Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 5 Big Twists In Karen Read's Retrial For Cop Boyfriend's Murder

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

Karen Read is on trial a second time for the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. The charges are the same but there are some big changes in the retrial including a new special prosecutor and some new evidence that both sides will present. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes over the differences and what could change in the case in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CRIMEFIX at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/crimefixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Lauren Conlin https://www.youtube.com/@PopCrimeTVProducer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. It's become bigger than Karen. Karen Reed's retrial is underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, as she faces charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Come at me. Reed's army of supporters are outside the courthouse as the Commonwealth and Reid's attorneys lay out their cases. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanelle Levy. The case of Karen Reid in Massachusetts is like no other. Reid has amassed a huge following,

throngs of supporters on social media and YouTube who support her and believe that she's been framed for murder by corrupt police officers and a prosecutor. Some wear pink to show they're part of the free Karen Reed movement. Reed's case has been the subject of a number of crime shows and even a recent documentary on a major streamer. She's granted a number of interviews talking about what could have happened that night in January of 2022. Reed and John O'Keefe had been drinking at the Waterfall Bar. They were recorded by security cameras. Reed claims she dropped off O'Keefe at the home of another police officer, Brian Albert,

in Canton, Massachusetts, and watched him walk to the house and then left. Hours later, security cameras at O'Keefe's home showed Reed backing her Lexus SUV up in the driveway of O'Keefe's home, tapping his car. Now, Reed had picked up Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts and discovered O'Keefe dead in the snow on the Albert's lawn hours later. Now, last year, the jury deadlocked and couldn't reach a verdict, but now the retrial is underway. And while some things are very much the same, some things have changed.

Judge Canone began the day by instructing the jury on the charges. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. In order to prove Ms. Reed guilty of second-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed an unlawful killing and that it was done with malice. In comparison, manslaughter while operating under the influence is an unintentional, unlawful killing caused by wanton or reckless conduct while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

And leaving the scene of an accident after causing personal injury or death requires the Commonwealth to prove that Ms. Reed knowingly collided with John O'Keefe, that she caused him injury or death, and then she fled the scene. These terms and the elements of the crimes will be explained to you in detail at the end of the case before you begin your deliberations. Now, during the first trial, it seemed like many people in the public at least felt the Commonwealth was claiming Karen Reid intentionally killed John O'Keefe because of that second degree murder charge. But that's never been the case.

There's also a new lead prosecutor this time, special prosecutor Hank Brennan, and he's not afraid to call out Karen Reid. But after Ms. Reid was charged, she began what you'll learn is a campaign, a campaign to make public statements. 2020, Nightline, Box 25, a documentary. And we've had an opportunity to get many of her statements in the footage, and we're going to show much of you. And her statements to you will confirm what you already know from the science media, what you will already be proven from the facts independent about what she did that night. I'll get to one of those public statements that Brennan will use against Karen Reid here in a bit, and there are many of them.

Brennan started his opening statement by laying out the facts as the Commonwealth sees them. We are here today because John O'Keefe was killed by the actions and conduct of that defendant, Karen Reid. You will learn in this case, through facts, science, and data, you will learn that on January 29, 2022, when the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe were in front of 34 Fairview Road, all the way to the left side in a dark corner near a flagpole, you will learn that Mr. O'Keefe got out of the car.

He got out, and he stood by the side of the road, after an argument with the defendant, that argument, that anger fueled by heavy intoxication, you will learn from the science and data, as he stood by the side of the road, the defendant and her SUV drove away. She drove at least 35 feet away, the argument was over, it had away. The argument was over.

