Crime Weekly - S3 Ep255: John O'Keefe: 34 Fairview (Part 2)

Episode Date: November 29, 2024

In the early morning hours of Saturday, January 29th, 2022, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe was found dead in a snowbank outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. According to the medical examiner, O’Keefe had died from blunt force trauma and hypothermia. At first it seemed like a tragic accident, maybe a slip on the ice, a fall that ended in death. But as investigators dug deeper, things became far more complicated and Karen Read, O’Keefe’s girlfriend, became the center of the investigation. Evidence that there had been trouble in paradise in the romantic relationship began to surface, but so did other disturbing possibilities. What seemed like a domestic tragedy was quickly clouded by allegations of police corruption and cover-up, and an investigation that many believe was compromised from the start. What if the very people tasked with upholding the law were covering up the truth? Was John O’Keefe’s death a result of an angry lovers rage- or the collateral damage of a police force protecting its own? In this case, the line between justice and corruption becomes confusingly blurred. Evidence disappears, witnesses are silenced, and as the truth slowly rises to the surface, it may reveal a web of lies that’s more dangerous than anyone could have predicted. Was Karen Read the scapegoat in a larger cover-up? And what role did corruption within the police department play in distorting facts. This may not be just a story of love gone wrong, it may in fact turn out to be a story of power, deceit, and the price people will pay to keep the darkest of dark secrets buried. Join us as we delve deep into the case of John O’Keefe and Karen Read, and help us see if we can get closer to the truth. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: 1. HelixSleep.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 25% off ALL mattresses and two FREE pillows, OR a FREE bedding bundle with any Luxe or Elite mattress order! 2. SKIMS.com - Check out the SKIMS holiday shop to get gifts for everyone on your list, and remember to select our podcast after checkout to let them know we sent you! 3. SkyLightFrame.com/Weekly - Get $20 off your next SkyLight Frame! 4. DraftKings Casino - Sign up now with code CRIMEWEEKLY and get $100 instantly in Casino Credits with a $10 wager!

Tired of trying diet after diet without results? Mochi Health offers a long-term weight loss solution personalized to your needs. Our board-certified obesity doctors and registered dietitians provide expert guidance to help you succeed. Eligible patients can access custom-formulated GLP-1 medication at an affordable set price delivered monthly. Take our free quiz at JoinMochi.com and use code audio 40 for $40 off your first month. That's joinmochi.com. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. Today, we are diving in to part two of the John O'Keefe, Karen Reid case. And

dude, this case is crazy. I can't do it. Like, I am so there was many points where I'm researching and writing where I was like, I don't even know where to put this. Like, there's so much here. There's so much to talk about. This is crazy. Every single time I turn around, something else is unraveling. So I'm very excited to get your take on some of the things we're going to discuss today, especially the red solo cups. And those who know about this case will understand what I mean. That's so funny. Someone DM me and said, wait, you know, they started mentioning red solo cups and I responded to them and this person's going to be in our comments now, but they were like, oh, wait. And they mentioned some names too. Yeah. So I know I saw a lot of people in the comments saying like, oh, wait till, you know, we get Derek's take on all these butt dials. And yeah, we're going to talk about that soon.

I think that same person DM to me because they mentioned all of that. Mm hmm. So it's, it's gonna, it's. So this case is going to take us places. Okay. And even I'm still kind of going back and forth, back and forth. So I can't wait to kind of get your take on everything. But before we dive in, what do you have to say to us? Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.

Congratulations to Shannon, our editor, and her boyfriend, Sam, who recently got engaged. They're a great couple. Shannon's imperative to us on Crime Weekly. And she has her own character in Criminal Coffee. We love her. She's been with us for a while. And Sam, we hang out with him at CrimeCon. Some people say we look alike, say we're like brothers. Nobody says that, Derek. Literally everyone says we look alike. The last two times Sam and I have taken photos and posted it, everyone's like, you could be brothers. Shannon, side by side of Derek and Sam, please. You're oblivious to life. That was the biggest conversation at CrimeCon this year. I am oblivious. It's true. I have no idea what's happening in the world. I just sit at my desk and research true crime cases night and

