Karen Read and the VANITY (un)Fair Article- Part 2
Riddled with missing facts and misleading info, Karen's "truth" presents as another attempt to manipulate public opinion.
“People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.”
- Dr. Phillip McGraw
I recently printed out the 2-part Vanity Fair article so I could cancel the subscription I needed in order to access it.
It was 60 pages.
SIXTY PAGES of a story woven together with curated information from the mouth of a murder defendant.
The writer, Julie Miller, either willingly chose not to fact-check Karen Read’s tales, or she ignorantly believed Karen would tell the full truth.
Initially, I leaned in with the hope that the writer was misled by the defendant and her team…
However —
After reading the article for a second AND third time, I struggle to believe that Julie Miller and Vanity Fair are not willfully complicit in the exploitation of John’s death. This article strikes as another PR attempt for the pretentious drunk driver.
In fact —
The Vanity Fair article is composed in such a precise way that it would be remiss on my part to believe anything other than the writer was given a very specific goal…
Milk the conspiracy theory narrative & do what it takes to make Karen Read look like the victim.
In other words…
Honor Karen’s truth instead of the actual truth which honors the victim.
Shame on you Vanity Fair.
This required many omissions in the article to fulfill that goal (as well as a professional photoshoot image of Karen posing alone in the shadows of the woods, barefoot, and wearing a $1200 prairie frock).
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the most pressing issue I had with the article…
The misrepresentation of what the writer, Julie Miller, gave a tech expert to analyze regarding the 2:27 AM timestamp controversy. You can read that HERE if you missed it.
Unfortunately, the deceptive statement regarding the 2:27 timestamp analysis wasn’t the only concerning content matter I discovered.
The article was actually filled with misleading (and missing) information.
Let’s take a look at some of them…
The writer, Julie Miller, was quite crafty with what numbers she mentioned in the article and what numbers she left out.
For instance…
She took the time to research and discuss annual salaries of a few Law Enforcement Officers involved in the case (the defense aims for people to view the officers as corrupt, money-loving, murdery-coverup type of men)…
YET —
The writer conveniently left out Karen’s actual BAC numbers (Blood Alcohol Content) from the night/morning of the crime.
Karen Read’s alcohol content is a pivotal piece of info regarding the case because she’s being accused of killing her boyfriend while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Her BAC was taken at 9:08am, 9 hours after John was injured, and she registered at .07-.08%. The toxicologist performed a retrograde extrapolation analysis and opined that at the time Karen was driving around with John, her BAC was between a .13%-.29%. (BAC levels can range due to body weight, average alcohol consumption, etc.)
Next on the list of what was curiously ‘left out’ of the article is…
The info that Karen and Brian Higgins kissed.
The short fling between these two is simply referred to as a “flirtation” in the Vanity Fair article with Karen noting that Higgins found HER attractive.
The writer (and her murder defendant interviewee) forget to mention that Karen and Brian kissed in John’s garage.
Yes, the ‘flirtation’ turned into physical cheating.
Karen also conveniently leaves out that:
✔️She was the one who sought out Brian Higgins’ phone number.
✔️She initiated the texting between them.
✔️She took the lead when it came to being “flirty”.
(Source clip: Masslive.com trial recap)
Despite leaving out the fact that she shared a kiss with Brian Higgins, Karen does make the effort to have readers know that John kissed a woman; Marietta (John’s friend’s sister) in the hotel lobby during a big friend trip in Aruba.
HOWEVER —
Once again, the article leaves out important details regarding this topic.
She fails to mention that not only was Karen abrasive and volatile when John hugged Marietta in the lobby, but that Karen conceded to the woman’s sister that she (Karen) misinterpreted the situation. Karen thought they kissed, but later acknowledged that’s not what happened. Karen offered to pay part of Marietta’s room bill as an apology.
(Source clip: Masslive.com trial recap)
If Karen truly believed that a woman kissed her boyfriend, would she be offering to pay for the lady’s hotel room?
Another omission Karen Read (or her writer) chose to forgo letting the readers know about is what the Dighton Officer actually testified to regarding Karen’s broken taillight cover.
Vanity Fair states that the officer said it was ‘cracked’.
The end.😒
The article leaves out the fact that the Dighton officer noticed a missing piece from the wrap around taillight. That’s a pretty big detail that Karen likely doesn’t want readers to know. The taillight cover had a hole in it before her vehicle was towed to the Canton police station.
