I Probably Shouldn't Do This - An Addendum to The Karen Read Video
Added 2025-09-30 07:40:26 +0000 UTCRejoice or Despair, An Addendum to the Karen Read video is here!
Like I say at the outset, there’s a very good case to make for leaving it alone, and for those of you who would have preferred that course of action, I get it and PROMISE this is it. On that, I will say, for me personally, it was just what the doctor ordered, because now I have gotten out all the main stuff I had to leave on the floor for the main vid, I do feel fully unburdened by the case and like I can really take on something else completely fresh.
Also like I say in the addendum, I will be doing my best to get back to comments and challenges as best I can for a while between reading up on what’s next, so you can count my replies in the comment section as the last extension on the extension before I’m well and truly 100% done for good. For those of you who just can’t find your way to seeing eye to eye with me on this, hey, no hard feelings, it’s bound to happen sometimes :)
CONTENTS:
00:00:00 - Preamble on Why I Probably Shouldn’t Do This
00:03:32 - Hazards of Arguing Against “Scattershot Theories”
00:08:16 - Weighing All Evidence Equally
00:10:09 - Re-emphasizing the Digital Forensics
00:14:09 - Preamble to Ian Whiffin’s Cross/How I Got Knocked Off the Fence
00:19:29 - Ian Whiffin’s Cross
00:34:40 - A Deeper Look at Karen’s Tail Light
00:44:34 - The Redundant Issue of Inverted Sallyport Video
00:46:59 - Broad Discussion of Corruption
00:53:19 - Preamble on SCIENCE/Deferring to Lab Coats
00:57:01 - The Basic Prosecution/Defense Theories of How John Died
00:58:47 - The Not-Especially-Counter-Intuitive Physics of the “Clipping” Proposition
01:04:13 - Findings of CWs Medical Examiner
01:10:01 - Kelly Dever Preamble
01:11:53 - Kelly Dever’s Testimony
01:23:44 - Summary of Kelly Dever/False Memories
01:35:04 - Perception/Reality Gap and LawTube
01:48:16 - Preamble to “Other Shit”/Volume Over Substance
01:53:33 - Albert’s Didn’t Leave the House
01:54:56 - Albert’s Ripped Up The Floors/ Sold The House
01:59:21 - Missing Ring Camera Video
02:05:37 - The Two Brians “Destroying” Their Phones
02:08:48 - Brian Albert “Destroying” His Phone Continued: Never Assist an Adversary
02:14:09 - Corrupt Governments Vs. Skeevy Defense Lawyers
02:17:31 - Closing Thoughts on Balance and Fairness
Links:
Kelly Dever Full Testimony: https://youtu.be/DhFPEYjBABc
The Don’t Talk To Police (ever, at all) talk I mentioned in passing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Comments
I'm surprised that I came away from the original video with a relatively even, leaning towards not guilty, stance. Considering how strongly you feel about your opposite position.
sampled tms
2025-10-31 12:17:34 +0000 UTCI really hope you do an addendum on the West Memphis Three! Would love to hear your thoughts about the case, I got the feeling that you were hinting that you believe they are guilty!
claumz
2025-10-28 12:28:59 +0000 UTCBOOYAH! Another scalp for Matt! Thanks for keeping an open mind :)
Matt Orchard
2025-10-15 02:36:12 +0000 UTCWow. I totally flipped my opinion an hour and a half in. I really was influenced by true crime creators (which I have since unsubbed from, for obvious reasons) who really made me buy into the conspiracy. It's crazy how easily influenced we can be just by the delivery of a case.
mel !!!!
2025-10-15 01:03:57 +0000 UTCI've watched this multiple times now and just love your delivery and logic Matt. Thanks for another great video
Clare
2025-10-14 15:20:27 +0000 UTCLove the follow-up. You are very good at logically and concisely dismantling arguments—it’s why you’re one of the best in the business! Thanks for the vid.