day. Yes. That's where I'm at. But yes, congratulations to them. Great couple. We love them both. We're very happy for them. So are you ready to dive in today? Yes, I am. So the trial of Karen Reed would begin, as all trials do, with opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense. Now, opening statements are used to outline the key facts and the narrative that each side is going to present to the jury throughout the trial. It's basically a general overview of the case, the parties involved, the evidence that will be presented. Also, you kind of want to make sure as an attorney, whether you're the prosecution's attorney or the defense attorney, that you kind of catch the jury's attention with these opening statements and closing statements. It is your one of two chances

throughout this entire trial to address the jury directly. You want to make an impact. With that being said, and with that in mind, I wanted to start the episode with a quick summary of each side's opening statement. That way, as we go through this episode and the next ones, as we go through the timeline and the evidence, we can keep this in mind. What is the prosecution trying to prove? And the prosecution is the one that has the burden of proof, right? So they kind of have a little bit more pressure. And what is the defense trying to prove? Or at least, how is the defense trying to put forth reasonable doubt? Now, for the prosecution's opening statement, the assistant district attorney, Adam Lally, he outlined that the state's belief

that Karen Reed and John O'Keefe's relationship was deteriorating, John wanted out. And so basically Karen purposely and intentionally hit him with her car that night. Lally outlines certain pieces of evidence that he believes will support this theory. Some testimony from Trooper Joseph Hall. He's in a specialized unit within the state police called PARS for short,

but essentially a collision analysis and reconstruction section within the Massachusetts State Police. His examination of the vehicle, his examination of the scene, his examination of specifically some Toyota texturing, because Lexus is essentially owned by Toyota or vice versa. So there is some data that he's able to recover from that and back the vehicle up based on its known locations

and travel, key cycles. And essentially, Opines anticipated, he'll opine that around 1245 in the morning when the vehicle was in front of the residence on Fairview, that for some perceptible period of time, that vehicle travels over 60 feet in reverse at approximately 24.2 miles per hour. We hear testimony, as I said, from a number of different troopers as well as from a number of different analysts from different labs.

Included within that is Ms. Maureen Hartnett, who collected items from the vehicle, the defendant's vehicle, including the taillights, sort of housing from that vehicle, pieces of the taillight that were discovered in sort of the front grass, the front street area. There is a specialized team called the SIRT team. You'll hear from Lieutenant Kevin O'Hara, who has a supervisory role in relation to that. And then later on that day of the 29th,th he along with Lieutenant Tully and a number of different members from his search team were searching for evidence within the mounds of snow in front of that

house as the blizzard is still ongoing at this point through sort of the afternoon hours. Among the items that they locate is a sneaker. When Mr. O'Keefe is transported to the hospital he's found to only have one sneaker on his feet. They find the other sneaker in that area of the body. They find various pieces of taillight and as is want to do over the course of the following days, the temperatures rise, a rainstorm that comes in and the snow melts. Over those successive days there are additional pieces of taillights that are eventually discovered in that area of the front lawn in the street.

Ms. Hardin also locates a cocktail glass that's located on the bumper or the rear area of that scene, and she locates a human hair on the back of that defendant's vehicle as well. Now, the cocktail glass in the bumper, you'll also see a surveillance video from the waterfall, and Mr. O'Keefe is observed on that surveillance video essentially walking out of the waterfall with a cocktail glass in his right hand same right hand that has minor injuries to it in the same right hand that's attached to his right arm that has the abrasions and lacerations that are observed by the paramedics that are observed by the doctors at Good Samaritan and observed by the medical examiner as well. All right. So it was a fine opening statement, you know, kind of dry, boring. One might even say I would. Lally didn't bring a lot of energy to it. He didn't try to really

