So Melanie Little is threatening "third party action" if she's sued in the defamation case. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Hey honey baby, good luck to you. Everything we've ever posted includes videos of the exact words coming out of your mouth. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which you can sue yourself, but that's who you should be looking at. Right in the mirror, oh dramatic one!

DR. LAPOSATA & AIDAN KEARNEY: THE CHARLATAN & THE CON ARTIST During her testimony in the second trial, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata attempted to refute Dr. Irini Scordi Bello's determination that hypothermia caused John O'Keefe's death because, according to her review of autopsy pictures, there were no Wischnewsky spots, one of the findings Dr. Scordi Bello based her diagnosis on. She also cited in her testimony a statistic that 90% of patients who die of hypothermia have Wischnewsky spots. That quoted statistic is over 100 years old and is attributed to Dr. S.M. Wischnewsky in his original literature regarding the black and brown spots seen in gastric mucosa of some hypothermia victims. Modern medicine recognizes that the spots are not in reaction to extreme cold, but rather extreme physical stress and can occur in a variety of situations when the body is exposed to massive physiological stress like severe injury, freezing, or diabetic ketoacidosis. Studies done in the past 50 years show a wide range of percentages as far as the spots appearing in hypothermia victims, anywhere from 43% to 100% of autopsy findings examined. Furthermore, a diagnosis of hypothermia is not based on merely one post mortem finding. It is a diagnosis based on a combination of circumstantial evidence including where the victim was found, exclusion of other contributing factors, as well as autopsy findings. Read's defense chose to only attack one prong of the diagnosis. They could not refute the location of John O'Keefe's body nor could they point to any other cause of death besides freezing to death due to the incapacitating head injury and Read's failure to render aid. But that doesn't stop "award winning journalist" from repeating a quote from the 1800s and trying to convince his audience of the same. His entire future depends on people blindly believing utter nonsense.

Our own Kerry Lama's Sandra Birchmore trial update youtu.be/bvUW0ELGArY?is=kINy…

In June of 2025, during the second trial, after Judd Welcher, Shannon Burgess, and Matthew DiSogra testified, Aidan Kearney made a shocking admission to his audience: He did not understand ANY of the data. He did not understand how to interpret anything he heard. The Techstream and vehicle data were crucial to understanding how and when the collision occurred. Just before John's phone never moved again, Karen Read had reversed with the throttle 74% engaged and a slight shift in the steering could be seen. The time of this reversal event had been brilliantly calculated by using the earlier three point turn as an anchor and it matched with the activity stoppage on John's phone. It was damning testimony. So as you listen to the man who tells you no collision occurred, understand you are listening to a person who admittedly doesn't understand the evidence. This is exactly like his admissions in text messages about not understanding the data that showed the Google search for hos long to die in cold that occurred at 6:23 and 6:24. And yet he has called people cop killers and murderers for over 3 years. Talk about reckless disregard for the truth. Ignorance is never a defense, especially when you claim you are an "award winning journalist."