KAREN READ: Brian Higgins Vigorously Protected By Judge Beverly And Lally

so where's your phone I do not have that phone anymore you've destroyed that phone haven't you no I threw the phone away well that's destroying the phone isn't it I had every right to do that I didn't ask you about your rights I asked you what you did jaction sustained you destroyed the phone by removing the SIM card half correct Jack sustained what we just saw was a very short clip of Brian Higgins testimony during the Karen trial however to fully understand the majority of this testimony we need to go back to 4 days before the trial during the final motion hearing during this hearing David yti presented a third-party culprit defense which simply put is a legal strategy used by the defense to argue that another individual or entity not present in the courtroom is the actual perpetrator of the crime in this part of yanet's argument he mentions a few names but one of those names is Higgins so let's watch this clip Trooper Proctor Trooper bunik never sees Brian higgins's phone they speak with him and he takes it upon himself to use his own resources Brian Higgins within the federal government to ask a friend Special Agent M Kelch to download only the text messages in his phone between Karen and him and him and John and that's it we have to take his word for it that we got all of them and we certainly don't have any Communications between him and Brian Albert for instance on February 10th when he shows up to his interview with Troopers bunik and Proctor he brings with them copies of the text that he has deemed relevant in their murder investigation and he hands them the copies of the extraction that he had his friend do he then calls Matt keltz the weekend uh of this uh uh incident uh to do the limited extraction he never tells uh Trooper bunik or Trooper pner how he extracted the tests uh despite the fact that it was done by a friend of his in the federal government um during the federal profer Brian Higgins admits that he had been served with a preservation order and the Commonwealth told him he could destroy his phone despite the order he then drives to a military base on Cape Cod opens his phone breaks the SIM card and throws the phone pH away and he says that he discussed destroying his phone with Brian Albert Brian Albert also destroyed his phone and Brian Albert uh said that he had uh received some text that concerns him as an explanation and after that Brian Higgins changes his phone number and changes his cell carrier in short he was present that night he had a motive and there is plenty of consciousness of guilt cover up evidence with regard to Mr Higgins now fast forward 4 months to day 17 of the Karen Reed trial when Brian Higgins takes the stand Alan Jackson immediately points out that not only has Brian Higgins lawyered up but his lawyer is actually present in the courthouse in the next clip which is a long one we're going to see and hear a few things one thing we'll constantly hear is Adam Loi objecting to just about anything and everything with judge Beverly kenon sustaining most of those objections another thing we'll notice is that during Brian Higgins testimony the cross-examination is stopped so that Higgins lawyer can come in and decide which questions are appropriate for him to answer and which he can't answer but there's another small telling detail that I picked up on when L on the very few occasions didn't object Brian Higgins would turn his head and look at the judge and then the judge would either ask him that question or tell him to answer it this was very strange indeed we saw something similar when Jen and Matt McCabe's daughter was testifying she would also turn her head and look at the judge also I want to mention that Higgins testimony was incredibly long he spent a significant amount of time on the stand to really understand this bizarre behavior between him L and the judge you'd need to watch the entire testimony however I try to keep my videos as short as possible so we're only going to see some of this strange behavior let's watch the clip and then we can talk about what we just saw you brought your attorney with you who's sitting right behind you correct that is not my attorney oh I'm sorry I thought you were his attorney my mistake where is your attorney I don't know he might be in the courthouse is he in the building I don't know where he physically is right now okay without telling me anything that you said to your attorney did you meet with him this morning before your testimony yes did you meet with him during the break in your again don't tell me what you talked about but did you meet with him during the break when we took a break a few minutes ago yes I did okay if you wanted to get rid of and you've dealt with cell phones and and electronic devices in your career many many times correct over my career yes uh you've probably even written search warrants for them things of that nature right yes um if you wanted to destroy evidence on your cell phone what kind of steps might you take to do that objection if you wanted to just get rid of information on your cell phone that would be unrecoverable what steps might you take jaction Sy do you know how to get rid of information on your cell phone objection that's a l you can answer that do I know how to get rid of information I mean I think there's different ways that you could possibly could wipe your phone anything else um you could wipe your phone good factory factory reset factory reset might be one wiping your phone taking the SIM card out I I don't know that the SIM card is going to take information that's on the phone out so that might be one Avenue you can break the SIM card half or it corre it could yes um you know SIM card stores an enormous amount of data that phones USS to break right no I don't know that okay uh you could also if you take the SIM card out you just get rid of the phone somehow right just destroy it yes um might even consult with some kind of an expert to help learn how to permanently erase things from a phone like a forensic expert for instance jaction sustained and then the very next day that Sunday you called a friend of yours guy named Matt Kelch didn't you I yeah he's my best friend he's a federal special agent he's a coworker of mine yes which makes him a federal special agent right an ATF agent yes and does he work for or have access to the regional computer forensics lab yes he works over there okay that's the FBI Regional forensics Regional computer forensics lab correct yes so Matt Kelch is an ATF agent who works at the FBI computer sorry Regional computer forensics lab correct yes and he's an expert in digital forensics is he