The social media streets are filled with ponderings regarding a certain 9 hour live-stream on YouTube (YT). Lauren Matthias, former local network reporter, now co-host of Hidden True Crime (HTC) (along with her husband, Dr. John Matthias) sat in front of a camera for 9 hours to tell everybody that would listen that she had a stalker and was afraid for her safety. What followed was not quite what I expected. It doesn't look like it's what many expected as she seems to have as many detractors as she does supporters. 

I'll admit, I was a "Hidden Gem" for a time, mostly for the Vallow Daybell trials. I dropped both my membership and subscription due to Lauren's takes regarding Richard Allen and his trial in Delphi, IN. Even Dr. John highly disappointed me, not seeing any problem at all with a presumed innocent pre-trial detainee being subjected to over a year in solitary confinement in the Indiana prison system (IDOC). Or him seemingly A-OK with a psych professional, Dr. Wala, being in every Facebook (FB) regarding the Delphi murders while treating this alleged murderer - is she just a true crime junkie or did she want to help insure his conviction?  Personally, I believe Rick Allen has been treated terribly and is factually innocent in the deaths of Abigail Williams & Liberty German.

Picking up bad habits from some friends that she made during that trial (mainly the co-hosts of Murder Sheet), Lauren copyright struck a number of smaller YT creators when they used her footage under Fair Use. In other words, they provided commentary (which was probably negative) regarding her reporting. I know at least one YouTuber settled things with her, one who also covered the Vallow Daybell trials, but the rest I'm unsure of.

To be fair, I did not listen to Lauren's whole 9 hour livestream. I've watched it piecemeal via other creators. I also listened to her court hearing and read some of documents Sleuthie Goosie posted on X. Mostly the affidavits of Christina (aka The Stalker) and three of her friends to see what the other side had to say. Lauren and her defenders claim they were followed a good half-dozen times but it seems Lauren and her crew purposely placed themselves in the vicinity. A few took place at/around CrimeCon 2025 - Christina had purchased a VIP pass a year prior which Lauren not only knew about, as they were friendly at the time, she had no plans to attend herself. Lauren had no booth, was not a speaker, etc. yet she showed up anyway and managed to prevent Christina from attending because she had a temporary restraining order (TRO) (or whatever the hell it's called in Utah/Nevada). Lauren also claims she was there "for work." What "work?"

A few other physical encounters that allegedly took place happened when Christina was out of the country. I guess the reason she was chosen as "The Stalker" is due to a bunch of harmless (and kinda inane IMO) Tik Tok videos. For 4 years, a rather large YT creator (he's approaching 1M subs, might have even surpassed it, but I very rarely watch him) and his co-creators/friends love to mention me and my friends, calling us things like crazy psycho mean girls that he will one day sue. Like Christina, he's careful not to mention our names. When we hit back, we endure ridicule and worse. That's just how social media works and Lauren is not exempt. She's also not being stalked, IMO.

As a matter of fact, that TRO will never become a permanent one. They held the first half of the hearing where the judge warned Lauren that she was trampling all over Christina's 1st amendment rights. Then we heard from a couple of witnesses on Christina's side. It was at the end of the day so they scheduled the remainder of the hearing for sometime in the future. Lauren's lawyer(s) subsequently asked for more time which the judge denied. In the end, Lauren dropped the matter although she's not told her followers that. Actually, reading the court docs, Lauren left out or twisted quite a bit of the story and made some ant hills into mountain ranges, IMO.

Bottom line: As Emily D. Baker says, "the internet is gonna internet." If you don't like what someone has to say then don't read/watch them. You can generally mute/block people on the various social media platforms. If you say shitty things in texts/DMs just know that eventually they're gonna get out. When it comes back to bite you in the ass it's best to swallow your pride and apologize rather than trying to villainize critics, IMO.

For a balanced perspective, I suggest watching Chasing's videos - she breaks everything down sensibly. I also highly recommend reading the court docs posted by Sleuthie Goosie.