D
2025-10-14 05:32:47 +0000 UTCGreat work. As always!!! I’m sick of Karen Read now. Not her, but the case. The interesting part is all of this!!! Karen herself, isn’t interesting and this isn’t the type of case I usually get into!! Thank you ❤️❤️
Natalie
2025-10-13 10:59:23 +0000 UTCThanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Matt. I appreciate your ability to frame things on your main videos in the objective way that you do. That’s a big reason why I love your content, you let the viewer do the heavy lifting on certain matters, and especially on overall opinions/takeaways. I only consume “true crime” and “lawtube” through full trials and full interviews, other than your channel and Dave’s. I think you are both extremely respectful to the real people impacted by these events in the way you cover content. I would love to hear more about cases near you in Australasia. I thought that was a rather cool aspect of the David Bain video (I didn’t know what an All Black was before that haha.) It would be interesting to learn more about the legal process over there as compared to the States. Thank you again for the thoughtful commentary on this case! Cheers from Florida ❤️
natalie steiner
2025-10-12 00:59:12 +0000 UTCI'm glad that made it in then Merglo! Good luck converting your family lol.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-10 01:44:54 +0000 UTCI mean yeah basically this - the actual substance of the case has no business getting 4 plus hours dedicated to it. It's not a head-scratcher, and frankly wasn't even on day 1. It's the social phenomena, and ability of lawyers and influencers to make people believe such a simple thing is so complex that make it interesting.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-10 01:38:46 +0000 UTCYa know if Alan Jackson or Turtleboy can find me a Lexus and name a cold as balls location in front of someone's lawn, I'd be more than happy to back into one of them at 24 m/h with the gas peddle 3 quarters of the way down to find out what happens. A small caveat though: If they don't flat out die I'm still not changing my position - variables and all that.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-10 01:33:07 +0000 UTCIm also glad for this addendum bc i was introduced to this case by my sister who lives in Boston and very much believes Karen is innocent and for a bit i was convinced the case was more complicated than it really is. My family and i spent 3 hours in a car together arguing over the case while listening to a creator who was also very much FKR, and by the end of it i was on the fence. Going into your original vid i had all these points in my head that supported conspiracy, the main one being the phone being thrown out at a government base. When your og vid didnt touch on it i was like "i agree shes guilty but what about the gpvernment base?!?!?!?" So long story short im glad to hear you talk about it lmao
Merglo Mclaughlin
2025-10-09 21:46:11 +0000 UTCMatt this addendum is worth it. Not to echo other people but i enjoy. hearing your first person perspective. Like both the narrative structure of your main vids and the personal argument of your addendums are great in their own ways. Plus i get more mocas.
Merglo Mclaughlin
2025-10-09 20:47:48 +0000 UTCIs TCL not just credited in those video descriptions for the joke clips JCS included at the ends? I thought the TRO video was a little poorly researched personally.
srahhh
2025-10-09 11:17:45 +0000 UTCOne more thing: I know you’re a fan of JCS and want to make sure you saw a recent history of that channel by The Right Opinion. I had not realized True Crime Loser worked with JCS.
Steve
2025-10-08 13:38:26 +0000 UTCI agree. I like how this framed in the first person because it’s your filtering of the evidence. I enjoy the narrative of the original—which necessarily trims some details—but I like the width and breadth of this deep dive.
Steve
2025-10-08 12:07:02 +0000 UTCMatt, I want to second what appears to be a reasonably common sentiment, which is that the addenda are easily some of your best work, and I really hope you continue with them, even if it'll only be once in a while(I'm personally still holding out hope for the prophesied West Memphis 3 addendum to come someday). In either case, you deserve congratulations.
Matthew Thayer
2025-10-08 07:36:26 +0000 UTCGood video, but this case has never really interested me. I’ve always thought she was guilty. I mean, just look at digital evidence and the fact he was standing near his mad, drunk, reckless girlfriend’s vehicle. The alternative defies logic.
Steve
2025-10-08 03:26:53 +0000 UTCRe the strength of evidence: In antitrust, we use the terms “plus” and “super plus” to describe good and great evidence of conspiracy.
Steve
2025-10-08 03:10:46 +0000 UTCPhew, I criticize Matt quite a bit but every time I go to one of the other channels, this time coffeehouse crime, I'm reminded that compared to those Matt is an ocean of neutrality and good research.
Benj
2025-10-07 09:55:46 +0000 UTCI appreciate the Frank Rizzo "crumb bum" references. Nicely done mocas.
John Mignone
2025-10-05 22:53:01 +0000 UTCLove the livestreamer bit haha
Sam
2025-10-05 13:24:51 +0000 UTCI’m disappointed you didn’t recruit a mate to recreate the crash like a mashup of Mythbusters and Jackass
gillygull
2025-10-05 04:10:38 +0000 UTCThe cumtown bit was great!
Ravie Jones
2025-10-05 02:32:52 +0000 UTCI liked the YT video and was disappointed reading the comments at the seemingly poor reception. I'm glad that you've got that understanding of the online crowd and context. And I'll never be sad for an addendum!
Noella
2025-10-04 21:30:26 +0000 UTCI know this is ridiculous, but when you talk about law enforcement, I picture fuckin Wellington Paranormal and that's the cops you're referencing haha
Janissa Rose
2025-10-04 11:25:59 +0000 UTCI think in a situation where Jen had zero explanation for it, and the rest of the evidence in the case were different, it would be sufficiently suspicious. But you're right - forget searching for someone, because if it were made at 2:27 AM on that date, that particular explanation wouldn't apply, but even going with 2:27, If Jen had said, "Oh I was talking to my husband and he joked [yada, yada, some story about how they came to speculate how long it would take someone to die in a blizzard without appropriate clothing] so I searched it on a lark" - That would be buyable enough. I mean googling niche questions during conversations is something we all do once in a while. I'd believe it before I believed the sorts of scenarios people try to cook up for how John could have died from non-Karen causes in a way that tracks with his cel phone data. Even without the timestamp explanation, it wouldn't be smoking gun level evidence against the McAlberts. Absent the digital forensics, absent the tail light evidence, and absent the timestamp explanation, maybe it would be enough of an oddity to raise reasonable doubt for Karen...MAYBE. But we're not living in that world! :)
Matt Orchard
2025-10-04 06:56:06 +0000 UTCHas anybody considered that an owl hit him with it's car?
