JazziesMom 💓

Tired of seeing this reframing that anyone that speaks their opinion of certain members of the O'Keefe's are automatically bad people and/or crossing a line. But here is the problem: if you are paid and sign up for an interview, that will end up on a global platform like Netflix, people are going to criticize that interview. Being a victim's family member is not a shield for criticism, especially when controversial statements come out during an interview. In fact, many of the individuals that believe the Commonwealth's theory have zero problem speaking on other families like the Read's, Kearney's, other witnesses, content creators, etc. Many of you have crossed lines by contacting family members, employers, harassing, stalking.. some of you even abusing the very systems that are used by police to look up individuals information like CJIS. You all are fucking hypocrites pushing a bullshit, manipulative narrative that simply does not make logical sense. So let me be frank when I say this.. Tuesday, your virtue signaling is bullshit. By presenting your motives as purely noble, any pushback is automatically framed as an attack on a grieving family rather than a critique of the your commentary. You are far from being the moral high ground police. Your nonsense that critics are "mad" at "a tweet lifting up a family" distorts the opposing viewpoint. Completely ignoring that critics may actually be objecting to you bringing up a deceased family member's anniversary to take a jab at "Karen Read supporters." It's classic strawman.. AKA bullshit and manipulative. The phrase "you should go self-reflect on why a tweet lifting up a family makes you so mad" shifts the focus away from your behavior. Instead of addressing the substance of the criticism, you attempt to shame the individual calling out your bullshit. It's fucking weird to even be bringing that subject up in the first place. So you can say it, but no one else can? Because you got "permission"? Fuck all the way off with that. You can deflect away and try to guilt trip people to feel bad or to prevent criticizing those that signed up for a fucking Netflix documentary, but at the end of the day the comments on various platforms are showing you that the general public thinks this is laughable. No amount of triangulation, baiting, tone policing, or victim playing will stop that. And not because of this nonsensical conspiracy theory that Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, Alan Jackson, and David Yannetti told or paid content creators directly or via intermediaries to promote anything. It's because people have common fucking sense, watched two shit show trials, with shit show witnesses, saw a shit show police investigation and saw other cases in the county with the same exact issues that they then came up to their own individual conclusions. It's not rocket science to comprehend. But go on about how "thE daTa iSSSSSssSS tHe dAtA!!!"

Michael Proctor was paid to play a cop after he was fired from being a cop. He was decertified and literally can never be a cop in Massachusetts ever again. So instead, he gets paid to play dress up and make himself look even more like a jackass. A real-life humiliation ritual.

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.