Voss opens her politically motivated hit piece on Karen Read, Adam Deitch and Aidan Kearney with a strong statement of opinion in her lede paragraph: it wasn't a movement of true believers. The "it" calls back to the title - the "it" is "the campaign that acquitted Karen Read."
So, according to Voss, the Free Karen Read movement - thousands who donated and spoke out and wore pink - and asked for the truth - were the equivalent of little December children who didn't really believe. (But unlike the kids who aren't "True Believers," we didn't get coal in our stockings. On June 18, 2025: we got an acquittal for Christmas.)
We open on the Lacrosse game, where "blogger" Aidan Kearney (not journalist, of course - just a "blogger") has a ten-minute interaction wherein Jen McCabe smiles uncomfortably, and Matt McCabe doesn't seem to mind chatting back. Yes, school officials "eventually moved in," but really just stand around looking as bemused as the McCabe's, all with smug smirks and smiles. When asked why he needs to leave, the staff comes up with the excuse that Kearny's filming girls, possibly a veiled threat that they'll make him out to look like a pedo. It isn't until late in the interaction (Matt McCabe teases Aidan about being short, and Aidan claps back about Matt's weight) that Aidan finally does wrap it up and heads out of his own accord. Yes, he's technically "escorted" by school staff, maybe to ensure he doesn't re-enter the bleachers after calling Cut! on his first take.
I'll just pause to point out the hilarious irony of McCabe's "Fugitive Unit" Nike hat. She'll later testify that she doesn't have much of a connection to law enforcement, but I guess access to their merch is another animal entirely.
Now we get to the meat and potatoes - an early inserted photo of Officer John O'Keefe so we can be gaslit into believing that this article has anything at all to do with him. We also, inexcusably, get a few really disturbing lines about the last hours of John's life:
1) Voss states that John was found "dead in the snow in Canton." She doesn't care to mention that he was found dead on Brian Albert's property or found dead at 34 Fairview Road. Will she mention it later? Or does the distancing continue...
2) Voss states that John was found on the morning of 1/29/22, but then writes, "He was last seen earlier that night..." It's sloppy. He was last seen after midnight in the early morning hours of 1/29/22. This paints in inaccurate timeline. Seems like the proofreaders' attention was focused elsewhere.
3) Voss gives us the information, presented as fact, that John was last seen "when he got into Read's Lexus SUV" upon leaving the bars. Are we only printing what Jen et al are claiming? This is the last time THEY claim to have seen him. However, we know what Voss writing is unequivocably false - three witnesses from two trials mention they saw Karen and John later than "when he got in" - the driver of their vehicle flashed his lights to allow Karen to turn onto Fairview Road just before they did. Karen herself doesn't deny pulling up to 34 Fairview Road with John in her passenger seat. (For that matter - upon John being found, Kerry, Karen and paramedics thought John was alive and had a fighting chance - it was Jen who, per her 911 call, did not.
So, Karen is the person who claims to see John alive and un-injured at the latest tick of the clock.
Unless you count Brian Higgins. But I digress.
4) Voss inserts a description of the weather as well. I'm not sure if "during" a nor'easter is technically wrong, but it's certainly misleading. There was but a dusting of snow on the ground at the time Karen drove John to Fairview. A storm was coming - that's for certain.
The next paragraph has its truths and half-truths. Yes, Karen maintained her innocence after being charged. And we learn that she claims that some of the people inside the house where she dropped John off were the ones responsible for his death. (Again, we don't get any mention that the house belongs to Brian and Nicole Albert.) We learn that she believes they were able to cover it up thanks to a conspiracy involving "dozens" of people - which I don't think anyone is disputing. Yes, the powerful Albert family would have needed a LOT of help, but some of the help was self-serving once the framing of Karen Read spun out of control. For instance, after the taillight was planted, the CPD, MSP, and NCDAO had little choice but to delete video, invert video, and manipulate video. This wasn't done necessarily to protect the Alberts, but to protect their case.
Voss credits Kearney with being "the first to report" this alternative theory. I'm guessing that perhaps Steve Scanlon is chopped liver, as is the former Boston Cop who also gave Aidan an early tip. She goes on to say that the case had been "seen as open-and-shut" until Aidan's reporting - again, no argument here - but she clarifies that it was only seen as open-and-shut as to the manslaughter charge. Thus, we now get a sprinkle of Gretchen's alignment with Greg Conner... and the overcharge theory.
