Olivia Laing retweeted
Gildea don't play. 😂
Yanetti and Karen fought it. Gildea granted it.
10 days, Yanetti. Time to cough up those records.
So much for “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Olivia Laing retweeted
Judge Gildea has ruled that Karen Read lawyer, David Yannetti has 10 days to respond the August 9th subpoena in the defamation case brought by the witnesses.
"ORDER: Relative to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Attorney David Yannetti to Respond to Outstanding Requests for Production Having reviewed and considered the motion, attachments, the oppositions of the Nonparty and defendant Read, and the plaintiffs' reply, the motion is allowed. The Nonparty shall, within ten (10) days, respond to Plaintiffs' Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum that was served on August 6, 2026."
Olivia Laing retweeted
Oh dear🤦♀️. It’s not attorney-client privilege. They aren’t asking for communications with Karen.
Replying to @kelly_steffee
Can he appeal this to the SJC? Attorney client privilege is crucial in our legal system.
Olivia Laing retweeted
David Yannetti has 10 days to reply to the Plaintiffs' Subpoena in the defamation case.
Plaintiffs' motion is ALLOWED.
Olivia Laing retweeted
He's using quotation marks for shit they didn't say and leaving out the parts that hurt his narrative. That's not passion for exposing corruption. That's a fucking grifter counting on you not checking @GrantSmithEllis
Be wary of Grant’s courtroom transcriptions. When someone puts words in quotation marks that a witness never said and selectively omits testimony that contradicts their narrative, that’s not reporting. It’s misinformation masquerading as journalism.
He's using quotation marks for shit they didn't say and leaving out the parts that hurt his narrative. That's not passion for exposing corruption. That's a fucking grifter counting on you not checking @GrantSmithEllis
Olivia Laing retweeted
WOW! Talk about being “lost in the sauce”! Listen closely to these three clips. Now we know why @RealNurseKim still claims an arm couldn’t shatter a taillight and that John had no lower-extremity injuries, even though the medical examiner testified to a knee abrasion.
All this time, Kim believed the incriminating clips of Rescue Randy shown at trial, clips that supported the Commonwealth’s case and showed precisely what likely happened to John that evening, were videos Dr. Welcher had made. News flash, Kim: ARCCA put that evidence up for the world to see!
That’s right: the defense team’s “experts” showed us that when Karen reversed her Lexus, it shattered her taillight, caused a pirouette that prevented more severe injuries to the rest of the body, and turned John’s foot, causing his shoe to come off. That shoe was found by the curb, under several feet of snow.
@TeamFUKR and @TuesdayGazette absolutely obliterated Kim during Thursday’s Spaces, where she conveniently glossed over the timeline, John’s DNA, his hair and cocktail-glass fragments all found on the rear of Karen’s SUV. Kim even questioned how John’s phone could have had battery life over the course of the evening and called the data a “belief system” rather than actual data.
She went on to say, “I’m not prepared for my steps because I don’t recall this,” while discussing the fact that only one Apple Health record showed John taking steps after he arrived at 34 FV. Those final 36 steps were smack dab in the middle of a 30-second window in which Karen’s SUV slammed into reverse at 74.5% throttle, traveled 87 feet, and reached a top speed of 24 mph. ending with a sudden 4.5-degree steering-wheel shutter and John’s phone ceasing all movement until he was discovered the next morning.
Kim also created an entirely new insane conspiracy! During the wellness check, snow was caked on what we all know is a missing taillight housing on Karen’s passenger-side taillight. Kim’s crazy theory is because the driver-side taillight was closer to the house, it apparently, shielded it from the same elements by the wind. This ignores the fact that Karen told Gretchen Voss that at 5:07 a.m. her “taillight housing had already collapsed” and that she had “picked pieces out of it”. It also ignores the fact that BOTH of John’s Traverse taillights are also shown to be smooth and red during the wellness check. Details, Kim…….details…….
Now Kim wants a do-over. She wants to bring up a friend to help her. She wants to hold another discussion on her terms and on her platform. I truly hope Truth and Tuesday deny her that luxury. She’s been grifting off a tragedy for 4+ years and pointing the finger at innocent witnesses. She had her shot, failed spectacularly, and should be forced to swim in that pool for eternity.
“Lost in the sauce” is what Kim calls it. Let’s call it what it really is: being completely ignorant of the actual evidence in the case and unwilling to even consider changing your mind when the truth smacks you in the face!
Get lost in THAT sauce, Kim!
Olivia Laing retweeted
This dumbass is so mad that people are calling #emilysee a grifting piece of shit, he fails at insulting my pfp and then his two braincells then desperately search for other turtle memes as original thought is a myth to slow Bobby here #fkr #slowadults #karenread
Olivia Laing retweeted
Then how do you explain this photo, Kim? The tail light is completely busted out at 8:23 am.
And if no one planted tail light pieces, then Karen did it. And the tail light was broken way before MSP got access to it, so she definitely did it.
Julie bitching behind a block so I can’t respond? What else is new. 🙄
I was talking about Kate and Kevin discussing imbedded glass in the bumper ( FALSE) and the smoking gun of the wellness check taillight video (false) before it even came out trial 1
NO one else had that info…
Kate tweeted about it.
I 100% said both the girls were cordial and we had a decent conversation from opposite sides and were respectful which has not happened in this case.
But I’m the asshole. 👍😂
Olivia Laing retweeted
Don’t tell the narcissist how mean or abusive they are. They’re secretly proud of that.
Olivia Laing retweeted
Breaking: Donald Trump was "an active participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of young women in the mid-to-late 1990s,” according to a report issued today by Dems on the House Judiciary Committee. The report includes one new rape allegation against Trump, and calls for a special investigation of the Trump administration's cover-up of Epstein's crimes.
Olivia Laing retweeted
One question with two very different meanings.
DIRECT HEARING: What did Kerry personally hear Karen say to Jennifer at the time?
RETROSPECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION: What did Kerry later understand had happened, based on the timeline she pieced together with Jen?
Olivia Laing retweeted
They are literally plaintiffs in this case. And Colin isn’t even a “house defendant” at all. Brother Counsel is so embarrassing 🤦🏼♀️
I will be LIVE today (10-25) at 11:15 ET breaking down the house defendants' latest motion targeting Karen Read's Lawyer David Yannetti in the defamation case! See you then!
youtube.com/live/3nHyxXHgskI… via @YouTube
Olivia Laing retweeted
What are the odds that John is last seen holding a glass in his hand with his elbow resting against his side and that is the EXACT height of the taillight with dozens of sharp shards and the exact area of his wounds, and the exact area of damage to the Lexus? infinitesimal.
Olivia Laing retweeted
The case is over if the CW had educated the jury here. The data just adds to the evidence
Olivia Laing retweeted
Royalists have been particularly deranged because they know they messed up - they continued to platform an alleged pedophile and everyone can see 🤷🏼♀️
Replying to @SussexHenryVIII
The royalists have been quite deranged the past few days. A lot of word salad.
Olivia Laing retweeted
There is no help for him
Help Turtleboy defend free speech givesendgo.com/GB83T?utm_sou…
Olivia Laing retweeted
An ordinary liar tells you a painting is real.
A malignant narcissist forges the painting, forges the receipt from the gallery, forges the auction history, then gets an expert to authenticate it. The expert was fed the forged paperwork, so their endorsement is sincere and worthless.
Now when you question it, they don't defend the painting. They point to the expert.
You're no longer arguing against a lie. You're arguing against a lie that has witnesses, paperwork, and a reputation.











































