Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Karen Read Explosive Showdown: Murder or Cover-up?

Starting point is 00:00:00 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. Karen Reid arriving for jury selection in her trial. She's accused of driving drunk and hitting and killing her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, and then leaving him to die in the snow. There was no fight. There was no dog attack. But Reed claims she's the victim of a massive police cover-up. It is not our job to solve this case for the prosecution. Thanks for joining me for Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Jury selection is underway in the trial of Karen Reed, and the scene outside of the courthouse

Starting point is 00:00:43 is wild, with Reed's supporters and those who think she killed John O'Keefe gathering in a buffer zone established by Judge Beverly Canone. They take time off of work. They pay a babysitter to come here to watch their kids. I mean, people use their vacation time, their sick time. You come for a couple hours in the morning. Now, Reid arrives with her lawyers to cheers from her supporters, a group simply called Free Karen Reid. While those who believe she's guilty shout questions. Karen, are you not taking the stand because you said it was your fault on the night you hit John? Now, to say this case has been divisive would probably be the understatement of the century.

Starting point is 00:01:28 As the trial date has approached, things have become even more heated online. It all started on January 29th, 2022. Karen Reed and John O'Keefe were out with friends. It was a Friday night and a blizzard was moving in. The couple went to a couple of bars with friends. And after that, prosecutors say Reed and O'Keefe drove to Brian Albert's house. He was another police officer and they were going to hang out. What happened next has become the subject of fierce debate.

Starting point is 00:01:57 Prosecutors say Reed and O'Keefe got into an argument. The relationship had been on the rocks. The theory Reed was drunk and backed her car into O'Keefe, hitting him, and then took off, calling O'Keefe and leaving a voicemail that said, I effing hate you, John. A few hours later, Reed's SUV can be seen backing out of the driveway of the home she shared with O'Keefe. But the defense claims Massachusetts State Police Investigator Michael Proctor framed Reed and never disclosed he knew the Alberts. We have been saying since September 16th, 2022, in lengthy motions that

Starting point is 00:02:33 we filed before this court and filed with the Commonwealth, there is a conflict. You're not investigating the conflict. The prosecution has pushed back on those claims. And their testimonies are largely consistent with the defendants making declarative statements that she didn't, not a question mark at the end, but clear definitive statements on scene. Reed was indicted in September 2022 and said this when she was booked at the jail. abide by the rights that were afforded to your federal. So you can talk if you want. If you want to tell us what happened, that's fine. We'll listen, but you're ready to eat your rice, okay? And I'm sure he's going to do it again. All right, if you want to talk to us, you want to give us a story. Since that time, a federal grand jury has heard testimony about the case,

Starting point is 00:03:46 but no federal charges have ever been filed. Reed's supporters believe O'Keefe was beaten and attacked by Albert's dog, Chloe. While prosecutors say that theory is nothing more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy and that O'Keefe's death was caused by blunt force trauma and hypothermia. Now, despite that, Reed might suggest that one of the Alberts, or possibly a federal agent named Brian Higgins, killed John O'Keefe over the objection of prosecutors. We do not have to prove that Brian Albert or Colin Albert or Brian Higgins or some combination of them intended to kill John O'Keefe. We don't have to prove that any of them attacked John O'Keefe such that he eventually died. They have to prove

Starting point is 00:04:30 beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't. But the fact of the matter is there is evidence that all three of them had a motive, had the opportunity and the means to attack John O'Keefe. There have been a number of theories, of sort of speculation, rank speculation, opinions without any evidentiary support, names of certain people that have been dropped at this microphone by counsel at different pretrial hearings who are not witnesses, who have nothing to do with this case. For as divisive as this case has been on YouTube

Starting point is 00:05:05 and social media, there are still people who are on the fence, like Brandi Churchwell. She's the host of the 13th Juror Podcast. You know, I think some of the biggest issues that I've had that I've seen are the investigation itself, because there seems to be so many unanswered questions, things that weren't necessarily done by the book. And with the court documents and the statements from the witnesses, there are so many conflicting statements and the statements change. it would be a totally different situation than the automatic distrust that is caused from all of these court documents and these statements changing and not being consistent. But there are two people who represent just how divisive this case has become. And it's not funny to joke about domestic violence, you coward punk. Did you really beat her, Grant?