Riley Wagner
2025-10-03 20:46:35 +0000 UTCThe thing about "hos long to die in cold" is that it's just... not a suspicious thing to search during a blizzard? Especially if you think someone might be lost in one.
LapisScarab
2025-10-03 15:40:21 +0000 UTCMay this kind of love never find me.
Claire
2025-10-03 08:42:11 +0000 UTC"Dog bite lady" was probably a bit rude of me, she *is* a doctor. Her chief claim to being an authority on the matter though is having treated multiple dog bite wounds during her time in ERs. Better experience than I can claim, no doubt, but is that really a level of expertise where we should be able to trust you can attribute such a specific cause of injuries to the exclusion of all other possibilities based only on photographs? I mean tbf, one thing that came from her testimony is there really isn't any such thing as a leading dog bite expert (pretty niche) which is all well and good, but it further speaks to why this is an especially unreasonable thing to just "defer to lab coats" on. In terms of her specific analysis, one thing that jumps out at me is she acknowledged there are no puncture wounds, which has always struck me as a massive problem for the theory, and her best explanation was that Chloe just "never latched on" - wtf kind of dog attack are we being asked to picture here? If you want more on witnesses I haven't covered without sitting through the testimony, Tuesday Gazette did really good coverage of the retrial. She's an unambiguous Anti, but I find her analysis consistently sober and reasonable. Here's her write ups of Dr. Russell: https://www.tuesdaygazetteblog.com/p/day-25-karen-read-retrial?utm_source=publication-search https://www.tuesdaygazetteblog.com/p/day-26-karen-read-retrial?utm_source=publication-search
Matt Orchard
2025-10-03 05:33:18 +0000 UTCIf I might ask one more question: is there anything to say on the dog bite expert (or "expert", take your pick)? I've not watched the trial footage, so I have no opinion on her, though I've got a fairly good guess for what might be in store.
Jonathan Gill
2025-10-03 01:10:13 +0000 UTCMatt is right, as usual. All is right with the world.
Ann Silberman
2025-10-03 00:49:44 +0000 UTCWhy would I ever complain about a new MOCAS video?
Ember Bennett
2025-10-02 15:14:16 +0000 UTCConfident assertions with little to no backing or thought is sort of their MO. “Proved no collision” for instance.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-02 10:50:32 +0000 UTCJust jumping back on to add - I went to the prosecutors podcast via youtube, just their one on the verdict in trial - I cba with all their podcasts on this case. Just interesting the comments that say the podcasters are wrong because the jury made their verdict, as if what a jury decides is the truth. Like there is an objective truth and a jury always finds it. Just an interesting world view. Also interesting the FKR people saying "there is loads of evidence she didn't do it", but (and admittedly my only source on this is Matt and the substack he referenced somewhere) this feels like people think it is a "is the dress black and blue or white and gold" case when it's really not.
TinTicket
2025-10-02 10:45:03 +0000 UTCHmm, this was white on white miscarriage of justice though. In theory, you would need a nearly all-white jury to acquit an obviously guilty white person of killing a black person (or two) to equalize OJ...Though I have a hunch that sort of eye for an eye approach would not in fact do a great deal to heal any sort of divisions. Dear I say it might even make things...worse?
Matt Orchard
2025-10-02 04:05:56 +0000 UTCI wasn't talking about any one stream. There's a whole "scene" of youtube "legal analysts" (and yes, body language analysts too) who heavily cater to FKR (as that's basically become their audience) and I'm arguing people like that have shaped the online perception of Dever's testimony much more than the actual content of the testimony itself...which when watched by itself is quite remarkable for it's nothingness. If you were to just search "Kelly Dever analysis" in YT I'm sure something quite representative of the sort of thing I'm talking about will come up.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-02 03:55:08 +0000 UTCOh Karen knows damn well, lol. Yeah that's another thing with Dever - Not only is what she has to offer already far from explosive, because she actively doesn't want to help the defense, it can actually be kind of tricky to even tell why she's there if you're not paying proper attention, especially in the raw version. Further speaks to why people viewing her as a big deal is surely owed to commentary about her testimony rather than the actual content of that testimony itself.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-02 03:47:33 +0000 UTCSorry, stupid Patreon removed the video while I was trying to add the damn thumbnail!! Back in a few hours!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-02 03:05:43 +0000 UTCHonestly I was hoping for this. Thanks, Matt.
Matt
2025-10-02 01:50:29 +0000 UTCThis was fascinating, I knew nothing about this case ( I had heard of it, but didn’t get into it) until I watched your video. Appreciate your immense attention to detail.
Big B
2025-10-01 22:32:29 +0000 UTChey im really loving the new addendum video! im not really in the "scene" i guess and was not really following the case from germany except for your content about it. at ~1:40 you talk about a stream that might have made an impact on the perception of kelly dever? checking out other "body analysis proof she lied" videos is pretty interesting. stunning even. to see and analyze the way public perception was forming after having the luxury of getting introduced to the case only through the more or less distanced accounts of your videos. its is like an opportunity to look at it all from very far away and watch how that phenomenon of mass perception can form. that said, any chance someone can give me a hint or keyword to look up to find the mentioned stream? is that okay to ask that in here? im genuinely not interested in bad mouthing any creators and would like to see how it all snowballed into a public being convinced she is innocent but cant find any videos of streamers reacting to it the way it was described in the video.