weave a story or paint a picture for the jury necessarily, which I do believe that the best attorneys will do that during opening statements. Once again, you got to catch these people's attention. All right. They're not used to reading police reports. These are lay people. They're not in law enforcement. They're not in the judicial system. They want you to present the facts in a relatable way. They don't want you to kind of just lay them out like this. He kind of laid out the facts the way one might do in a police report, which then made the defense's opening statement stand out even more than it would normally have. And I have to just kind of cut in here and say that Karen Reed, what she did do was hire an extremely good legal team. And one of those attorneys is David Yannetti. He came in hot

and he made sure he had the full attention of the jury from his first words. So what I'm going to play you, this is how he starts his opening statement. Karen Reed was framed. Her car never struck John O'Keefe. She did not cause his death, and that means that somebody else did. You will learn that it was no accident that John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29, 2022. You will learn that at that address lived a well-known and well-connected law enforcement family in Canton, the Alberts. Because the Alberts were involved and because they had close connections to the investigators in this case, Karen Reid was framed for a murder she did not commit. From a very early juncture in this case,

you will question the Commonwealth's theory of the case. You will question the quality of the Commonwealth's evidence. You will question the veracity of the Commonwealth's witnesses. And you will question their shoddy and biased investigation, a faulty investigation that led to Karen Reed sitting here today. You will learn, in short, that the police did no real investigation of this case, and you will question why. You will question why the investigators had such tunnel vision. You'll question why they focused solely on Karen Reid, someone with no ties to the Canton Police Department as opposed to the well-known and well-connected Albert

family of Canton, a family that was never treated as suspects by the investigators in this case. Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found mortally injured on Brian Albert's front lawn. His body was in full view and almost right below Brian Albert's bedroom window on his front lawn. He was found wearing only one sneaker. You'll learn that Brian Albert was a Boston police officer as well and that he was a trained first responder. Brian Albert was notified that another police officer was injured and unresponsive on his front lawn and Brian Albert did nothing. His sister-in-law Jennifer McCabe and other civilians were on his property that morning after John O'Keefe's body was found. Police, EMTs, firefighters, police cruisers and an ambulance, firetruck, lights flashing and first responder Brian Albert never came out of his house.

Equally important to you will be the fact that the lead homicide investigators never went inside the Albert home that night. You will learn that Brian Albert's brother, Albert is a Canton police officer. It was obvious very early on that the Canton police should not be investigating the death of a man found on the property of the brother of a Canton police officer. So it was decided just about from the start that the Massachusetts State Police should take complete control of this investigation because the Canton Police were conflicted out. Now that sounded good at the time, but you'll learn that two major problems arose.

First, despite the fact that they obviously had a conflict of interest, the evidence will show that the Canton Police still had their hands in this investigation. You will find it astounding, but Canton Police Officer Kevin Albert, the reason for the conflict of interest in the first place was continually updated about the status of this investigation while it was going on. Second, and equally troubling, is that a lead state police detective

who was assigned to this case was a man named Michael Proctor. Michael Proctor, you will learn, is one of the many people in Canton with deep ties to the Albert family. Michael Proctor's own mother refers to the Alberts as the Proctor's second family. At his own sister's wedding, Michael Proctor was in the wedding party with Colin Albert, and he sat at the head table of that wedding with members of the Albert family. That's the man who was chosen to lead the investigation into the suspicious death on the property of Brian Albert. That's the man who gave updates to Canton Police Officer

Kevin Albert while the state police were supposed to be investigating what had occurred at his brother Brian Albert's house. You'll learn that right from the jump, Michael Proctor predetermined the outcome of this case. Never stepped foot inside the Albert home on January 29th, 2022. Never checked out whether there were any signs of struggle inside that home. He never called for crime scene technicians and other specialists to look for blood or other trace evidence within the home.

He never asked Brian Albert for permission to go in the home and take a look around. Michael Proctor never applied for a search warrant to go in that home. Instead, he focused immediately and exclusively on Karen Reed, the outsider. You will learn that no one in the Proctor family has ever called the Reid family their second family. No one in the Proctor family had been in a wedding party with anyone from the Reid family. Karen Reid was a convenient outsider.