While I was on my latest social media hiatus journalist Jess Machado posted her first interview on her new YouTube (YT) channel. Who did she choose as her subject? Notorious anti-free Karen Read (AFKR) figure, Kate Peter (KP) (or  "Krusty Panties" as fellow journalist Aidan Kearny has dubbed her). I have not watched the interview nor do I intend to - why would I subject myself to a known liar lying? Jess had to know that FKR would have feelings about this particular choice, that many of her "besties" would experience shock and disappointment. Unless KP came clean about her true reason for her AFKR stance and how it really was all about her hatred of Aidan. Dang it, now I just might hafta take a peek.

However, from what I'm seeing on X, it seems people are upset with Jess for publicly airing grievances with LTL media, a YT channel she appeared on weekly during the second trial of Karen Read. Particularly about a video that may or may not exist regarding the death of Mass. State Trooper trainee Enrique Delgado Garcia. This is a story that Brian of LTL has had his teeth sunk into since the end of last year, 2024. Garcia purportedly died of a brain aneurism during a training exercise although I'm wondering if that happened before or after his neck was broken (amongst other injuries). Hell of a coincidence, right?

Apparently, Brian gave Jess a glimpse of said video and claims she could've asked him to play it if she wanted to see the whole thing. Jess wonders why he hasn't shared it with the world. Brian has also said he does not actually possess it but has seen it. Logic dictates to me that Jess is the one telling the truth. And I think she's probably been pushing him to do something constructive with it. How much more could a paid guest do? Yes, that's the other thing that has stuck in the craw of many: Jess required payment to appear on Brian's show - an arrangement that both seemed comfortable with. This may well be standard in the TV industry but it strikes an odd chord with those of us who consume our news via social media.

Now I'm gonna rewind my way back to the reason for my hiatus - the downfall of someone we saw as a staunch supporter of Karen Read, Estey, and the rise of a pain in the ass named John Baron who seemed particularly aggrieved by another staunch FKR, Nan AKA Lawferio. I don't believe the two are connected, they just happened around the same time. It seems Estey just likes to sucker fish to large trials, her last one being another that is near and dear to my heart: Johnny Depp v Amber Heard (I'm JD all the way, BTW). As for John Baron, it turns out that it was an account shared by AFKR and FKR personalities. I have no idea why they picked on Nan. Jealousy and/or boredom are the only things that spring to mind. It's the height of stupidity to defame a successful lawyer, IMO.

Just for funsies, let's wrap all of this up and tie it with a ribbon called, "I was disappointed in Karen Read's party & other disgruntlements." LTL/Brian said he just sat back and observed the party because that's just how he is, now he's upset about not being included more. Or maybe it's more about not getting the recognition he thought he'd earned which is what Rita Lombardi's and Sean on the Gulf's complaints were about, too. Personally, what I do is because I feel it's right, not because I want kudos. I mean, they're nice, don't get me wrong, but they're not my reason d'etre. I'm about the same age as Rita & Sean - we're of an age that we're supposed to have some wisdom. Aparently that's about as rare as common sense.

In the end, I guess it comes down to what I'm willing to tolerate. I'm all for good fun but not when it comes at the expense of others. I guess I'm simply not up for schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude refers to the joy you might feel at another person’s pain. It’s a compound of the German nouns Schaden, meaning “damage,” and Freude, meaning “joy.”  Merriam-Webster

Former (supposed) FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer says some ridiculous things on X regarding the Karen Read trial (amongst others). This one caught my eye yesterday:

Let's break it down:

The Top Ten Reasons why I can't Wait for the Karen Read trial to be over:

1-Tired of all the dissent in the True Crime Community. 

Most of those in the "True Crime Community" realize that, at the very least, the investigation was sorely lacking thus engendering feelings of a whole shit ton of reasonable doubt. People who truly believe Karen Read is guilty should be mad as hell at disgraced former trooper Michael Proctor yet they're not. I find this incredibly odd. It's almost like they agree with his whole "pin it on the girl" strategy.