Starting point is 00:06:02 That is my aunt. Did you touch her? That is my aunt. Should we sign a GoFundMe for her? That's Aiden Turtleboy Carney talking to law student Grant Smith-Ellis. Are you working for the FBI, Grant? Did the FBI give you that jacket, Grant? Carney runs Turtleboy Daily News and believes Reed is innocent.

Starting point is 00:06:18 He's even facing witness intimidation charges in connection to the case. And if you think I touched on everything that's a point of contention in this case, yes, again, there's a lot more to discuss. So if you've been following this case, you know how incredibly contentious it is with the free Karen Reid camp and people who think that Karen Reid is guilty and that the evidence points to her as killing John O'Keefe. So in the free Karen Reid camp, the leader, really, in my opinion of that camp is Aiden Carney. He goes by Turtle Boy. He's a journalist. He says he's won some awards. He's award winning. And we also have Grant Ellis. He's a law student

Starting point is 00:06:58 who believes the evidence points to Karen Reid's guilt. So thanks both of you for joining me. I want to start with you, Aiden. You've been following this from the very beginning and you believe that Karen Reed is innocent. Why? The autopsy photos are inconsistent and the FBI agrees with somebody who's been run over by a car. John O'Keefe was not run over by a car. He had no broken bones. He had no bruises anywhere from the nose down. He had a two inch or three inch laceration in the back of his head. He has dog bites, what are clearly dog bites on his right arm exclusively. There's two witnesses, Lucky Loughran, the plow driver who drove by the scene at 230 and 34 Fairview Road,

Starting point is 00:07:46 and reported that not only did he not see a body 12 feet from the curb, that if there was a body there, he most definitely would have seen a body there. Ryan Nagel, also, who was directly behind Karen Reed when she pulled up to 34 Fairview Road, reported that John O'Keefe was not inside the car and John O'Keefe was not outside the car and that Karen Reed's taillight was in perfectly pristine condition. So if John O'Keefe was not inside the car and John O'Keefe was not outside the car,

Starting point is 00:08:16 then John O'Keefe certainly must have been inside the house. This is backed up by the fact that Apple Health data shows John ascending and descending three flights of stairs between 1221 and 1224, which Karen Reid's phone does not, indicating that they were not in the same place because Karen Reid does not have steps inside of her car. Additionally, of course, Jennifer McCabe, undoubtedly, who was inside the house and is the sister-in-law of Brian Albert, the homeowner,

Starting point is 00:08:42 undoubtedly, and the FBI investigation confirms this, Googled how long to die in cold at 2.27 a.m., a Google search that she then subsequently deleted before handing over her phone to police. She also deleted all of her calls between 5 and 9 a.m., including two very incriminating calls to her sister, Nicole Albert, at 6.07 and 6.08, that lasted durations of nine and seven seconds, which she deleted from her sister, Nicole Albert, at 6.07 and 6.08, the last durations of nine and seven seconds, which she deleted from her phone, which is extremely suspicious and evidence of consciousness of guilt. Okay. So there was a lot there, but I do want to say, we don't know exactly what the FBI experts said. We know what the defense says, the FBI expert said about the injuries and whether

Starting point is 00:09:26 or not they were consistent or inconsistent with being hit by an SUV. I want to turn to Grant now. Grant, why do you believe the evidence points to Karen Reid being guilty? Well, I think there's really two important views on the evidence related to Karen Reid's guilt. The first is what is not true about what Aiden was just talking about. So let's take it one by one. And Anjanette, I think you pointed it out rightly. The FBI expert that Aiden's referring to was only provided two extractions by Mr. Iannetti, Karen Reid's counsel. But what Aiden neglects to mention is that the FBI conducted a separate analysis, this time using Axiom and Celebrite. And the conclusion of that analysis was that the searches were conducted at 6.23 and 6.24 a.m.

