Canton Coverup Part 462: Hank Brennan Tries To Prevent Richard Green From Testifying About Jennifer McCabe’s 2:27 Google Search Because He’s Afraid To Fight Karen Read Fairly

 

– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– Donate to the Turtleboy Legal defense fund
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos
– Join ”Justice for John O’Keefe and Karen Read” FB Group

 

Hank Brennan’s new strategy for prosecuting Karen Read at her second murder trial seems to be to prevent her witnesses from testifying. Last month Brennan filed a motion to voir dire Dr. Marie Russell at a Daubert hearing in an attempt to prevent her from discussing the dog bites on John O’Keefe’s arm. Yesterday he filed a motion to ban forensic expert Richard Green, and I have no doubt that the ARCCA experts are next. Green is vital to the Read defense because he is the forensic expert who found what Nicholas Guarino intentionally withheld from Jennifer McCabe’s phone extraction – a deleted Google search at 2:27 AM for “hos long to die in cold,” that proves that she was involved in covering up John O’Keefe’s murder.

Like a child, Brennan entitled his motion “to exclude defense witness Richard Green’s debunked ‘opinions’.”

COMMONWEALTH’S MORS FOUNDER WENESS RICHARD

Nothing about Richard Green’s finding was “debunked.” This is just a word Internet trolls throw around in order to cover for John O’Keefe’s killers. Brennan appears to be taking direction from anonymous Twitter accounts for his trial strategy. The motion claims that Green’s findings in regard to the Google search (but not any of the other data he uncovered from McCabe’s phone) “lack any evidentiary support” and are “baseless claims.”

Except the claims aren’t baseless and they are backed by evidence. As the footnote shows, “Cellebrite is the leading forensic data extraction software.” And at the cop of the full file extraction report of McCabe’s phone is the word “Cellebrite,” indicating that it was the software used to find this deleted search.

Brennan goes on to say that Green has been “unequivocally disproven” because the Commonwealth’s hand picked “expert” Ian Whiffin, who used the trial to promote his app that Cellebrite doesn’t use, says the Google search didn’t happen at 2:27.

At Attorney Mark Bederow pointed out, a legal position of “our expert is smarter than your’s” is not a basis to exclude the other party’s expert.

It’s also notable that on April 20, 2023, seven months before the Norfolk DA’s Office had ever spoken to Whiffin, they came out and announced unequivocally that they KNEW that the Google search would be disproven. 

Prosecutors say they will disprove explosive allegations by a Massachusetts woman who says she was wrongly charged in the death of a Boston police officer last year. Karen Read’s defense team says newly unveiled cell phone data calls into question the prosecution’s case against Read. But David Traub, spokesperson for the Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrisey, tells Boston 25 Investigates that the district attorney will file a response in court on May 3.

“While prosecutors are ethically constrained in the statements that can be made outside the courtroom, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office is in receipt of the motion filed last week and it is our expectation to have a detailed response to the court May 3 that refutes the assertions in that motion,” Traub said in an email.

Traub, the spokesperson for the Norfolk District Attorney’s office, initially said it’s unclear whether Read’s team interpreted the cellphone “raw data correctly.”

How could it be their “expectation” that Richard Green’s findings would be refuted if they hadn’t consulted with a digital forensic expert yet? They had an answer to the question before they could even ask it. How many digital forensic experts did they consult with between the date this statement was made (April 20, 2023) and the date they first made contact with Whiffin (November 2023), and how many of them agreed with Green’s findings? Why would they need to go all the way to Calgary to find someone who would do exactly what they predicted they would do on April 20, 2023?

The motion says that Green admitted during his testimony that Cellebrite had to modify their software “based on his misinterpretation of data from Jennifer McCabe’s phone.

But this is a lie. At the end of cross examination Adam Lally asked Green if his “misinterpretation” of the data was what caused Whiffin to revise newer versions of Cellebrite. Green responded by pointing out that Whiffin used the wrong version of iOS, and that there are 2 versions of Cellebrite physical analyzer. The first is the standard physical analyzer, which is a tool that takes raw data and puts it in “human terms” that allows us to read and write data extraction reports. The second version is a newer version called “Insights,” that has been updated. But Cellebrite’s current physical analyzer program is the first one, which is being used worldwide by police to analyze cellphone data.

In other words, Whiffin created his own version of Cellebrite called “Insights” with “updates” to the version Green used, after being contracted by the Commonwealth to testify on behalf of Jennifer McCabe.

Brennan’s motion says that the Commonwealth retained two digital forensic experts – Whiffin and Jessica Hyde – in response to Mr. Green’s misconstructions.

But how could the Commonwealth know for sure that Green was wrong if they hadn’t spoken to either of these so-called “experts” yet?