Felix V
2025-10-01 20:58:21 +0000 UTCAs a dyslexic and chronic mistyper having a spelling mistake associated with my name forever is a genuine fear. Being accused of helping out a murder isn't great also but the constant reminder of the mistype is so much worse. On a more serious note - I think they included the police officer who misremembered to just throw more shit in the pan and confuse matters even more. I sat through your edited copy of it going "what the fuck is this, is this even important, oh shit the defence are dick heads, wait are they saying she lied to help the conspiracy theory, oh wait they're trying to imply she changed her story as the police threatened her, but wait she physically couldn't have been there". Hearing that over the course of an hour plus hours and hours and hours of more stuff I think my little brain would just hurt and come to the conclusion there is a lying going on. I remember reading a reddit post about a woman who dropped her partner off, he went into a house for hours, had obvious signs of a beating and then police blamed the lady for running him over because they wanted to protect the cop gang that killed the dude. I didn't follow the case onwards. Come to your main video and this one and connect the dots. The surface FKR is plausible but the actual case itself is not. The phone not moving is the real point for me. The UK gov's stats are that If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed. If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed. If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed. (Though some people dispute these). Karen was going closer to 30 than 20 - John was drunk, angry, and it was icy each of these alone make you unsteady, all of them together is a recipe for disaster. I think we forget how fragile the human head. A woman who wasn't safe to be driving, unknowingly hit someone (or maybe knowingly but didn't realise the extent of the damage), and because of a desire to not take ownership of her mistake + the nasty dude who in charge who sent the messages + issues of corruption in the area + the internet = this mess. I know she, obviously, claims innocence but it would be interesting to know what Karen really thinks. A part of her must know she is responsible for John's death - but then cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. I enjoyed hearing about the process of the main video being a story and how you pick content to tell that story - which is why you never trust any doco (they are doing the same). Enjoy these addendums, to get your unfiltered thoughts.
TinTicket
2025-10-01 10:19:38 +0000 UTCGood news: Definitely, Bad News: Ages away. Could be more than a year. I wanna do a big, big one for that, and I just can't afford to block out a month plus for such a thing, much as I love to look after my paying supporters! A big part of the reason I know this addendum was probably on balance a bad idea is exactly that. Nearly 3 damn weeks I could have been focusing on an actual proper release instead!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 09:33:58 +0000 UTCYA KILLED A MUTHAFUCKER ON CAMERA!!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 09:29:03 +0000 UTCThanks Christian, don't forget Apple River! There's at very least one other case I've done that I plan on doing an addendum for. I'm also thinking of "exploring the format" further like you say. There are some cases and stories that don't suit themselves to the polished format because they don't have enough raw material or visual aid associated with them, that I could make something of in the "vlog" format. One really interesting true crime case in particular I'm thinking of. It might be you see more of these style of things with original subjects once I run out of vids to do standard commentaries on - they come out more regularly than main releases, so inevitably I'm going to catch myself up to present day eventually.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 09:28:24 +0000 UTCThanks Kevin, I mean I can only go so far with this because I'm not exactly qualified to give specific projections on snowfall patterns. You're saying if the snow is falling at a leftward angle, it's going to accumulate on the furthest right side tail light as that's unprotected by the roof, and by the time we get to the furthest left the roof is obstructing most of the snowfall - do I have that right? If so, it works enough in theory to account for why snow accumulation on the back of the car shouldn't be expected to be perfectly symmetrical - but for it to perfectly white out the section that's going to be observed as missing, and for that effect to abruptly stop RIGHT as the backlight kicks in (there's basically a straight dividing line, no "dusting" effect at all) seriously strains my intuition to put it mildly. There's also snow build up on the bumper beneath both sides that looks very symmetrical - I dunno if that runs counter to the explanation you're positing or not.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 09:21:28 +0000 UTCThanks Kaz! Yeah, it often seems to be a matter of someone more being into the community than the honest to god case itself. God bless though, I'm sure your friend is a nice person. Delphi/Richard Allen is another one I'm going to do, but I've pretty much decided it's not next, and probably not next after next either, because it's another one where I'll cop flack no matter the conclusion ESPECIALLY if it's not straight down the middle, which I'm man enough for, but not man enough for fucking two back to back! And again just like KR at the outset, standing where I am right now, I'm open to either side...but can't help but notice those sort of over zealous red flags in the innocence camp. Still though, very atypical profile, and some of the crime scene stuff does sound absolutely bizarre. We'll see!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 08:53:05 +0000 UTCThanks for asking! Ya know, there's so many distractions in this case, I barely ever get time to even *think* about the most likely specific scenario, something that's usually a top priority in just about any (contentious) case. Because of that, you should take any opinion I have on the matter with a grain of salt because, again, I never actually have found the time to properly consider what the evidence most likely points to when it comes to things like Karen's state of mind and how things actually unfolded. My best guess: I don't believe Karen consciously decided to kill John, and in fact lean toward she never intended to hit him. It being an impact with only the side of her car seems to speak to that: if it was more of a conscious "I'm going to run this MFer over" type thing, you'd think she would have gotten him more full on...though there's always the possibility he made a bit of a dash when she began reversing. I think that Karen and John were having a blowout argument (or at least Karen was, who knows how John was behaving), John got out of the car and was continuing to "spar" with her. Things reach their crescendo, and Karen decides to leave "in style", backing up violently, and way too close