Karen Read and the VANITY (un)Fair Article - Part 1
Did Vanity Fair cross ethical journalistic boundaries in order to market a murder defendant?
Hollywood correspondent, Julie Miller, recently wrote a 2-part article on the Karen Read case for Vanity Fair Magazine, which has left me with more questions and concerns regarding the ethics of litigation PR, media manipulation, and what some define as a participatory defense style tactic.
As you may know —
Vanity Fair is a niche magazine that typically focuses on Entertainment, Politics, and Fashion News.
According to my research online, the market demographic for this magazine are mostly wealthy, middle-aged women. From luxury brand ads (like Versace and Chanel) to high-end photography imagery, readers are likely not seeking their vehicular-pedestrian accident news from Vanity Fair.
I was a bit surprised that the magazine would even market an article on a small town criminal case that didn’t at least involve a celebrity, politician, fashionista, or even some high-profile personality/influencer.
A short scroll through the Vanity Fair website headlines this week, I see names like…
Beyonce.
Trump.
Queen Elizabeth’s youngest granddaughter, Lady Louise Windsor.
And…
Karen Read.
Karen Read. The drunk driver who screamed that she “f*cking hates” the victim, John O’Keefe, just moments after his phone registered his final steps feet away from where her vehicle was last seen by witnesses. Microscopic pieces of her tail light cover found by the forensic scientist lodged in the victim’s clothing, and many testified accounts from witnesses regarding Karen’s own incriminating statements that she was involved in his death.
Karen Read.
The woman who aligned herself with a boisterous, erratic, conspiracy-pushing blogger who torments the witnesses and their kids, as well as refers to the victim’s mother as a “maggot” (among other awful words) because she doesn’t believe in the defense team’s conspiracy narrative.
Yes, that Karen Read.
She received a long-form, puff piece article spotlight in the glamorous Vanity Fair Magazine by a Hollywood correspondent.
The question is WHY?
Is it because she hired high-priced Hollywood attorney, Alan Jackson, who has defended celebrity clients like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey? Or the fact that once Jackson (who boasts on his website that he has a 96% success rate of winning trials) got onboard with this case, the public optics became a huge part of their game play over the past year?
There are so many things I want to discuss regarding what appears as another PR marketing attempt to spread a sensationalized conspiracy theory while casting the rich, drunk driver in a special “victim” limelight.
My focus on the Vanity Fair article’s misleading and incorrect statements, as well as the defense team’s concerning behaviors surrounding this case will be a multi-part article over the next coming weeks. There’s so much I want to cover.
For the sake of time and sanity, this post today is focused on what I consider the most alarming issue in their writing piece…
The 2:27 AM timestamp.
(Here is a video clip Vanity Fair put out promoting that they had their own expert analyze and confirm that the defense team’s claims of 2:27 being a google search are correct.)
The Vanity Fair writer states that she asked Umit Karabiyik, a PhD at Purdue’s Department of Computer and Information Technology, to analyze the prosecution’s expert testimony as well as the Defense team’s expert affidavit regarding the 2:27am timestamp, however this is not completely accurate.
I reached out to Umit for more clarity on what he was given to analyze, as well as what he examined prior to sharing his opinion with Vanity Fair.
He was incredibly kind and transparent with me regarding the interaction he had with the writer, as well as what he analyzed. (Note: Umit has no affiliations with either the defense or prosecution in this case. He approached this with an unbiased view.)
The truth is –
There were two experts who testified for the Commonwealth. Vanity Fair never once mentioned to Umit that Cellebrite’s, the extraction company used for this cell report, Senior Digital Intelligence Expert, Ian Whiffin, testified under oath regarding this topic.
Therefore, Umit’s opinion given to Vanity Fair was not based on anything other than examining Richard Green’s affidavit with the awareness that the prosecution was in disagreement with it. He agreed with Green’s conclusion from reading that report.
However-
The controversy isn’t just about the report itself, as it is with the way the software update parsed the data, and what is actually needed to infer a conclusion on the timestamp.
Ian Whiffin was a pivotal expert witness for the Commonwealth regarding the 227 controversy, and his testimony brings more context to the topic at hand. This is an important piece to examine, and should not have been left out when Vanity Fair sought the opinion on this topic for their article.
Ian Whiffin’s opinion is that 2:27 AM is actually a “last viewed” timestamp.
Not a Google search timestamp.
Meaning that the witness, Jen McCabe, used a pre-opened window on her phone to make the google search hours later. We have all done this at some point, if not daily.