It had ended. But then she stopped. She stopped. She put the Lexus into neutral. And she waited. And the facts and the science and data will tell you that despite the fact the argument was over, she then put the Lexus into reverse,

put her foot on the gas pedal, and began to press, not 25%, not 50%, up to 75% acceleration. There was a light dusting of snow. The Lexus tire spun backwards. She went backwards at least 70 feet. She clipped John O'Keefe, he fell backwards, hit his head, broke his skull, and there he lay at the corner of Fairview Road, on the ground, lying on top of his cell phone, alone. And then the defendant will later tell that when she left, he didn't look mortally wounded, yet he was. And she simply drove away. If you watch our content, you know it shows how important it is to stay safe. And that's especially true when it comes to protecting your privacy online. You would be shocked at how much of your personal information is out there, like your address and phone number. Ever wonder why you get so many spam calls and emails? That's because this information is all public. That's where our sponsor Incogni

comes in. It's a service that helps you take control of your online privacy by removing your personal data from data brokers, huge companies that sell and trade your information without your permission. Incogni found more than 50 brokers with my information. And here's the kicker. These data brokers have to remove you from their database if you ask them to. Now you're thinking to yourself, Anjanette, who in the heck has time to contact a data broker? Well, that again is where Incogni comes in. They contact these companies for you to get your online safety back. You don't have to do a thing. And then they alert you after the request has been completed. After signing up,

I get virtually no spam. So I highly recommend giving Incogni a try. Right now, anyone who uses code CrimeFix at Incogni.com slash CrimeFix gets 60% off. That's a great deal. That's code CrimeFix at Incogni.com slash CrimeFix for 60% off an annual Incogni plan. Brennan then laid out the Commonwealth's theory of when and how John O'Keefe was killed. While they're waiting outside, 1227, John gets a text from John McCabe, parked behind us in the driveway. 1229, he texts again, are you coming in? You'll hear that John McCabe and others look out the window and see the defendant's Lexus in front of the flagpole at the far end. It's snowing, it's dark, it's windy, they're waiting.

You will know that John O'Keefe was in that car, that Lexus, and didn't move because his healthcare data is not moving. It's not moving until 12.31.56. At 12.31.56, he begins to move. He will have 20 seconds before he falls. 20 seconds. He gets out of the car, the Lexus. And in that 20 seconds, you'll hear that user initiated.

He looks at the phone, at the text message he's getting the case. It is now 12-32-09. He closes the phone the last time. It will be the last time he uses that phone. From the waterfall bar, you'll see that he can't get into that pocket. And at that time, 12.32.09, the last user, he has seven more seconds. He will move before he lies dormant the rest of the night. We'll also have the information coming to me,

the FedEx Alexis black box. The box runs differently than the 30-second FedEx, but it's right in the heart of that time. And you will see in the data, at that time when he makes his last movements with the phone, is when her car leaves, 34 feet at least, he stops, neutral, the phone is when her car leaves, 34 feet at least, and then shoots into reverse with the tire spinning right towards the tree. You'll know they're arguing because the next morning she tells the firefighter, I'm sad because our last moments were fighting. Hank Brennan told the jury that

Karen Reed called John O'Keefe several times, leaving those angry voicemails. Then she went to his house and fell asleep. But then she waits. Five o'clock, she is franking. She wakes up John's niece, and she is unpelicable. She is yelling, she's screaming, she asks her niece to call Jen McCabe. She calls Jen McCabe. And you'll hear Jen McCabe recount on the deep sleep she wakes up and she hears, Jen, Jen, Jen.

Screaming Jen's name. John's dead. Hang up the phone. Jen McCade. Calls down. And then she says, what's going on? And she says, well I left him at the waterfall. At the beginning of her, she tells Jen McCade,

I left him at the waterfall. Jen calls back and says, you saw your old friend. You didn't leave him at the waterfall. She hanged up. He then minutes later calls another person, Kerry Roberts, a friend of John O'Keefe, someone who's not friends with the defendant, but they know because they helped raise the kids when they interacted.

She had nothing to do with the night before, wasn't at the bars, was home with her family. She calls her and says, I think John got hit by a car. I think he's dead. Now, Perry, with that information, calls 911. She calls hospitals. You can hear her voice. She's concerned. Not him. And then she has another call from the defendant. And she tells the defendant, come to my house. I will help you look at him. And the defendant says, I was so drunk last night, I don't remember anything. As you know, Reid's done a lot of

talking in the media as her case has wound its way through the courts. But in her first trial, where the jury deadlocked, the jury didn't see any of those statements and she didn't testify. Now her statements to the media are going to be used against her in this retrial. Here's one of them. I mean, I didn't think I hit him, but could I have clipped him? Could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him? He didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see? Or could I have done something that knocked him out and in his drunkenness and in the cold, didn't come to again? And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party.