Moving on to explain how Kearny built a movement based on the consistent and mere volume of his reports across multiple platforms, Voss claimed that we, supporters of Karen Read and John O'Keefe, began speaking in tongues and singing the praises of the reinKEARNation of Jesus Christ himself with "quasi-religious fervor." We "cast the witnesses as villains and public enemies, accusing them of framing an innocent woman to evade justice." We were, in essence, in a spiral of spiritual warfare and chanting, "Not today, Satan."
Now, other than hearing that these individuals were inside the house where Karen dropped John off, we are yet to hear why they're witnesses, what they witnessed, or when this Awakening of those in The Movement began. Was it after the "550 blog posts"... after the "thousands of tweets and hundreds of livestreams?" Or, was it during and after the first trial? Was it after hearing the Commonwealth's theory of the case, opening statements, and after hearing the testimony of the so-called witnesses? If they were disliked before the trial began, they were loathed after they took an oath and made a mockery of the stand.
But that's just my opinion. "Jen says" ever since Aidan's first post she has undergone different styles of what Voss characterizes as "harassment." At least Voss does let us know that "Jen says" these annoyances occurred and isn't stating them as fact. In this section, neither Voss nor McCabe outright blame Aidan Kearney. That said, I'm inferring that both women do consider his reporting the spark that lit of fire of the Holy Spirit in the fervent ones.
Gretchen Voss moves on from the altered cum photos and name-calling, to tell us what "FEW PEOPLE KNOW," so listen up:
Karen Read started it.
Guys, Karen Read, indicted for Murder 2, maintaining her innocence - and facing a conviction that could cause her to spend her natural life living out Orange is the New Black - sit down, now - had a theory of the crime that she wanted the general public to know about. She had a *cough* DEFENSE.
Moreover, Voss wants readers to know, HER OWN DEFENSE TEAM HELPED COORDINATE HER DEFENSE. (I'll pause while you gasp.)
Now, since I'm not trying to coordinate a campaign to claim that I know everything, I'll instead ask questions about what Voss deemed, in her opinion piece, to be factually real real bad.
1) Is it wrong for a defendant to implore a journalist to write certain things in certain ways? (For instance, did Jen McCabe implore Gretchen Voss to write this article with a certain spin, or in a certain way?) Is it wrong for anyone who is the subject of a magazine piece to agree to have their story covered, so long as they can read a draft, or even just be heard from an editorial standpoint? I do understand a journalist would be under no obligation to follow any instructions from, or to make any changes requested by, the subject of their piece.
2) Did Karen's attorney's leak non-public information to Aidan Kearney, or anyone else, through an intermediary? I don't exactly know. Let's keep reading. But at this point in the article, Voss has stated this to be true.
So, all of them together "orchestrated the harassment of the witnesses." Okay. I'm still unclear as to what they actually witnessed. But again, we'll churn along and maybe find out. And I'm still confused as to how the Allie McCabe altered cum pic was Adian OR Alan Jackson's fault, but I digress.
Deep breath.
Let's press forward to the FBI of it all.
Voss calls it "troubling" that Read and her legal team would ask the USAO for Massachusetts to take a peek at the case. Why is it troubling that a murder defendant would ask the federal government to intervene on her behalf? If she was guilty and they could prove it, how screwed would she be? Very screwed. Karen Read's decision to maintain her innocence and fight the charges she faced involved leaving NO stone unturned, in my eyes. Voss asserts that the federal investigation resulted in Read getting information she "might not have otherwise obtained, "including lead (ha!) State Police investigator Michael Proctor's personal text messages.
Gretch, now would have been the PERFECT time to tell them about ARCCA.
The Commonwealth also got information they wouldn't have otherwise obtained. The feds released, what was it, a butt dial butt load of documents to both sides, something like 3,000 pages.
We'll wrap up for today but let me just leave you with this: Gretchen Voss has it on good authority, apparently, that the federal investigation "ultimately went nowhere."
Perhaps she is privier to the classified chronicles of the federal government than I, but it seems like a non-starter to say that the federal investigation went nowhere. In addition to some - SOME - of the biased and vile texts from the lead investigator on the case, and in addition to ARCCA, the federal investigation led us to some variances in stories from these "witnesses" and others, others who Voss didn't care to mention:
Kelly Dever (false memory)
Kerry Roberts (didn't hear Karen ask Jen to search "Hos Long")
Jen McCabe (identity, who she actually called while she was preparing to speak to the Feds)
Brian Higgins (tall, dark-haired male walked into the house.)
Speaking of Brian Higgins - is he mentioned at all in this article? We'll explore that and more in this series on the Misdirect of Gretchen Voss: A Cross Examination.
,
Comments