BronFoth

This screenshot of Jennifer McCabe, from a never-before-seen video dated January 28, 2022, is confirmed to be from The Waterfall. This was confirmed by her best friend, Kerry Lama (who also helps fundraise for her civil defense). Jen is seen seated on the opposite side of the table from where she is later seen sitting in surveillance footage when Karen Read and John O'Keefe enter the bar. As you can see, she is sitting closest to the band. Next to her was likely her sister, Nicole Albert. We can reasonably infer this because Nicole was drinking White Claws, which she later left the bar with, including one that was already open. Jen is drinking a Corona. Both beverages match what the ladies were drinking in the other video footage from that evening. It is interesting that this footage was never seen in either of Read's two criminal trials. It clearly shows the drinking that was taking place prior to Read and O'Keefe's arrival. That drinking then continued at 34 Fairview Rd, according to the testimony of witnesses who were inside the house. This footage could have been used by Read's defense to establish how much drinking was taking place and potentially challenge the accuracy and credibility of witnesses' recollections of the evening. It also could have provided additional impeachment material. At least two people knew this video existed: Jennifer McCabe and whoever recorded it. Whoever possessed the footage ultimately provided it to Netflix. This raises questions about why it was never produced during the criminal proceedings and, if McCabe knew about it, whether she disclosed its existence to investigators or attorneys. Being involved in multiple civil litigations, this could become a significant headache for McCabe and her attorneys. The footage will likely be sought by multiple parties, as recordings fall within the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b). If this material was previously requested but omitted from discovery and is now being used by Netflix, that creates an entirely different issue. Depending on the circumstances, McCabe could face additional deposition questioning, a motion to compel, or potentially other discovery sanctions. Another issue is the lawsuit that was moved to federal court, with McCabe among the defendants involved in the removal. Their spokespeople stated that the move was intended, in part, to avoid the "media circus" and cameras. One of those same spokespeople also confirmed that this very video was from the evening in question. Cameras are generally prohibited in federal courtrooms. So how do we think a federal judge will view the contrast between seeking to avoid cameras in the courtroom while participating in a globally distributed Netflix documentary about the very case she is presiding over? It is not unlawful to participate in a media production. However, it is a decision that comes with potential consequences when you are actively involved in litigation and your statements and materials could become relevant evidence. And let's not forget, the documentary itself could become a source of additional discovery. Relevant, nonprivileged footage, including unused material, could potentially be sought through subpoenas. Communications concerning the footage, production agreements, and compensation may also become subjects of discovery, depending on their relevance to the claims and defenses. It's quite an oxymoron to claim reputational harm from public accusations while simultaneously accepting a substantial platform to present your own version of events. If the concern was protecting yourself from the spectacle surrounding the Karen Read trials, why participate in a globally distributed documentary while the possibility of televised courtroom proceedings was apparently undesirable? This short clip may have opened up a new can of worms for McCabe. And this Netflix special could create an entirely new evidentiary record.

October has brought a significant new round of activity in HAM v. Karen Read & Aidan Kearney civil lawsuit. From the fight over David Yannetti's subpoena and the October 27th order from Judge Gildea, to competing appeals and Kearney's two applications for Direct Appellate Review before the SJC, there is a lot to unpack in the latest court filings. The documents, the arguments, the appellate proceedings, and what comes next: LIVE today at 12:15pm ET🩷💚 youtube.com/live/pa0F3OEqX88…

"The burden is self-imposed." - Judge Gildea That was one of the biggest moments from today's hearing over Karen Read's motion to compel Colin Albert's deposition. Colin Albert's attorney, Chris Mattei, argued that Colin is now in basic combat training, does not have his phone, has an intensive daily schedule, and that any deposition would require permission from the U.S. Army. He said he had even reached out to a Judge Advocate four times without receiving a response. Judge Gildea didn't dispute that the Army controls Colin's schedule. Instead, he focused on one fact: the subpoena had already been served before Colin enlisted. 🚨 Gildea repeatedly emphasized that subpoenas have to mean something. He said the burden was "self-imposed," signaling that voluntarily entering military service after being served with a subpoena does not automatically excuse compliance with that subpoena. Karen Read's attorney, Aaron Rosenberg, agreed that everyone respects Colin's decision to serve his country. His argument was regarding the timing of this choice. Colin already had outstanding obligations under a court-issued subpoena, and this is now the second hearing because Read's team still has not received the documents they subpoenaed. By the end of the hearing, Colin's attorney acknowledged that if Judge Gildea orders Colin to appear for a deposition, they will comply. The remaining question is what the Army will actually permit and how that deposition can be accomplished. To me, this was never about criticizing military service. It was about whether someone can voluntarily make themselves unavailable after already being served with a subpoena. Judge Gildea made it clear he is not prepared to simply let that question end the discussion. Because Attorney Mattei acknowledged he was still trying to determine the proper process for obtaining permission from the Army, Judge Gildea directed him to find out exactly what needs to be done to produce Colin Albert for a deposition. Judge Gildea also corrected Mattei after he referred to the subpoena as something "the other side says is disputed." "You may not want to say 'the other side says it's disputed.'" Gildea had already made clear that this was "a subpoena that was already served." His concern was no longer whether the subpoena existed or was valid. It was how the parties were going to comply with it. AKA, Colin's attorneys have one more shot before Gildea files a court order to produce him for the deposition.