Yeah, yeah, would have had to. Hank Brennan also talked about what Reed told medics at the scene that morning. They got on Nannies, they did EMCPR and Firefighter Nuttall will explain as he kneeled over John O'Keefe. He looked up, and the defendant approached him, and you'll see it on the video. Now, he wanted any information, because when you're trying to save someone, you want to know, are they on drugs, medications, do they have a heart condition? And he looked up at Ms. Reed, and he said, what happened? And you'll hear her words to a firefighter

not all. She said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. And it was at that time, with the words of the defendant, that she admitted what she had done that night, that she hit John O'Keefe. Now, those words didn't mean anything to firefighter Nadal. They weren't in context. They didn't reconcile with the injuries. It didn't help him in his treatment, so he ignored it. Then it was Karen Reid's attorney's turn to address the jury.

There was no collision with John O'Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision. John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle, period. The facts will show that. The evidence will show that. The data will show that, the science will show that, and the experts will tell you that. At the first trial, the defense attacked lead investigator, trooper Michael Proctor, for bias. But since then, he's been fired for lewd text messages he sent to his friends about Reed, giving the defense fresh ammo.

So how did we end up here? How does Karen Reed end up sitting in that chair on trial for something for an event that literally never happened? Well, the evidence is going to explain it and it can be summed up in the following text message at the very beginning of this investigation. A text message of a now-fired Massachusetts State Police officer named Michael Proctor. He was the lead investigator on this case, and he was talking about a fellow officer, a fellow cop, who owned the property where John O'Keefe's body was found. Text message with a buddy. Question, is the homeowner going to catch any shit?

Answer, nope. He's a Boston cop too. That quote defines the lack of integrity of the Commonwealth's entire case, its entire investigation, and this prosecution. During the course of this trial, you'll learn much more about Mr. Proctor, why he said that and what it really means. And the defense says because of Proctor, the investigation cannot be trusted and the Commonwealth simply cannot meet its burden in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. We'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy,

one that has spread through the investigation. It's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name. And his name is Michael Proctor. Now you didn't hear his name in the prosecution's opening statement. Not once. And I suspect that was probably by design.

But make no mistake about it. The evidence will show in this case that Michael Proctor is the very definition of the Commonwealth's case. And he's also their Achilles heel. you'll learn there's not a single part of this case, folks, not a single part that he didn't touch, that he didn't direct, that he didn't orchestrate personally. Every single bit of it has his fingerprints on it. You'll learn that Michael Proctor was a longtime family friend of the Alberts. And he's been disgraced by his own agency, not by us, by the Massachusetts State Police. Investigated, suspended, and fired.

The evidence will show that Massachusetts State Police found him guilty, found Michael Proctor guilty of bringing dishonor to the department for his conduct, not in some other case, not in some tangential case. In this case, the investigation of Karen Reed, conduct that included bias in favor of his friends, the all-powerful Albert family, and bias against my client, Ms. Reed, the outsider. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a state trooper to get fired?

The evidence is going to show that Michael Proctor earned it. Every bit of it. Alan Jackson then laid out what Karen Reid says happened the morning she found John O'Keefe dead on Fairview Road. Members of the jury, Karen Reid found John O'Keefe dead on the front lawn of a Boston police officer, Brian Albert, at 6 AM on January 29th, 2022. Picture the scene, blood curdling screams, ambulances, emergency lights on, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol cruisers, police officers, first responders, firefighters, all swarming all over Brian Albert's lawn. Literally feet under his bedroom window. Yet Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder himself, never came outside.