Starting point is 00:10:12 and it was done at the behest of Karen Reed. That was the timestamps. And the Celebrite internal expert himself is a witness for the state who will confirm the timestamp of those searches. So that's to address just a primary falsehood. So that's one reason why I think there's some evidence of Karen Reed's guilt. Going to something else that Mr. Kearney was talking about, Mr. Kearney knows the evidence in this case shows that John's Waze data, John O'Keefe's Waze data, does not show him arriving at that house until 1224. So the three second window where Mr. O'Keefe at 1221 a.m. and his Apple health data went up and down three flights of stairs in three seconds is

Starting point is 00:10:51 entirely an errant and unrelated piece of information if the Waze data, which it does, confirms that Mr. O'Keefe didn't arrive at 34 Fairview until 1224 a.m. Furthermore, there's also evidence that Mr. Kearney doesn't even address, and the omission of it is so telling as to Karen Reid's guilt. Mr. Kearney doesn't address the voicemails from Karen Reid right after 1245 a.m. when she is alleged to have hit John, screaming that she effing hated John, that he was a pervert, and that he was sleeping with other women. And what else does Mr. Kearney not address? That just one month before John's death,

Starting point is 00:11:29 Karen Reid herself started an affair with a federal agent. I believe Mr. Kearney knew about this affair and covered it up from the public to try to protect Karen Reid in the lead up to this trial. And that federal agent that Ms. Reed was cheating on Mr. O'Keefe with on the January 15th, 2022 Patriots game, that agent went over to John's house and Karen followed that agent down to the basement on his way out and gave him a kiss and said to him, federal agent, I know where the cameras are. So I know that this will not be caught on camera when I go

Starting point is 00:12:05 to kiss you. And the reason why that's relevant, Anjanette, and this goes to the last thing I want to talk about with regard to Karen Reid's guilt, is that there were 17 ring videos deleted between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. from John O'Keefe's ring system, which Karen Reid had control over, according to John O'Keefe's niece. And so that, Anjanette, coupled with the fact that Karen Reed went back to Fairview Road before going to Jen McCabe's is evidence that she saw the body, had a panic attack, had a meltdown, and then tried to bring witnesses back to the scene knowing that body was there, which is why Karen Reed started screaming before she got past the tree line coming up to Fairview Road when she went back to the scene with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts. That's the reality. So, Aiden, Grant threw out a lot of information

Starting point is 00:12:56 in there, and a lot of what Grant said is laid out in some prosecution documents, particularly the one that was pushing back against the motion to dismiss filed by the defense. And there really is some information in there in that document that is inculpatory, that makes Karen Reed look bad. And it does point to her as the person who killed John O'Keefe, that maybe backed up and hit him. What do you say about those voicemails where she is calling him and cursing at him after the fact, allegedly after and hit him. What do you say about those voicemails where she is calling him and cursing at him after the fact, allegedly, after she hit him? What is your response to that?

Starting point is 00:13:32 The Commonwealth would have us believe that Karen Reid, after intentionally striking John O'Keefe with his car, did perhaps the most incriminating thing she could do and leave angry voicemails with him. That is the last thing. To me, that is more exculpatory than inculpatory because a guilty person would not leave a message saying,

Starting point is 00:13:50 I hate you immediately after hitting someone. An innocent person was. A person who was upset that they thought their boyfriend went out and got drunk and didn't come home. That kind of person. People have left voicemails like that with their loved ones before when they get upset with them. That does not make them a murderer. That does not explain why John O'Keefe has dog bites on his arm. That does not explain why Lucky Loughran did not see a body at 2.30 a.m.

Starting point is 00:14:16 That does not explain why Ryan Nagel did not see John O'Keefe inside or outside of the house. And by the way, the Apple Health data is substantial. And he's wrong about the waste thing. He just made that up. The Apple health data uses an internal cocoa clock, which measures seconds from the year 2000. It is the most reliable form of telling time possible. And it shows that John was ascending and descending stairs from 1221 to 1224. It's Apple. I mean, it's freaking Apple. We don't have to explain the reliability that our society has on Apple. If Apple health data is unreliable, then we have nothing. Additionally, not a single person inside that house who left that house, there was 11 in total, said that they saw a body when they left the house. Not a single person saw a body. However, I'll tell you what Lucky Loughran did see when he went back at 3 a.m. was he saw a Ford Edge parked in the exact same