not he has a level of expertise more than myself yes and he's one of your best friends he is my best friend you spoke to him about the death of johon o'keef did you not yes and you asked him for a personal favor sort of off the books correct Jack in that form I'll sustain you did you ask him for a personal favor no did you ask him to show you or consult with you how to pull things off of your phone that you decide to get off your phone I asked him how I could pull text strings off my cellular telephone for the purpose of providing them to law enforcement this was not in connection with any case that he was working correct that's correct it was not in connection with any case you were working correct objection objection sustained but you already answered I'll strike that answer second question you can answer is this in connection to any Cas no your hna next question but you asked your friend to utilize his resources to teach you how to extract certain information off your phone is that what you did I asked him if it was possible to get this off if there was if there was a method to get this off my phone so I could provide it to law enforcement and that information was selected by you correct two particular text threads yes right uh in other words there was nobody else that was picking and choosing what to get off your phone that was just you it was me yes um and the reason you did that Mr Higgins is that you wanted to control and limit the amount of information that was pulled off your phone right jaction is that why you did it no I did it because I wanted to provide it to law enforcement you okay next question but you could have just provided your phone to law enforcement and let them image the entire thing correct I guess that was an option yes and you knew that was an option at the time and you're a trained F uh ATF agent what's the question you knew it was an option to just hand your phone over pick it up and give it to them and there was also an option to provide it to them as well right but you chose the one that you got to select the information not the one where they would get everything correct jaction what they refer to as a kios on the first floor over at FBI okay and all local PDS law enforcement have access to that and those are that's obviously it's an unrestricted area you can you can you can be in there as I understand it unaccompanied if you're local law enforcement it's on the first floor that is a federal facility however yes it is did you utilize any computer or data sorry any data extraction Machinery if you will a computer or something to extract this data well it was a machine I don't know what it's called okay fair enough I'll use the word machine I don't know what it's called either uh so you hook that phone up to a machine correct yes and that machine belonged to the FBI it didn't belong to you is that right that's correct so that was a federal resource not for anything having to do with any official case that you were working isn't that right objection so I need to see you I know this is but I need to see you Council why don't you come on over please Mr Conley uh if if you just go and just stand next to your client the Mr Jackson's going to make an offer of proof of a question he's about to ask your client or a couple of questions he's about to ask your client doesn't make any sense to me that somebody has Council and the council is not aware of a potential issue so you'll hear the offer approv I'll let you speak to Mr Higgins before this actually happens before the jury could I just have him ident yes I was just going to ask you to identify yourself sure my name is William Cony spell C o n n o l l y all right May yes uh the witness has indicated that he utilized Federal resources for personal gain the specifics of that testimony have been as follows he indicated that he contacted Matt Kelch a federal agent he indicated that he utilized a federal facility that was he called it an unsecure facility but it's Federal Federal facility notwithstanding and that the two of them he and agent Kelch utilized a federal re utilize Federal resources in the form of some kind of a machine as the the witness indicated for his own personal gain so that he could as a witness in no official capacity work in any official case and in in Matt Kel's capacity as a as an individual rather than an agent they both work work together to download certain information from the witness's phone in anticipation of turning that highly selected highly curated information over to law enforcement so that he could later ultimately destroy his homeone which this witness in fact did okay so it's not entire I disagree with you I I don't think it's reached that level um his testimony was that he went to a kiosk on the first floor where all local police departments uh can go it's unrestricted it's on the first floor and we just got to the part about a machine in the kiosk when you mentioned an FBI resource so what is your question what what questions do you intend to ask this witness now whether he's aware that under 5 CFR 2635.702 it is a federal offense to use his public off to use any public office for his own private gain or for the gain of persons or organizations with which you are associated personally in other words an FBI agent or an ATF agent cannot use federal resources for personal gain the fact that he contacted an ATF agent the fact that he utilized a um a facility that is owned by the federal government run by the federal government paid for by taxpayer dollars and the fact that he used a machine that is owned by the federal government to download certain information for his own personal game that personal game being these are the curated texts that I'm going to turn over to law enforcement that's a federal off all right so those questions are going to be asked I don't know there's been an objection to them I'm not sure I'm going to let them in um but I wanted to give you the opportunity to speak privately with your client in the backro there can you do it in short order I can I can do it in about 10 seconds okay sure all right if you feel so so why don't we go why don't you go back and talk to him I'll stop bringing the jury or getting the jury lined up to come back Mr Higgins you indicated that the phone was hooked up to some sort of machine at the FBI head uh at the FBI kios correct yes um you're aware sir that under 5cfr 2635.702 you may not use your public office for your own personal or private gain or for the gain of persons or organizations with which you are associated personally under pain of a federal offense correct Jackson that sir no your honor okay are you aware that under 5cfr 2634 704 it's a felony to quote