Ian Whiffin does run a test on this, and shows in court how and why this occurred.
However- Whiffin did not use the exact IOS version to run his test (only the earlier and later version), which the Purdue University expert says is an important part of making a final conclusion. Without running the proper testing on the exact IOS himself (phone make, model, etc.), Umit believes that no solid conclusion can or should be made on the timestamp.
(Here are two blog posts Ian Whiffin has written regarding his research on this topic. Blog Post 1 and Blog Post 2 )
(And here is a YouTube video of the actual IOS being tested online. The person running this test shows that 2:27 is a last tab open timestamp, confirming Ian’s claims.)
The defense expert, Richard Green, states that he knows how that IOS version (and make/model) work from other testing and says this is why he believes 227 was a google search. The problem is Green also claimed in his affidavit that another search happened - How long to digest food - later testifying that he made a faulty conclusion based on his claims of knowing how the make/model of the phone work. That phrase regarding “digesting’ food was actually just a google suggested search.
My correspondence with Umit (the expert who VF claims confirmed for them that 227 is a google search after he analyzed both Green’s affidavit and the prosecution’s testimony) confirms that Vanity Fair was misleading in their statement.
“My comments were based on the affidavit provided to me. I was only told that the prosecutor's expert claims otherwise. So, I didn't make the comments by comparing their results, I made my comments by looking at the work conducted in the affidavit. I don't still agree with the claims that it was a gross misinterpretation at the time of Mr. Green's analysis, it was how everyone understood it in that way because of Cellebrite's presentation of data. After watching Ian's testimony, it's arguable that search might have been on a tab opened at 227 but search was made later at 623. I haven't done my testing on the exact make and model of iPhone and iOS, therefore I cannot claim either way, as Ian's tests also were made for slightly later versions of iOS. Having 14 years of digital forensics research experience, I can comfortably say that version of any program or operating system matter on these kind of issues.” -Umit
Here is a piece of our correspondence where I ask Umit to confirm or correct me on what his thoughts are regarding this topic. My writing is in black/purple, his is in red.
I reached out to Vanity Fair with some questions, but have yet to receive a response. I’m curious why they omitted mentioning Cellebrite’s expert, and why they didn’t ask him to even review Richard Green’s trial testimony.
I’m just a small voice in a large pond, so I can only assume they are riding on that to avoid taking accountability for the misleading representation of what was provided to Umit.
The reason why accuracy on this topic in the media is VITAL, is because witness, Jen McCabe, has received unimaginable harassment from conspiracy theorist pushers (including death threats) who have unequivocally decided that 227 has been confirmed, and now confirmed again by Vanity Fair.
It has most definitely not been confirmed, and these implications are not without real ramifications.
Cellebrite’s Forensic Expert, Ian Whiffin, states that the software received a newer update due to the misleading nature of the reader report. I will be interested to see how this is handled in the upcoming 2nd trial.
Richard Green, the defense’s expert, even concurs that the software updates were presenting different results causing different interpretations.
(Quote photo from Masslive.com)
Witness, Jen McCabe, has been perpetually tormented by the public, and the defense team’s conspiracy theory campaign has shown zero care at all regarding the destruction they have caused on people.
In fact, one of the attorney’s was seen giving the man who is charged with over a dozen witness intimidation felonies an “atta boy” pat under the butt one day outside the courthouse. And Karen herself, in a text exchange between an intermediary and the blogger, refers to Defense attorney, Alan Jackson’s, tactics as “scorched earth all the way”.
AJ even states in open court that he has done the “damage” that needs to be done on (witness) Jen McCabe. The judge asks him to repeat what he said in what I can only assume is her checking if she actually heard him slip out those disgusting choice of words.
My biggest fear is that a witness will be harmed, or even harm themselves, due to the incessant hammering of these allegations. Here are just a few examples of what Jen has endured…
Conclusion:
Context matters, and writers do make errors. Everyone is human. A level of grace should always be given as long as those errors are corrected when pointed out.
With that said, I highly question Vanity Fair’s intent on the content provided to not only the tech expert, but to the readers. Was Vanity Fair actually sought out by Karen Read’s Hollywood defense team (or a litigation PR company) to market her innocence and cast shade over everyone else in the case? A hyper-focus on public optics seem to be a pattern of behavior with that team.
Just because something is legal, doesn’t always mean it’s ethical. Using the media to market a misleading narrative for the benefit of a criminal defendant is alarming, and has real impacts on real people, including the victim’s family and friends.