera, Adam Lally Knew And Failed To Disclose To Karen Read’s Defense Team


– 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

Karen Read’s attorneys filed another motion yesterday in Norfolk Superior Court that was not made public until this morning. It contains shocking new information about a Google Nest camera that was owned by Brian Albert, and what appears to be ADA Adam Lally actively participating in covering this up.

searchresults (42)
searchresults (43)

The defense is asking for Judge Cannone to issue a summons to Google for all information about Brian Albert’s Google Nest camera.

As we’ve pointed out many times before, it’s hard to believe that a veteran police officer like Brian Albert, who has arrested and tracked down hundreds of dangerous criminals, would not have a security camera anywhere on his property. However, there is not a single mention in any police report of an officer asking Brian or Nicole Albert if they even owned a surveillance camera.

The Commonwealth is arguing that Karen Read intentionally ran over John O’Keefe directly in front of the Albert residence, and if that were true then video surveillance would be one of the first things they’d try to obtain. But they apparently didn’t even ask Albert if he owned one, nor did they ask to look at surveillance video from the two houses across the street that have cameras pointed directly at the Albert house.

However, we have now learned in the most recent motion that Brian Albert was asked whether or not he owned a surveillance camera while testifying in front of the grand jury in April of 2022. Except the question wasn’t asked by Adam Lally (the man responsible for questioning witnesses), it was asked by a curious grand juror who thought it was suspicious that Albert didn’t seem to own a surveillance camera. But before Albert could answer Adam Lally interjected and asked him a leading question that included information which had never been made public or put in any police reports.

Somehow Adam Lally knew that Brian Albert owned a Google Nest camera that he never installed? How did he know that? How did he know that the Google Nest camera was a Christmas gift from Nicole? Why did he feel the need to interject on this straight forward question? Was he afraid of the answer Brian Albert would give to the grand juror?

Massachusetts Rule 14 of Criminal Procedures states that the prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, “all statements of persons the party intends to call as witnesses,” as well as any facts of an exculpatory nature (facts that would exonerate Karen Read).

By asking that leading question, Adam Lally let it slip that he had previously spoken with Brian or Nicole Albert about the existence of a Google Nest camera owned by the Alberts, long before Junary 29, 2022.

Brian and Nicole Albert are both “persons the party intends to call as witnesses.”

The mere existence of a Google Nest camera in the Albert household was never mentioned in any police reports. This means Lally either had a private conversation with Albert about it prior to him testifying (which would mean he coached and rehearsed with the witness), or was told this information by Michael Proctor, who chose not to put it in any of his reports. Albert and Lally had clearly rehearsed how the testimony would go, but they didn’t anticipate that question being asked, so Lally had to intervene.

It is Adam Lally’s job to seek truth and justice. It was his job to ask Brian Albert that question, but he intentionally chose not to. Had a grand juror not spoken up this information never would have become disclosed or made known to the defense.

There is no reason Brian Albert couldn’t answer the grand jurors question about whether or not he had security cameras at his house. The only reason Lally would’ve felt the need to interject was if he didn’t trust what Brian Albert would say, which is why he had to ask him the LEADING QUESTION about whether or not he had received a cameras as a Christmas gift and failed to install it. Just in case Brian Albert had forgotten the script, Lally had to remind him that the story they were going with was that the Google Nest cameras were a Christmas gift that was never installed.

Most importantly, why would Karen Read be asking the court to obtain Google Nest surveillance footage if she believes that said footage would show her running over John O’Keefe with her car? For the same reason Karen Read sought out plow driver Lucky Loughran – because she didn’t kill John O’Keefe, and she knew it would prove that.

That’s what makes this case so unique – the defense is begging the police and DA’s Office to go hunting for evidence that would lead to her conviction if she actually killed John O’Keefe. A guilty defendant would be thrilled that the prosecution was this disinterested in seeking out inculpatory evidence.

But Karen Read isn’t just not guilty, she’s factually innocent and being lynched by the State Police and Norfolk County DA’s Office, which is why will never stop protesting until she’s exonerated and the guilty parties are brought to justice.


Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hello Turtle Riders. As you know if you follow Turtleboy we are constantly getting censored and banned by Facebook for what are clearly not violations of their terms of service. Twitter has done the same, and trolls mass reported our blog to Google AdSense thousands of times, leading to demonetization. We can get by and survive, but we could really use your help. Please consider donating by hitting the Donation button above if you'd like support free speech and what we do in the face of Silicon Valley censorship. Or just buy our award winning book about the dangers of censorship and rise of Turtleboy:  Qries
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Adblock Detected

Support the news you love. Please disable the ad blocker or purchase our ad free subscription