She was most definitely not from Canada. So how did Michael Proctor feel about her? How did he treat somebody he was investigating at a point in time when he should have been keeping an open mind and focusing on obtaining all possible evidence so that he didn't miss anything? Well, you will learn that on the very day that John O'Keefe was found dead on Brian Albert's lawn, Michael Proctor was texting with his high school buddies about this supposedly secret investigation using his personal cell phone. He was revealing information about this investigation to his friends assuming that nobody would ever find out what he was doing and what he was saying. And he

was revealing his true thoughts about Carrie Reed to his friends. Not what he put in his sanitized police reports. His true feelings to his friends whom he trusted and in text messages that he never thought would come into the hands of the defense in this case. Lead investigator, Trooper Michael Proctor, right from the start, called Karen Reid names you would reserve only for your worst enemies. He told his friends that he hoped that she would kill herself.

He told his friends that he had seized her cell phone, and you will learn that he knew he shouldn't have been accessing any content on her cell phone, because he knew there would likely be attorney-client communications on it between Karen and me at that time. He knew that he was supposed to wait for a search warrant or other permission from a judge in order to go through that phone, but you'll learn that he went through the phone anyway without permission. And you'll know that he did because he told his high school buddies that he was searching her phone for nude photos of Karen Reid and he was disappointed he hadn't found any yet. That is the professional and

unbiased investigator who was chosen to lead the investigation into the death of John O'Keefe. You will learn that one of Michael Proctor's high school friends commented to him that with a dead body on the front lawn, the homeowner in this of John O'Keefe. You will learn that one of Michael Proctor's high school friends commented to him that with a dead body on the front lawn, the homeowner in this case is surely going to catch a lot of grief. And do you know what Michael Proctor's response to that was? One word. Nope. And he explained why. Michael Proctor assured his buddies that the homeowner would not catch a lot of grief because, quote, the homeowner's a Boston cop too.

End quote. That one sentence, ladies and gentlemen, in Michael Proctor's own words, will explain a lot to you about how this investigation was conducted. You will be able to evaluate whether Trooper Michael Proctor treated Brian Albert and his family differently because of who they are and their relationships between his family and theirs.

You will evaluate whether this investigation was on the up and up. You will decide decide as a result how valuable or worthless the prosecution's dna evidence is or is not in light of who control that evidence you will learn that michael proctor's fingerprints are figuratively all over this case his fingerprints are all over the Commonwealth's evidence. Okay. A lot there, a lot there. And to not be redundant and repeat everything he just said, let's just try to summarize. Michael Proctor, at minimum, to start with, major issues.

You don't even know the half of it, man. Major issues to start with. And this attorney is going to make a fool out of him. I can see where this is going. I won't weigh in too much about Brian Albert and Kevin Albert. I will say this to back up the defense attorney. You said his first name is David, correct? David Yannetti, yes. Valid point.

Like you find this person on a front lawn of a property, you should be speaking to every single person there. And out of an abundance of caution, even if you like the guy that lives inside, you should say, Hey, listen, we're going to do a search warrant. We're going to dot our I's cross our T's because I don't want this to become a thing later because there's a world. I don't know any of the story yet guys, but if they had done that, they can go in there and document nothing out of the ordinary was observed. And I've told you guys before, as detectives, it's not only about finding the inculpatory evidence,

it's also about excluding any potential exculpatory evidence. So going in there and saying, yes, there was nothing in there that suggested he couldn't or could be involved. So do you think a full forensics thing should have been done at the house? Like it should have been considered part of the crime scene. Get a warrant. He was found on the property. Yes. And then yes, absolutely. I mean, he's found on the lawn. I wanted to speak to everyone in that house. We had a case a long time ago. We covered on crime weekly news and I don't remember the specifics, so I apologize, but it was like three people found frozen outside remember it was like a tailgate thing oh yeah yeah remember that did we cover it on crap i know i covered it on on mine

but again they were just crime weekly news yeah they were watching a game or something and then and then the homeowner went to sleep and then the all his three friends were found frozen outside what did they do in that case? They went in the house. They searched the house, right? Because that's where they were last seen. Now, I don't know if you're going to tell me that John was in that house during that evening or whatever. Well, that's what the defense and the prosecution cannot seem to agree on. Okay. So I'm on the right path. So regardless, he's found on the property and he's got some law enforcement ties. Is it fair to say potentially he was at that home? Did Brian Albert know John O'Keefe?