2-Tired of trying to explain that there is 0 proof that an ATF Agent (who has his job and was not reprimanded in anyway much less accused of murder), a 30+ year Boston Police Officer (featured on Boston's Finest and retired with distinction about 2 years After the crime), a dog (sent to Vermont months after the crime due to a fight she had with another dog), and a minor (not even worth mentioning) Murdered John O'Keefe and brilliantly threw him in their front lawn.

So, stop trying to excuse ... er, explain stuff regarding people you don't even know. Higgins is on desk duty (last we heard, anyway), Brian Albert has a history of beating people up, a dog whose owners called the poor girl "it" and made her disappear the night of the incident only for her to reappear then end up being "rehomed," and a thug in the making. Btw, it's curious that you, of all people, knew where Chloe supposedly was when even the defense team didn't. The rest of us learned during her "mom" Nichole Albert's testimony well into trial #1. Another oddity, IMO.

3- Tired of listening to Alessi. 

I'm so sorry that Alessi is too smart and well spoken for some to understand. Personally, I'm tired of Hank Brennan's incessant whining. 

4- Tired of watching Karen Read's courtroom antics. 

No idea what you're talking about here. Do you mean her being an active and valued member of her own defense team?

5- Tired of reading all of the dribble from those who haven't watched the trial but pretend they have.

I think the word you're looking for is "drivel" and those who rebut you probably *have* watched the trial, you just don't like their viewpoints. Many also probably watched some, if not all, pretrial (especially for this second trial). I certainly have. The CW's own ME said Ofc O'Keefe's injuries were inconsistent with a motor vehicle strike. What are we even doing here?

6- Tired of the podcasters flushing truth for viewership.

Same girl, same but opposite. I'm tired of those that have flushed their integrity in order to push the CW's false narrative. However, I'm glad to weed out those who apparently lack critical thinking skills.

7- Tired of the Blogger's filthy mouth and lies. 

So don't watch/listen to him or read his articles. Easy fix, right?

8- Tired of Watching the Fan.

Agreed.

9- Tired of a simple Occam's Razor Domestic Violence case being made into a Cecil B. Deville drama fest.

I'm tired of people who think that cops running a crappy investigation is A-OK as long as whoever they deem to be the "bad guy" gets put away. I'm also tired of people shitting on our US Constitution and using the Bill of Rights to wipe their ass.

And number 10: Tired of watching a spoiled one continue to mock the death of a wonderful soul named John O'Keefe.

Nobody finds humor in the death of OFFICER John O'Keefe. Many see the tragedy in that some of his fellow brothers in blue didn't give him the honor he was due by conducting a proper investigation, exploring all avenues, in order to figure out what truly happened to him. Instead, he was just "a man," "the guy," and, ultimately, the victim. He's not even referred to as a Boston Police Officer in much of the CW's case. 

I will continue to advocate for justice in this case because it's the right thing to do.

Justice means not trampling over someone's rights. It means recognizing shoddy police work. It means not rushing to judgement. It means a thorough and proper investigation. It means not resorting to trickery in an attempt to secure a conviction. It means not ignoring inconvenient truths. 

This trial has brought to light how some DA's offices along with their local law enforcement sometimes works to railroad innocnt people. As attorney Mark Bederow likes to say, they're supposed to be the good guys. With Karen Read, we're seeing that's not always the case which is pretty eye opening, IMO. I have learned to take a closer look at how cases are investigated and garnered even more appreciation for the role of defense attorneys. Like many others, I've come to understand that the government does not generally have our best interest in mind. Sometimes they need their feet held to the fire. We can learn much from criminal defense attorneys Bob & Ali Motta (Defense Diaries), Andrea Burkhart (Andrea Burkhart), Ian Runkle (Runkle of the Bailey) and Natalie Whittingham Burrell (natalielawyerchick) as well as former prosecutor Emily D. Baker (The Emily Show). I would be remiss if I did not mention Attorney Melanie Little for complete covereage since pre-trial 1 and Peter Tragos (Lawyer You Know) for his unbiased and nuanced coverage. These are just a handful of lawyers on social media that are covering and/or commenting on this case. Those worth following point out the myriad of issues and just how much reasonable doubt there is.

FREE KAREN READ