for comfort so as to scare the living daylights out of him - but she misjudges. *THWACK, THUD*..."Oh...fuuuuh...." Karen was therefore conscious of what she had just done, though it's my guess she was also in denial. This is my explanation for the voice messages. She fled in panic, and also in denial fueled panic, began to sort of act the way she would have had she not hit him, calling him to continue the argument they were having. So, not as a future legal strategy sort of thing, more for her own mental benefit: "No Karen, you didn't hit him, you so didn't hit him that you're actually still pissed off at him for fucking around on you and leaving you to look after his fucking kids" - that sort of thing. Have you ever had something bad happen, and the first thing you do in the immediate wake of it is go through the motions you think you would if that hadn't have happened? It also speaks to her extremely ill-advised behavior of floating the possibility of having hit John, or that John may have been hit by a plow or something to Jen, Kerry, and Kaylee (the vid doesn't talk about the last part, but yes, Johns niece testified to the same sort of statements). There's no real Machiavellian plotting at that point. She's more just trying to get ahead of what she, not all that deep down, knows is coming. "DID I hit him? COULD I have hit him? DID SOMETHING hit him? All I know is if it does turn out he was hit, even if it was by me, I wasn't aware of it at the time, that's why I'm ASKING!" And yes, I believe the flat out "I hit him!" remarks the first responders recalled also happened. At that point the body had been found, and I think Karen was transitioning her act to one of distraught realization - she didn't know the collision wasn't caught on video yet. If what I've outlined were true, from my understanding she'd still be good for Murder 2, as that only requires her knowing she's put John in peril and failing to get him medical aid. But if I had fellow jurors twisting my arm, I might still throw her manslaughter just to call it a day!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 08:30:55 +0000 UTC&now that i've finished watching: i appreciated this addendum quite a bit. the tail light evidence was the most influential piece of evidence that the main video presented. i hadn't consumed anything that dealt directly with the case prior to the main video, and any existing opinion (mild as to hardly be called "existing") was formed around evidence presented in youtube comments and accepted based on my cynicism toward american police. in passing, it'd seemed as though the prosecution had represented the collision as intentional and done out of anger, but a drunken accident that knocked him out and left him to freeze to death is infinitely more plausible than either "story". identical fibers on his clothing indicates that there was some kind of forceful contact, and given that he was drunk, it wouldn't have taken a lot to knock him down. from there, maybe injury, maybe resignation, maybe drunkenness sufficient to make him think it was a good idea to take a damn nap - the most plausible results are those that could cause death in that weather and on that terrain. and then there's the black box data, and the watch data to compound a fairly indisputable fact. the prosecution absolutely had the harder battle. proving intention to harm is a huge leap from carelessness, and intention to kill even more so. all that, and they've gotta compete with unscrupulous men in suits. I'd really been left with the impression that the defense succeeded on confusion - all that misdirection, obfuscation, and overcomplicating was bound to confuse at least one juror as to their right or left. the alternate scenario was absolutely ridiculous, but their sticking with it required that it be addressed, adding additional possibilities that, even if ridiculous upon inspection, are liable to create reasonable doubt unless addressed.
nope not
2025-10-01 08:26:49 +0000 UTC"Go on, speak a little Chine for 'em Dereck!" I honestly think I've listened to that bit over a dozen times!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 07:53:53 +0000 UTCCheers Liz! It's often said trials are won and lost in jury selection, and I think this is an example of that. The Defense didn't win by establishing reasonable doubt in the courtroom, they won by establishing their narrative in the minds of the public to an extent that finding 12 people who could truly look at the case with fresh, impartial eyes was probably impossible from the outset. Some may call it sour grapes, and I usually try to refrain from blaming the jury when I don't like the outcome, but...I mean anyone who can look at the scene outside that courtroom and not see how it could be problematic is just BSing imo!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 07:27:58 +0000 UTCI did not know about that, no! FWIW, My ultimate takeaway of Deborah Radisch on the stand was that she was pretty darn reasonable. I'd need to go back to even decide exactly how over her skis I think she was with her finding on Ratliff - all I can say for sure right now is it at least *seems* pretty fucking bold! In general though, I thought she was impressive and by and large fair. She didn't really fight Rudolf on Kathleen's injuries being notably anomalous, just held firm that they were not irreconcilable with a bludgeoning, because...well you just never know really. Totally fair, and totally frustrating! MP is such a good case because it's one of those uber divisive ones where there are ACTUALLY genuinely strange things, as opposed to things that are blown out of proportion to seem strange (cough, Karen, cough). All I'm 100% sure of is Kathleen didn't sustain all her injuries by falling. Sensibly speaking, that should really only leave you with anomalous bludgeoning as an explanation, but it's so deeply unsatisfying. RIP Kathleen :(
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 07:04:59 +0000 UTCI think a good majority of people have had the experience of having a memory they were damn near certain of disproved...or at least disputed by someone equally certain, and with equal claim to being in a position to know. Yet it will still bug us out when it happens, and I'm no exception. The Mandela Effect is basically this. Either you accept it was always "Berenstain" or you adopt the position we're shifting between parallel universes - and hell, I'm prone to be tempted by such kookiness, but come on, if we're being honest, it's by far more likely the former. It's pretty well established that Karen and her defense made conscious efforts to get their "alternative narrative" out via unscrupulous local commentators and other internet personalities - Turtleboy being the earliest and chief example. The precise mechanics of it may be disputable, but I think it's pretty obvious the FKR movement didn't develop fully organically. There's drama brewing right now over leaked recordings of KR and TB phone calls (shit never ends) and you don't have to read too much between the lines of those to get they've been feeding him information basically from the start.