Hyde claims that she conducted “independent, peer reviewed experiments” to determine that McCabe’s phone was in use at 2:27 when a Safari browser was open on a Hockomock sports website, and that McCabe didn’t actually search for “hos long to die in cold” until 6:24 using that same browser. McCabe claims that she only Googled that because Karen Read asked her to.

Except that story falls apart for a number of reasons:

• In the original cell phone extraction conducted by Nicholas Guarino there was no mention of ANY Google searches for “hos long to die in cold”

• It doesn’t make any sense for Read to ask McCabe to Google “hos long to die in cold” at 6:24 because she was surrounded by paramedics who could answer that question for her
• Jen McCabe claims Karen asked her to Google “hos long to die in cold” while they were in the back of a police cruiser together at 6:24, but the dashcam footage shows that was a lie. Jen testified that while she was Googling “hos long to die in cold” John O’Keefe was being moved into an ambulance on a stretcher.

• John was moved from Brian Albert’s yard to the ambulance at 6:14-6:15. Dash cam video shows that Karen and Jen weren’t inside any vehicle at that point. In fact, McCabe was talking to Officer Saraf, laying the foundations for Read’s eventual arrest.

• Officer Mullaney testified that at no point were McCabe and Read ever in a police vehicle together.

• Officer Saraf’s dash cam video showed that it picked up audio from outside the vehicle, so if Read asked McCabe to Google something inside a police cruiser it would’ve picked up the audio.

• Sgt. Goode arrived at 6:16, and testified that while he was there Read was running around yelling incoherent things. He briefly put her in the back of his vehicle, alone, with the door open, but she wouldn’t sit still so he ended up sending her out of there with Kerry Roberts (despite allegedly confessing to running John over according to Jennifer McCabe at trial).

• At 6:23, seconds before Googling “hos long to die in cold,” Jennifer McCabe called Brian Albert, and then later deleted that phone call. She never mentioned any of this in her testimony or interviews with police.

It’s clear as day that Karen Read never asked Jennifer McCabe to Google “hos long to die in cold” at 6:24 AM. The only reason she would do this is because she planned on doing it after making the huge mistake of Googling it at 2:27, hoping that this exact scenario would play out and she could claim that she made the search AFTER seeing O’Keefe’s body. She thought this would make sense, and it might’ve been more explainable than Googling it at 2:27 AM, but she didn’t do it because Read told her to.

Nevertheless, Brennan called Richard Green’s opinions “debunked” and says they should be inadmissible at trial.

Green also testified that Karen Read’s phone had it’s GPS location data deleted from the phone in April of 2022 after police took custody of it.

That would’ve shown where Karen Read was at what time.

Brennan goes on to blame Karen Read herself for promoting the “false narrative” known as a third party culprit defense. As evidence he cited transcripts from her interview with Gretchen Voss that the Commonwealth recently won in a motion. The transcripts just show that Read told Voss the factual information that Guarino’s original extraction report of McCabe’s phone didn’t mention anything about ANY Google searches.

Most importantly, two experts – a Quantico trained specialist employed by the FBI and Umit Karabiyik, a PhD at Purdue’s Department of Computer and Information Technology – both stated unquivocally that McCabe’s search happened at 2:27 AM for “hos long to die in cold”

The prosecution’s expert said the 2:27 a.m. time stamp “is not indicative of the time of the search,” claiming that McCabe could have searched in a window opened at 2:27 a.m. Vanity Fair asked Umit Karabiyik, a PhD at Purdue’s Department of Computer and Information Technology who specializes in iPhone artifacts and the limitations of digital forensics, to evaluate the prosecution’s expert testimony as well as an affidavit from Read’s expert. “Based on my research and expertise, I concur with what I see in the Affidavit from Richard Green,” Karabiyik emailed VF, referring to Read’s expert. Though the browser tab was opened earlier than the searches, Karabiyik said, “The time stamp for the search items is recorded for searches [and] stored in the database, not the time of the tab opening.” He noted that Green additionally verified the search times with associated WAL files that are occasionally overlooked.

Hank Brennan is right – Jen McCabe Googling “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27 is not up for debate. It’s an undeniable fact that it occurred. But if you’re confused by all the tech talk from Green, Whiffin, and Hyde, just remember that it’s been proven that Read never asked McCabe to Google “hos long to die in cold” at 6:24. Jen did that all on her own in order to cover her tracks. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

Hank Brennan is scared to fight Karen Read fairly. He knows he has no shot at conviction if the facts are allowed to be presented in court, so he’s counting on Auntie Bev to help him out by preventing Green Russell, and the ARCCA experts from testifying. Then again, this is why they hired a mob lawyer to run this case – no honorable person with a conscience would want any part of it.