Never went outside to see what the chaos was about. Never went outside to see if he could assist a man in need. Never walked outside his house to see if he could help a fallen fellow officer on his own front lawn. more shockingly you'll learn that lead investigator for the Massachusetts police Michael Proctor never set foot inside Brian Albert's house that day never engaged in any investigation inside that house that day even though a party with much alcohol had just occurred in that house and even though a Boston police officer was found dead or dying,

just mere feet from the front door on that lawn. He never secured the crime scene, never separated and secured witnesses. He never properly collected evidence. He never secured the evidence. He never searched for signs of a struggle inside or outside the home. He never properly canvassed the neighborhood. Michael Proctor never did any of these things, even though a fellow officer, even though fellow officers of his, of Michael Proctor's, actually mentioned, in their words, not mine, that it looked like

John O'Keefe may have been, quote, in a fight. You'll have questions about that conduct. During the course of this trial, you'll find that the Commonwealth will not have answers. And the defense also has a new medical expert this time around. No frostbite, no cold-induced injuries to his organs, no damage based on cold or frost. Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific evidence and the medical evidence will establish that John O'Keefe had to be injured somewhere else, somewhere warmer,

and his body had to have been moved out into the cold. And that's where, ultimately ultimately at 6 a.m., Karen found him the next morning. You will learn that John did not have a single injury consistent with being hit by a car. Let me say that again. The evidence will establish that John did not suffer a single injury on his body consistent with having been hit by a car, not one. You'll

learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms, his hips, his legs, his knees, his ankles, his feet, all of them, no broken bones, no fractures, no contusions, no torn ligaments, no internal injuries, not even a bruise. Nothing consistent with a car accident, despite the Commonwealth's contention that he was slammed into by a 6,000-pound SUV, not a bruise. Dr. Lopisado will tell you with medical certainty that, in fact, John was not struck by a vehicle. Medically and scientifically,

he could not have been struck by a vehicle. Therefore, as I said, there was no collision. Remember those marks on John O'Keefe's arm? The Commonwealth has taken molds of the mouth of the Alberts' former dog, Chloe, but the defense still says Chloe likely caused those injuries. She will tell you that the patterned abrasions on John's right arm, the patterned abrasions you see over my left shoulder, they're not the result of being struck by a car or a taillight.

You'll take one look at these injuries and you'll agree with Dr. La Posada, the evidence will show that these injuries are from an animal, like a large dog, like the large dog that was inside the Albert house that night. You'll learn that Brian Albert has actually admitted that his large dog, the family dog, is, quote, not good with strangers. And of course, John, never having been to the house before,

was a stranger that night. You'll also learn that oddly, very oddly, after having their family pet for seven years, a short time after this incident, the Alberts got rid of that dog. They called it rehoming her. But she was gone. Dr. LaPosada will also tell you that the injury to John's head was not the result of falling backward onto a flat lawn, cold or otherwise. Rather, Dr. LaPosada will tell you with medical certainty that the injury pattern to his scalp was produced by an impact from a raised or ledged surface,

a surface that does not exist on Brian Albert's front lawn where John was found. So to talk a little bit about what we saw in opening statements, I want to bring in Lauren Conlon. She's been following this case. She is the host of Pop Crime TV on YouTube. Talk to me a little bit, Lauren, about what you thought of each side's opening statement. Thanks for having me, Anjanette. This morning was crazy. I mean, I kind of want to start with Alan Jackson here

because I do feel like he dropped some new information that many of us were not aware of because he certainly didn't discuss this in the first trial. But Alan Jackson actually alleged here that the shards of the taillight that came in contact with John O'Keefe's arm didn't actually have his DNA on it. They didn't have blood. They didn't have tissue. And that was something new.

That was something that, you know, none of us have heard before. He also had said that John O'Keefe's shoe had the DNA of five unidentified males, which I thought was interesting. Another big bomb I thought he dropped. He introduced an expert witness, Dr. Elizabeth LaFasada, who is trying to testify that John O'Keefe died in a warmer location and that he didn't actually suffer from hypothermia as the Commonwealth had alleged. Now, the Commonwealth, I thought Hank Brennan did a much better job than than Adam Lally did because he really he he kind of honed in on the entire case. Right.