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 06:47:32 +0000 UTCimo, karen read is OJ for white people. this verdict is going to heal american race relations
nope not
2025-10-01 06:39:50 +0000 UTCFlame war incoming, then??? ;)
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 06:31:55 +0000 UTCThanks Rob!
Matt Orchard
2025-10-01 06:31:12 +0000 UTCOf course, I write my stupid little opinion 10min before the end and Matt starts talking about bias. Almost getting into a relativistic argument only to then backtrack and says something along the line of "Well, everybody is biased as am I but I am fair." Ok, full disclosure, I'm not a social constructivist but I think it has some merit in some areas. The law and court proceedings being one of them. Matt's argument sounds like what Americans call "eating your cake and having it, too." Everybody is biased. Yes. To be fair, you have to work along certain principles, standards and acknowledge your bias. Did Matt do this? In other words, has he made sure that his work is produced along well thought out guidelines to limit his personal bias? Is that maybe too much to ask of a content creator? i don't know.
Benj
2025-10-01 05:31:17 +0000 UTCLet me present my strongest against Matt. Did you notice how often Matt said Commonwealth? He said it quite often, didn't he? Did you know that Matt has also spent his entire life in a Commonwealth?!! Coincidence?! Ok but seriously, this seems like a cluster problem. Cluster problems occur when a sample is taken from group that differs for some reason from the general population, simply put. Matt is from New Zealand. The trial happened in a certain part of the US. There is a significant difference in perception. Trust in the police is probably at an all time low, especially in that region. There was actually a corruption case in Boston in 2024, involving several police officers. Then there is the fact that misogyny and incompetence were certainly a part of the investigation. On top, there is broad and growing distrust of science and expert opinion in the US. That and a few other aspects probably produced the verdict. To me it sounds like Read was drunk, maybe thought she hit the flagpole and drove off. Only later realizing what happened.
Benj
2025-10-01 04:36:19 +0000 UTCGonna swoop in here real quick to ask: would you consider making an addendum to the West Memphis 3 video? It's my favourite of yours and I would love to know your personal take on the case!
E
2025-10-01 02:13:04 +0000 UTCI know I've written to much, but to followup my own comment a bit more: Alesssi's cross-examinations were such nothingburgers. When examining Whiffin, he questioned something to the effect, "but [the other data forensic company's] tools still show the timestamp?" He was clearly setting up the (absurd) narrative that Whiffin's company changed their software reporting on behalf of the prosecution coverup, but other forensics would demonstrate the truth of the timestamp. Only for Brennan to call in the woman from the other company, who agreed with Whiffin's analysis. So Alessi is succeeding in the realm of theatre--making these non-narratives sound damning just by giving them a lot of inflection. And the online FKR movement swallows it whole. It's weird to see how much faith they have in this lawyer. Oh and I was shocked to see that clip of Jackson promising that the phone data "unequivocally" shows John going into the house. I know lawyers are pretty unscrupulous people, in the main, but the overpromising was shocking. And I have to imagine that deep down he knows just how flimsy the case is, at least in regard to the phone evidence.