In regard to the heavy snow fall that was occurring due to the blizzard, the Dighton officer agreed with the prosecutor that snow was caked on Karen’s vehicle. This, of course, was not mentioned in the article either.
The photo below of Karen’s SUV (at John’s property) was caught on camera at 8:23 AM, hours prior to the Dighton officer seeing the vehicle being towed from Karen’s parent’s home. As you can see, snow alters the visual appearance of the taillight cover.
The Vanity Fair article never mentions that Karen Read called John’s close friend, Kerry Roberts, at 5am and told her, “JOHN IS DEAD”.
This call was BEFORE John was actually found near death on the side of the road.
Karen was his ride home. She allegedly dropped her drunk boyfriend off at a house (watched him walk safely to the door) in the middle of the night, and then ditched him there (knowing a blizzard was coming in) because he didn’t wave her in. She wakes up several hours later and is convinced he is dead, and possibly hit by a snowplow.
And get this…
Zero mentions in the article of the multiple firefighter medics testifying that they heard Karen Read say, “I HIT HIM”.
Some would say these testimonies are pretty important pieces of info.
7. The claims of “missing library footage” comes up in the article, which is actually shocking Karen would even attempt to push this narrative again.
The library surveillance is motion-activated, so what is claimed as “missing” is an assumption that there was something (Karen driving back to John’s house) for the camera to catch, and that it *suspiciously* went missing in police custody.
This claim is absurd for two reasons:
Another route exists that Karen most likely took back to John’s house, which doesn’t require her driving by the library at all.
The timing of “the missing footage” doesn’t match up with evidence. The defense claims footage is missing of Karen driving by between 12:37-12:39, when the defense is also fully aware that Karen’s phone connected to John’s home wifi at 12:36. She was not near the library during that time.
These statements by the defense are all farce to create an illusion of corruption.
The SERT team information was also misleading and limited in the Vanity Fair article.
Vanity Fair article states, “It wasn’t until Proctor greenlit a State Emergency Response Team search AFTER 5:30pm, in the dark, when pieces were found in the Albert yard.”
In reality, the SERT officer, Kevin O’Hara, who testified on the stand explained that the process of notification and readiness for the team was a process that has to go through several chains of command.
2:32 PM - O’Hara receives the initial awareness call from LT Tully
2:53 PM - O’Hara receives the follow-up call from SGT Simpson.
(The process then required to go through multiple chains of command according to O’Hara)
3:48 PM - Tully makes the official alert after it was all approved.
4:10 PM - O’Hara receives the address and texts his team.
4:13 PM - O’Hara leaves for the Albert property. The drive took 43 minutes in blizzard conditions.
4:56 PM - O’Hara arrives on scene. Tully arrives about 5 minutes later to brief O’Hara. The team all arrived individually at a staggered time after that from about 5:21 to the final officer showing up at 5:41 PM.
O’Hara says the process began before everyone had arrived.
Meanwhile, Karen’s vehicle was being towed from her parents house in Dighton, MA with investigator Proctor and Yuri following the tow truck. Ring footage shows the vehicle being moved onto the tow truck at 4:12 PM.
And security cameras show the tow truck arriving at the Canton station at about 5:31 PM. (The typical drive from the Dighton property to Canton station is around an hour when not snowing).
5:36 PM - The SUV pulls into the Sally Port garage.
5:41 PM - The garage is closed.
In order for the investigators to shatter the taillight pieces, rush them over to Fairview property to hand off to a SERT team so that those 7 men can pretend to find some under the snow bank would be quite an absurd mission.
I mean…
Why even involve the SERT team at all?
Bringing 7 more unrelated people into a murder cover-up? Asking them to frame a woman they don’t know - in order to cover up a crime they had nothing to do with? Wouldn’t it be easier to not have a secondary search team get involved?
These are valid questions people should have the information to ponder over.
BUT instead —
The Vanity Fair article just alludes that the search was intentionally done at night time without giving any other context for the readers. This allows for conspiracy theory speculations to run wild along with all the other misleading information surrounding the case at the expense of innocent people.
In the article, Karen is quoted saying…
“If I can get the truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless.”
If Karen wanted “the truth” out there she had 60 printed pages to do it, and she failed.
However, she did succeed in getting “HER truth” out there, which should give everyone pause to ask themselves WHY her truth requires so many omissions?