Jacks your honor as a reading employ go ahead and finish the question for an employee I'm sorry an employee has a duty to preserve and conserve government property and shall not use such property or allow its use for other than authorized purposes were you aware of that Federal Regulation that objection sustained sir not withstanding those regulations you utilize the services of Matt Kelch as a friend and a colleague but utilizing Federal resources to pull information off your phone correct jaction sustained as to that form in fact uh you were successful in getting information off your phone which is the text that you turn over to the Commonwealth correct Jackson in that form you're almost there Mr Jackson that form was improper the information that was ultimately pulled off your phone was the information that you selected and you and mattch K Matt Kelch work together to get off your phone correct jaction is that correct no you're on if I could explain sure I he he walked me through on how I could pull the text string with joh O'Keefe in the defendant he walked me through the process how to use the machine and then you did that I did do that that's correct what you turned over to the police that's correct and any other information would still be on your phone ending in 5421 correct well that information stayed on my phone I just took those strings off and provided them to the Mass state police so where's your phone I do not have that phone anymore youve destroyed that phone haven't you no I threw the phone away well that's destroyed destroying the phone isn't it I had every right to do that I didn't ask you about your rights I asked you what you did jaction sustained you destroyed the phone by removing the SIM card half correct jaction sustained did you do that did you pull the SIM card out objection did you pull the SIM card out of your phone Anna to the you're to the best of my recollection if if I did take the SIM caught out I would have have bro if I was when I threw it away if I was going to take it out I would break it or cut it but I did not wipe the phone I did not take anything else off it but if I was going to throw the phone away that's what I would have done okay you know as an ATF agent with electronic data experience when you pull the SIM card out and break it and then throw the throw the phone away and the SIM card away you don't need to wipe the phone objection sustained Jackson that's it one more question I can do this in 30 seconds um I think you were aware that the that there was a court order that you not alter delete or destroy or in any way manipulate your phone or the electronic data associated with it correct jaction as to what date as of September setember 23rd I'm sorry September 30th 2022 objection okay I don't believe that's what the court order was I think it's make a quick offer proof that's exactly what it was he were you aware of that is that was that your understanding what's the question exactly you're I'm sorry that's the question sure were you served with a a copy of of a notice on September 30th 2022 that you not alter or destroy or manipulate anything on your phone on September 30th I was served in order yes that's correct and isn't it true in another hearing you explained that on September 29th the day before you claimed you got that notice you changed phone carriers and changed phone numbers and I maintained the phone until you didn't when you destroyed it a month later by pulling the SIM card out and throwing it away correct jaction sustain did did you do that in October did you destroy that phone objection sustained did you pull the SIM card out of your phone Mr Higgins did you I it's possible that I did I believe that's how I've testified yes you testif it's possible that if I if I if I took it out that it was either cut or broken it's not just possible that and that would have been after the date the order was already denied Mr Higgins I have one question left one question did you Mr Mr L's already standing I haven't even started have a seat Mr L go ahead last question Mr Jackson quiet quiet Mr Higgens very simply and then we're done did you remove the SIM card for that phone drive onto a military base throw the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in a different dumpster that is not correct did you testify that was your one question Mr Jackson so now that we've seen how vigorous Adam Lai and judge Beverly kenon protected Brian Higgins during his testimony and how naturally Higgins turned to look at the judge whenever Lai didn't object I find this level of protection for a witness to be very strange personally I believe that protecting Higgins and his phone data is most likely a way to indirectly protect the Alberts especially Brian Albert by Higgins destroying his phone we never know if there were any incriminating messages between him and Brian Albert in my opinion that's precisely why his phone was destroyed no phone means Brian Albert is further removed from being a suspect it's as if the judge and L have some personal reason to protect Higgins and I wonder if it's not really about protecting him but about protecting Brian Albert Higgins came to the stand like someone who already knew he was going to be protected at all costs each time he turned his head to the judge when L didn't object is in my mind proof of that so here are three arguments to consider first ly the unusual and consistent protection of Higgins by both Lai and judge kenon raises serious questions about their motivations why would they go to such lengths unless there was something significant to hide secondly the destruction of Higgins phone conveniently prevents any investigation into potential incriminating Communications if there was nothing to hide why was it destroyed this action suggests a deliberate effort to obstruct Justice and protect those who might be involved lastly the way Higgins appeared confident that he would be protected at all costs suggests possible judicial bias is the judge more interested in shielding certain individuals than in seeking the truth but now we would love to hear from you all what do you think about the level of protection Brian Higgins received during his testimony does it seem justified or does it raise red flags for you do you believe the destruction of Higgins phone was a deliberate act to protect Brian Albert why or why not how do you interpret judge kon's behavior during the trial do you think she's acting impartially or do you suspect she might be biased and this brings us to the end of today's video thanks for watching take care and stay safe and remember if you ever need protection just turn your head and look at the judge worked for Higgins didn't it