Jonathan Gill
2025-10-01 02:10:53 +0000 UTCI get why it fault unnecessary, but I'm very glad for the addendum. It's the sort of case that lends itself quite well to these additional discussions. Before watching the main video, I knew zilch about the case. But the video was enthralling, and it sent me down the rabbit hole of online Karen Read discussion. With this addendum, I'm glad you touched on Lawtube and the sort of echo chamber that can be built up around this case. In the very comments of your main video, I saw several commenters swear that you'd have a very different impression if you "watched the whole trial" and then recommend several Lawtubers for their presumably exhaustive coverage. I followed up one of those recommendations, watched about 10 minutes of the Youtuber, and well it sucked. The Lawtuber was oddly snarky over extremely banal moments. I completely know the vibe when you mention how these circles might put "false memory" in scare quotes, and act like it's some major sign of a coverup. In the very short amount of time I was watching this Lawtube video, he was being snarky about Commonwealth expert witness Dr. Welcher saying something about "better data coming in". (I do actually have a question on this below). But for me, hearing a physics nerd talk about "better data" was about as shocking as a kid asking for a bowl of vanilla ice cream. But, no, watching this genre of Youtube I'm supposed to believe "better data" means "data that makes it easier for me to shill the story the prosecution wants, mwah ha ha ha". Actual question, and honestly it's not one I care all that much about, so if the details are murky for your recollection, don't bother. There was some quibble over Burgess changing his time estimate regarding the Lexus clock, and if I got the gist of it, the defense was upset the prosecution only got this timing change in right before the trial, something to that effect. So my question is: if they'd had access to the cell phone data and Lexus vehicle data for a while, why didn't they determine the actual time difference between the two much earlier on? That timing seems crucial to the prosecution.
Jonathan Gill
2025-10-01 02:04:22 +0000 UTCA scenario where a drunken John just falls and hits his head near the flagpole doesn't account for all the lacerations on his arm. He didn't die from his lacerations but they were surely involved in whatever event killed him. And bits of taillight were found in John's sweater. Either you have to believe Karen hit John with the suv, or that the police later on launched a coverup where they were planting microscopic evidence.
Jonathan Gill
2025-10-01 01:45:30 +0000 UTCThe false memory part is fascinating to me. Primarily because the consensus is that it's absolutely real and the utter disbelief the legal system normally holds for anyone who makes a mistake. It's inevitably treated like a change to hide some degree of guilt in something. Getting it wrong without malice just doesn't get that grace unless it's law enforcement.
PityTheHateful
2025-10-01 01:42:02 +0000 UTCI'm still where I've been all along and that's both she did it (reasonable doubt standard) but they never had a good case for those charges. And that weak case was made substantially worse by the behavior of almost everyone involved in the investigation.
PityTheHateful
2025-10-01 01:38:19 +0000 UTCSpeak a lil Chinese for them, Matt
A
2025-09-30 23:22:59 +0000 UTCpoor John - what an awful way to die. hope that no-ass bitch rots 🙏
n3bulazer
2025-09-30 22:36:01 +0000 UTCI shamefully have to admit it took me way too long to realize Matt was saying "lawtube" not "loretube". I was sitting here like "what the hell does a 10 hour deep dive into the gods of the Conan universe have to do with this ..."
Sarah Tomas
2025-09-30 19:56:05 +0000 UTCthese addenda - all two of them - are among your best work. they may not have the mass appeal of your polished youtube videos, but they’re extremely intellectually compelling, regardless of whether i agree or not. maybe you explore the format further.
Christian
2025-09-30 18:50:43 +0000 UTCLove your videos! Around 42 mins you talk about the snow on the tail lights and IMO that could absolutely be from natural snowfall. Snow falls at an angle and usually from a single direction. If the direction of snowfall was towards the side of the car with the broken light, then it would look just like the photo! 1. broken light side gets direct snowfall and is completely covered 2. the back lights get some on the top because that is the only angle the snow can hit. The sides are not hit because the snow is not directly hitting them. 3. the non broken tail lights gets no snow because it is essentially obscured by the car’s roof. If you think of the snow as light casting a shadow it may make more sense. how one can be fully light and the other in complete shadow.
Kevin Fox
2025-09-30 18:04:25 +0000 UTCI know someone who is DEEP into true crime content much in the same way that FKR people are. She is a huge FKR person herself and the way you dissect the community vibe around it is spot on! She was also hugely into the Delphi Murders case and was convinced that it was a cover up, any time I mentioned solid evidence that the prosecution brought up I was met with "But what about the sticks on the bodies! And the kid who was into the occult!" Like yeah, it's a shitty attempt at covering up the bodies and sure some weird kid is into occult stuff?
Kaz
2025-09-30 17:45:36 +0000 UTCAlways love these big addendum videos! One question that I have on your personal opinion - do you think Karen meant to kill John? Or that it was an honest to god accident that she let spiral into this ridiculous conspiracy theory so she could keep out of prison?
SpergGurtDirt
2025-09-30 17:23:59 +0000 UTCI can’t wait to get home from work to watch! Thank you, in advance.
YESwayTED 024
2025-09-30 14:21:49 +0000 UTCOutrageous! egregious! ridiculous! Great work as always :)
Samuel Stewart
2025-09-30 12:18:19 +0000 UTCFollow up: I do think there’s a real possibility that she didn’t hit him and he didn’t go inside. If he slipped and fell all on his own, maybe due to being startled by her maneuvers with the car, he still could’ve hit his head hard enough to kill him and not show any signs of being struck by a vehicle. Maybe you cover this and I’m getting ahead of myself but my belief has always been that either she hit him or he fell. And I was surprised the defense never leaned into that. She’s not guilty if he fell all on his own. Why did they never bring that up? Am I missing some blatant piece of evidence?