Starting point is 00:15:11 spot where John O'Keefe's body would be discovered three hours later. Remember, he did not see a body there prior to that. And then he saw a Ford Edge. And then three hours later, boom, a body appears there. You know who owns a Ford Edge? Colin Albert owns a Ford Edge. Brian Albert owns a Ford Edge. Kevin Albert owns a Ford Edge. And the police to this day have not done a single thing to track down who was driving a Ford Edge parked directly next to where a dead police officer was found three hours later. The same lead investigator, Michael Proctor, who we now know is close family friends with the primary and most important witnesses in this case, that he lied to a state grand jury about his relationship with them, that he was offered gifts by Julie Albert, the mother of Colin Albert, on the day that Karen Reed was arrested. She wanted to thank him and send him that. So I don't care if Karen Reed was

Starting point is 00:16:05 smooching with the entire town of Canton. I don't care if Karen Reed left angry voicemails with them. None of that explains all of the much more damning exculpatory evidence that I just went over. Okay. But Aiden, you have to contend and you have to concede that nobody is, I don't think anybody is saying that Karen Reed intentionally hit, I don't even think the Commonwealth is saying that she intentionally backed into him. Oh, yes, they are. I mean, it sounds like they think she was drunk. They got into a fight.

Starting point is 00:16:37 This is the theory. She got into a fight with him. They argued. He was, she was drunk. He may have had that glass in his hand or whatever from the bar and that she backs into him and takes off. And maybe she didn't even realize what she did. And then she's cursing him out. And you disagree with that? That's how I read that document. Hold on, Anjanek, can I weigh in here? Because I think I deserve a chance to respond.

Starting point is 00:17:06 That John was hit intentionally. It's undeniable. That is what they've- No, that's wrong. Aiden, you're putting out misinformation. This is a malice theory of second degree murder. I'm sure Anjanette can explain it to you if you don't want me to.

Starting point is 00:17:21 The malice theory of second degree murder has three possible prongs. Two of them involve intentionality. One option does not. One involves recklessness as the mens rea, which means a reasonably prudent person knew or should have known that they acted in a way which could have resulted in death. It does not require intent. It does not require foresight of the death having potential to occur. It requires only that the defendant should have knew or knew or should have known that their actions to wit in this case, DUI-ing and backing up in anger while John was around the car had a reasonable and plain

Starting point is 00:17:58 likelihood that could cause death. That's the standard. It's not intentionality. You're wrong, Aiden. I'm actually not wrong because actually in the filings, they specifically said that Karen backed up 62 feet and hit the maximum speed of 24.2 miles an hour. 62 feet at 24 miles an hour, which by the way is physically impossible. We've recreated that several times, particularly in the snow, and yet nobody heard it. That is not an accident if somebody does something like that. If somebody intentionally guns it at another human being, that is not an accident. So let's be clear. The Commonwealth is a legitimate-

Starting point is 00:18:32 But do you understand? Aiden, let me quote this at you. The second degree- Can I get in here for a second? Let me get in here. I've read the documents. You can intentionally gun your vehicle, but not intend to hit somebody. And that's how I read it.

Starting point is 00:18:45 And I, and I read the, when I read through the documents and I've read them twice that this laying out their theory of the case was that they got into a fight. She was drunk. I mean, this, this was a bad relationship. It sounds like it was on the rocks and it was probably ending and that she intentionally, she was mad. She may not have even realized she hit him. I mean, that's, that's how I read the documents the document you didn't hit a 200 you wouldn't notice he had a 217 pound body going 24 miles an hour you wouldn't notice that come on if you were drunk i don't know and not a second by the way both cameras have ring have ring cameras on them ask how many of them were pulled by police zero there's There's over, there's hundreds, hundreds of ring cameras on homes and businesses between

Starting point is 00:19:28 34 Fairview Road and 1 Meadows Ave where she went. Not a single one of those videos was pulled by police. Not one. If they had just found one ring camera video with a broken taillight, Karen Reed is 1000% guilty, but they did not do one. And the lead investigator in charge of this happens to be good friends with McAlbert's and was offered a gift by Julie Albert on the day that Karen Reed is arrested. Ask yourself why. I've read that in the defense filing. I want to discuss very briefly the dog bites, this dog bite theory, because, you know, we haven't heard that really specifically