Yeah. So remember that they had been at the bar the night before. That's right. Brian Albert. Yeah, they weren't like friends, but they knew each other. And it was like an open invitation. Everybody come back to the house. Karen and John were going to come back to the house. Now the people in the house say that they saw Karen's SUV

pull up, but John and Karen never came inside. And then they saw the SUV pull away. Either way. That's something you learn. That's something you learn down the road. I would have gone to them and say, Hey, we're going to interview everybody who's here. We're going to do a search of the house. Can I get consent or do I have to get a search warrant? We're doing this. I would say this to him. We're doing this to protect you. Nobody can say we didn't.

Because the fact that we, the fact that they didn't, that's why the defense attorney is bringing it up because we'll never know now. Was there signs of struggle? Were there any visible injuries or anything that would suggest some type of altercation took place in the house? The fact that Brian didn't come out when everyone else was around.

As a former police officer myself, I was always looking out my window. If something went down in front of my house. He knew what was happening because he was told because Jennifer McCabe was there. And we're going to get into it. She's letting him know. Jennifer McCabe goes in the house. She tells him what's going on. He still doesn't come out. That's weird, right? So I think the opening argument from the defense, David Yannetti, I'll just say David, did a great job. He paints a very clear picture of what he's going to put out there.

I'm interested to see how he connects the dots and basically ties Brian Albert or someone in that home to John O'Keefe's murder. But I'm looking forward to it. I want to hear more. I think more importantly in this scenario, right? Because once again, the defense doesn't have to prove that Karen is innocent. They have to put up reasonable doubt. Something else could be possible.

Showing that an investigation was botched since day one can present that reasonable doubt. Something else could be possible. Showing that an investigation was botched since day one can present that reasonable doubt. And showing that Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, was tight, considered the Alberts his second family, was very close with him. And then not only that, is texting his friends and saying, no, the homeowner's not going to come under fire because he's a Boston police officer. That's bad. that's not good for him. Not good for him. Because now, as he said here, and it's a brilliant move, but it's a lot of defense attorneys do it. They know that the prosecution is going to put out maybe some incriminating evidence against Karen. And what they're saying is, hey, guess what, guys? Here's your glasses that I want every

jury member to wear. And this glasses is the Michael Proctor is biased glasses. So throw those on and you can watch and look at everything they're presenting to you. But now you're looking through my filter that I've provided for you, which is from the start, Michael Proctor already made up his decision. Yeah. You can't trust anything that this dude found, said. Yeah, because his, as he said, figuratively, his fingers are all over everything. So, you know, everything that Brian is involved in, now you have to question. So whether that's true or not-

Everything that Michael- I'm sorry. Yes, I apologize. Everything that Michael's involved in, you have to question, which here's the reality. Without knowing more, and you're going to get into more, you've already kind of alluded to it. Michael could have said these things and still conducted a proper investigation. Again, guys, I don't know. But because these things were said, you're shit out of luck now. It doesn't matter what you did because everything is going to be tarnished. I mean, the Michael Proctor situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Yeah, it's awful. Awful. This person, this person will never get out for it. He's, he's done in law enforcement. Okay. I would venture to say without even knowing this case, just based on those comments, is he even a cop anymore? The last time I checked,

he still was. Okay. Well, you know, I mean, we can, we can look it up as we go. And you're going to see that as he's being- Because he violated a couple of policies right there with the phone. With the phone. I mean, and saying he's looking for naked pictures of her. He said he hopes she killed herself. No, I do not believe somebody who's going into this, not looking at the homeowner at all, not searching the home and immediately assuming that he knows what happened and then saying he hopes the person who did it kills herself. And that's not all he said about her.

We're going to get into it. He said horrible things. You cannot run an unbiased investigation. You can't. So friends with a potential person of interest hates another person of interest. Just in that brief conversation, that opening statement. So point one goes to the defense as far as opening statements. That's my final takeaway as far as that's concerned.