Liz
2025-09-30 11:45:30 +0000 UTCSee I thought I was part of the larger group. The one that believes she probably did hit him but the commonwealth fumbled the first trial. The group that knows there’s a difference between innocent and not guilty. The burden of proof has to be on the prosecution and that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But by the time of the second trial, I think the initial doubts were quelled. A mistrial is rarely good for the defense. The prosecution knew where the defense was going to go and navigated around that fairly well. The initial shock of the Proctor stuff wore off by the second trial. All those what if questions had answers. But then I realized I was in a smaller group than I originally thought. There was such a large FKR community that truly believed she was innocent and that was a bit surprising to me. I appreciate the addendum, I appreciate all your content.
Liz
2025-09-30 11:35:58 +0000 UTCIt blows my mind that you brought up the Michael Peterson case, because I made a discovery recently that tied into that case, and I was going to talk about it, regardless. In the U.S. show Forensic Files, S8 E8, titled "All Wet," features the case of Tim Boskowski. His first wife dies in a suspicious, "accidental drowning," and, 4 years later, his second wife suffered the exact same fate. The coroner ruled the cause of death of the first wife undetermined, despite her strong suspicions of homicide, and the man's next wife dies in an extremely similar fashion not long after. He was ultimately convicted. That coroner was Deborah Radisch; the same coroner who performed the autopsy in the Michael Peterson case, and took the highly unusual step of flying to Germany to perform an autopsy on the body of a woman who died under circumstances that were suspiciously similar to those of the woman whose death was under investigation. This woman rules a woman's death, "undetermined," and another woman arguably dies as a result(they talk about that aspect in the episode). Later, she finds a woman who supposedly died in an accident, but it's deeply suspicious, and another woman connected to him died in a strikingly similar way, and it was ruled an accident. She goes back and rules that the original death a homicide. If it was fictional, you'd call bullshit. Maybe you already knew that, but it blew my fucking mind. Thematically, I think it plays into the fact that people in every part of the criminal justice system have prejudices and are shaped by their experiences, no matter how professional they may be. Like, you can't exactly argue to a court that she's impartial as an examiner in that case because of that experience, but you'll never convince me that she was objective after what happened to her the first time.
Matthew Thayer
2025-09-30 10:59:30 +0000 UTCJust finished watching and I was already in agreement with the points in the main video, so I didn't need any more convincing but this was a great watch. Maybe one day the words "in kick dee" will stop floating around in my brain like an annoying screensaver. I think the whole memory thing is difficult to explain to people who've never experienced it. Like, my dad, he'll claim to remember things I've said or done, insist on it, until I realise he's conflating the opposite to a thing I did say and something he heard in an episode of Eastenders. He's a smart person usually but the whole idea of false memories is an alien concept to him and gets really annoyed when contradicted, so I can understand the general public having doubts. The other thing I thought about while watching this is the money side you mentioned regarding lawtube. It got me wondering whether this whole FKR movement was a grassroots thing or something the defense cooked up and paid for and led the more gullible people who always need something to get vocal about involved in the campaign. I will now take my conspiracy hat off and go have lunch! Keep up the good work Matt!
Alan Holding
2025-09-30 10:38:43 +0000 UTCAh - I'm so glad I am still pondering my response to the original content as I might have had to labour over my own addendum. I'll say thanks in advance for this - whatever happens in the next couple of hours. Might return early in 2026 when I'm (almost) happy with my thoughts! Much love from Edinburgh.
Andy
2025-09-30 09:51:31 +0000 UTCAs someone from the Boston area ive heard so much about this case, and the general concensus was she was guilty as fuck. I know people that followed the case live & publicly campaigned against her on youtube. To me it was confusing as hell. Yours has been the best coverage I've seen.
Rob
2025-09-30 09:44:43 +0000 UTCI’ll rejoice at any new video from you!! Just in time for my shift as well! Lots of love from Ireland to one of my fav kiwis 🩷
Bonnie
2025-09-30 09:11:08 +0000 UTCi can't watch for a day or two but i'm SO excited about this even though i expect to emphatically disagree with all your well made points haha
AR
2025-09-30 09:07:12 +0000 UTCLove these addendum videos. I knew nothing at all about this case prior to watching your initial video, so I’ll go into this with a fully open mind.
ChiralSpiral
2025-09-30 09:05:42 +0000 UTCI'll will reluctantly heed your advice :) Cheers!
Dom
2025-09-30 07:56:52 +0000 UTC2 Hrs 20 Mins, I'd leave it for the next evening if I were you!
Matt Orchard
2025-09-30 07:53:56 +0000 UTCKia Ora!
Matt Orchard
2025-09-30 07:53:16 +0000 UTCThanks, from a fellow kiwi! You have such a melodic naration :)
Dougo
2025-09-30 07:50:50 +0000 UTCjust in time to fall asleep to!
Tianna C
2025-09-30 07:48:53 +0000 UTCEeeee, you've made my very late night. Sending love from California. Looks like I'm not going to sleep yet
Dom
2025-09-30 07:45:09 +0000 UTCBlimey guvnor, thanks!
Alan Holding
2025-09-30 07:45:02 +0000 UTC