Starting point is 00:20:06 addressed by the state. So I've seen the pictures. We can't show them on YouTube. I know they're out there on other channels, but we are not showing them. I've seen the scratches. They're, you know, vertical up and down. You contend their dog bite marks attacks from Chloe, the dog that was in the house. Aiden, that's your contention. So tell me why you believe so strenuously that John O'Keefe was attacked by a dog, because there's no mention of that in the information from the medical examiner in the prosecution documents. I suggest everybody watch attorney Melanie Little's interview with dog canine expert and dog bite expert Garrett Wing on January 13th. You can check it out on YouTube. He is a person who has seen thousands of dog bites over the years and knows exactly what they look like.

Starting point is 00:20:57 And he believes with absolute certainty that those are dog bites from an untrained police dog. Police dogs are taught specifically to latch onto a victim's arm. They will not let go. They're taught to hold on. But an untrained dog like Chloe, who, by the way, also, according to Canton Animal Canine Control Records, sent two other people to the emergency room and biting them. An untrained dog like Chloe would grasp onto you. And if you pulled your arm away,

Starting point is 00:21:31 it would cause marks like that. And it's undoubtedly that those are clearly, clearly lacerations, not abrasions. We all know what an abrasion looks like. It's insulting to us to suggest that those are abrasions. And keep in mind, medical examiners don't see dog bites a lot because most people who die are not killed by a pack of wild dogs. So they don't really see a lot of dog bites on dead victims very often. All right, Grant, this is our last point. The dog bite theory. Your response. Yes.

Starting point is 00:21:56 Thank you. I'm sorry I forgot to address it earlier. This is simply not at issue in the case, Anjanette. The defense has said there's no dog DNA at issue. It's not in any of the moving papers, as you know. What it is, is actually a microcosm of everything that Aiden Kearney reflects in this case, which is we, as you know, Anjanette, in the legal profession, are subject to the federal rules of evidence, which I keep in my pocket at all times. Those federal rules of evidence limit what can come in a trial for a reason. Mr. Kearney,

Starting point is 00:22:22 however, in an attempt to poison the jury pool pool can say whatever he wants in the hope that it will potentially cause one juror to hold out and vote for a not guilty verdict. However, because the fact the dog DNA is not an issue and the fact that these autopsy photos came out from the defense and were hyper saturated, it's all an indication that this is a distraction and it's not even going to be brought up in the case. And one more thing to bring this back. It is very, very, very clear that Karen Reed probably did not intend to kill John O'Keefe. But it is also clear that Karen Reed probably found the body before she went to Jen McCabe's and had a complete meltdown as a result. Mr. Kearney can't address Karen's behavior, the breakdown of the relationship, the exceptions to the character evidence rule,

Starting point is 00:23:08 and the hearsay rule for a domestic relationship gone bad in the lead-up to a second-degree malice murder. He can't address any of the evidence related to Karen's statements after she did hit John. And he can't even address why Karen won't release the ring videos from her parents' house in Dighton that would show that tail-like crack in that early morning. She released a still. She won't release the ring videos from her parents' house in Dighton that would show that tail light crack in that early morning. She released a still. She won't release the other videos. She's guilty. He knows she's guilty. He worked for her PR team. She burned them and it's over. Okay. So we're just making things up. PR team. So this is the part where we start making things up, but okay. Sure thing. All right, guys, I hope we can revisit this as the case moves forward. But just so, just so we're clear, I mean, Karen Reed doesn't have to release anything. I hope we can revisit this as the case moves forward. But just so we're clear, I mean,

Starting point is 00:23:46 Karen Reid doesn't have to release anything. I mean, she doesn't have to provide evidence that can be used against her. So let's just clear that up. All right, guys, thanks so much. Aidan Carney, Grant Ellis, appreciate you coming on. Thanks for having me. And we'll continue to follow the Karen Reid case as it moves forward. That's it for this edition of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with us. We'll see you back here next time.

Your Ad Here

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Karen Read Explosive Showdown: Murder or Cover-up?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.