Yes, very much so. We're going to take our first break. We'll be right back. Okay, we're back. So what happened outside the Albert home in the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022. We are going to have an episode where we very, very intricately break down the timeline. And this timeline that we want to focus on is really short, like a 15 to 20 minute timeline, but we are not going to do that right now. Basically, where we're going to start off from is Karen and John are invited to go back to the Alberts' home along with a bunch of other people. And although that invitation to go to 34 Fairview for that after party had been extended to them, it had kind of been just like blanketly said. So Karen said that they got to 34 Fairview and she wanted John to go in first and just kind of like make sure it was okay that they were there.

You know, she kind of felt a little self-conscious about it. So John gets out of the car. She said she watched him walk away, but she did not see him enter the house. She waited a few minutes. He didn't return. Karen says she texted and called a few times. John did not answer those texts or calls. And according to the records, around 1255 a.m., Karen texted John, quote, I'm going home, end quote, followed by another text

also at 1255 a.m. that said, quote, see you later, end quote. At 102 a.m., Karen texted, quote, your kids are fucking alone, end quote. And then two minutes later, Karen texted, quote, your kids are fucking alone, end quote. And then two minutes later, Karen texted, quote, I'm back in Mansfield. The kids are home alone, end quote. Now, she's not texting these things while she's sitting outside the Alberts' home. According to GPS and phone records, she was back at John's house, John O'Keefe's house, by around 1245. So in reality, Karen did not go back to the Mansfield house. She was kind of just trying to make him think she was.

Yeah, yeah. So he would respond. So he would respond or come home. She said she went back to John's house. She fell asleep on the couch. She did not leave his niece and nephew alone. And actually, the nephew, Patrick, hadn't even been at the house since 8 p.m. the previous night. He was at a friend's house sleeping over.

However, Karen did leave several voicemails for John that morning. She called him 53 times between 1230 a.m. and 603 a.m. Now, they did play these voicemails during a trial, but we know how audio gets distorted in the courtroom, especially when they're playing phone calls or like video stuff. It's all echoey. I'm going to play you a little clip in a minute of the voicemails just so you can get an idea of her tone, of her level of anger, whatever. But the voicemails have been transcripted, so I'm going to tell you what they say. At 12.37 a.m., Karen left John a voicemail saying, quote, John, I fucking hate you. At 12.42 a.m., a voicemail was left where a beeping can be heard as well as the sound of heels clicking on the floor. So it's believed that

beeping came from John O'Keefe's garage door being opened as Karen arrived at his home. And then you can hear her shoes walking through the garage into his house. Yeah. At 1.02 a.m., another voicemail is left, but it's described as room tone. Basically, you can't hear anything. At 1.11 a.m., Karen left a voicemail where she said, quote, yeah, it's one in the morning. I'm with your fucking niece and nephew. You fucking pervert. You're a fucking pervert, end quote. At 1.18 AM, Karen left another voicemail. Quote, John, I'm going home. I cannot babysit your niece. I need to go home. You are fucking using me right now. You're fucking another girl. And then she says something that's

unintelligible and it says, sleeping next to me, you're a fucking loser. Fuck yourself. End quote. So like I said, I want to be fair. I want to show everyone how Karen sounded, which was very angry while she was leaving these voicemails. We're going to play a short clip of them also want to ask just because there's so many Keep leaning next to me. You're a f***ing loser. F*** yourself. Okay, I want to talk about that clip, but I also want to ask just because there's so many. Guys, I'm following along with you. And we're doing this live. I can't go back and pause it and rewind and hear what Stephanie said.