He didn't focus on defending the witnesses, which I thought that Lally did the first time around. He was so focused on naming all these names, too many names, in my opinion, and really defending the people that he thought he had to defend that we kind of lost what their case was. Now, this time around, again, I thought that Brennan was much more focused and he actually used Karen Reed's own statements towards the end, which he said would match all of the science and the evidence. So I thought this morning was was really interesting.

And I think it's going to be a really interesting trial. Yeah, I would agree with you. And I thought that new expert witness that Alan Jackson talked about, the one who is going to say that he died in a warmer environment and then, I guess, moved. That was pretty interesting. It'll be interesting to see how the state responds to that. And I thought Hank Brennan's opening statement was pretty good. And it'll be interesting to see how this plays with the jury. All of her many statements, because, of course, she has a right not to get up on the stand

and testify, but she has not been shy about talking about this in front of cameras. So she's talked about this many, many, many, many times on camera. Let's go now to, you know, the things that are different. You know, we have a different prosecutor now in this case who has a different style, much different style than Adam Lally. We have a different presentation and opening statements with Alan Jackson versus David Yannetti gave the opening statement last time. You know, last time it was like they came out and said, she's been framed. You know, she was framed. That was the thing. This time, Alan Jackson said there was no collision. There was no collision. There was no collision. So that's really what they're going to focus on. And, you know, they are kind of blaming them.

They're really honing in on Michael Proctor. That is their villain this time around. Yes. And actually, Alan Jackson, I think that was the first thing he said. This was not a collision or John O'Keefe was not hit by a car. And then he went directly into Michael Proctor. And I wrote down what he said. I got to find it because I was

like, whoa, that is incredibly powerful. He said something like this. OK, he said evidence will show that Michael Proctor is the definition of the CW's case and their Achilles heel. And this is after he went through everything that Michael Proctor said about Karen Reed, about how he he said that, you know, they're Boston cops that own the house. They're not going to get in trouble or I'm paraphrasing. But but yeah, and I thought that was a lot smarter of Alan Jackson this time around. You know, as you said, they were blaming a lot of different witnesses. And obviously there were some rulings where they couldn't simply just blame third parties with having this evidence or proof.

And so now it's a lot more focused. And yet, you know, I was also worried, I guess, for Alan Jackson to do the opening statement because he can come across as this slick L.A. lawyer. And David Yannetti is the local hometown guy. I feel like a lot of the jurors might resonate with David Yannetti is the local hometown guy. I feel like a lot of the jurors might resonate with David Yannetti, but I thought that overall Alan Jackson did a really good job. It'll be interesting to see too, if this case maybe moves a little more quickly this time to Lauren, because Hank Brennan seems to really just has a much different style than Adam Lally. Adam Lally seemed to really get bogged down in a lot of the details. And that didn't seem to happen, at least with the opening statement this time around.

No, not at all. I mean, you know, Adam or excuse me, Brennan is a better storyteller, I guess. I did notice some of his facts were a little a little questionable. I think at one point he said John O'Keefe was wearing a puffy jacket. And many of us who followed the trial know that he wasn't wearing a jacket at all. He was wearing, I guess it was a hoodie, if you want to call it, or a long sleeve with a hood. But yeah, there was a couple of things I was like, okay. But again, overall, much easier to follow, less names. And he got right to the point.

And I think some of those damning things there are Karen Reid's own words. And he made sure to include that. He made sure to actually play the Dateline clip, which I thought was really smart. However, Alan Jackson, when when he discussed the clip, he said it's important to note that Karen's statement is being taken out of context. He said Karen Reed wasn't talking about seeing John O'Keefe and not thinking he was mortally wounded at midnight or whenever it was that they alleged that she hit him. She was talking about seeing him the next morning at 6 a.m. So this yeah, this whole thing, Anjanette, I'm like, there's so many oddities. And that's why, again, I think this trial is going to be so interesting.

Well, it'll be up to the jury to decide all of that in the context and what they take from all of it. So we'll all be watching it very closely. Lauren Conlon, thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.