So I apologize if you're like, oh, she already said that. Around what time approximately did they head over to the Alberts' home or the walk across the street? They all kind of left at different times but on surveillance and i actually have this information because i have notes there we go days at 12 10 a.m karen reed is seen leaving the waterfall bar and grill on surveillance and she's with two other women and i believe these two other women is at least one of them is Jen McCabe, I believe, but I'm not quite sure right now. But either way, she walks out around 1210 a.m. And then a minute later on that same security footage, we can see John O'Keefe leaving the same bar about a minute later. He's still

holding a glass from the bar in his hand. So and then they get together and he meets her at her car and then they leave. OK, so just trying to get a window here, right, of how long this could have happened. Because if we're to believe Karen, she goes over there and she didn't feel comfortable going inside. So John goes inside. So approximately based on the times you're giving around 1230, she started making the calls. 53 calls.

You said, by the way, right? 53. Yes. And we're going to get into that in a second because we're gonna call it how we see it the whole time but um 53 calls starts around 12 30 so she potentially was sitting outside for approximately 20 minutes waiting for him to come back out it should have taken two minutes if he went in there so she would have they believe that they arrived at the Fairview address around like 1220, 1221. Okay.

So that just, does that not, like, am I missing something here? Maybe people are screaming at me in the comments, but she started making the voicemails at 1230, right? Yes. And she was already back home by 1237. She was back home by like 1242 when you can hear the garage door opening back at John's house. So 1221, they got there. So she probably made the call while she was driving. Yeah.

So 1237 around the time she leaves, 1240 is the time she gets to John's who doesn't live far away. 1242. 42. And so now you're looking at 1221, they get there and by 1237 so 17 minutes like i said we're gonna go over this very small window of a timeline in more detail but this is coming from people who may not know this timeline that's where i'm trying to represent them and say listen just on the surface talking right now 17 minutes to go from they appear to be kind of lovey-dovey in the bar. We saw the video last episode. And then within a couple hours, they're leaving the bar separately, which is the first

red flag. Why are they leaving separately? Maybe that's a common thing they do. I would expect them to leave together. But according to Karen, they meet back up and they get to the Fairview address around 1220. And within 17 minutes, this is transpiring. So just watch, listening to these clips and reading the text messages that were sent. We talked about it last episode. And hearing the voicemails, like what she's saying. The voicemails. I mean, listen, is it a good look? No. Calling 53 times, is that excessive? Absolutely. It's not a good look. There's a lot that can be taken from it. What I would say is we all go through shit. We all say things and do things

in the heat of the moment. I guarantee you if we had cameras and we put your phone records and everything on the stand and you'd probably have some things that you'd be embarrassed about too. So I'm not going to look too deep into it, but when we're talking about it in this context of would Karen be upset enough to want to kill John, it could be better for her if these weren't out there. We'll just say that. Well, actually, here's the thing, because the defense, I mean, the prosecution is going to say that when Karen is calling and leaving these voicemails, John's already dead. She's already hit him. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to pull them to, to, to create the alibi. I'm going to pull a Derek and I'm going to say,

depending on what camp you're in, it can go either way. So some say that Karen was trying to create an alibi. She was trying to pretend she thought John was alive because she knew she had killed him. But others, others say, well, if she was going to pretend she thought john was alive because she knew she had killed him but others others say well if she was going to pretend this in order to have an alibi maybe she wouldn't have been so mean and aggressive right maybe she wouldn't have been telling him she fucking hates him and calling him a pervert just like hey where are you yeah like i'm worried about you you didn't come out my my stomach hurts i went home i'm with your niece yeah i just want to make that's maybe what she would have done if she was trying to create an alibi. I kind of agree just hearing that firsthand.

I mean, that's some great next level strategy when you're like, not only am I going to call to set up my alibi, but I'm going to make it look like I could potentially be involved in when they find them. Right. I mean, it doesn't seem like the smartest move, does it? I'm going to seem like I really hated this dude. Yeah. Like I have motive to want to kill him. I was irrationally, aggressively and violently angry. Right. Right. It doesn't seem like the best. It doesn't seem like the smartest option. Additionally, a lot of people say what she was saying in the text, like, oh, I'm going home. Your kids are going to be alone. It seemed like she was trying to trick John into coming home. That's what I took away from it. Yeah. And all of his friends were like, yeah, John would never have wanted his niece and nephew to be home alone for that long,

like overnight, that late. So he would have come home if he had seen that. That's what I took away from it, just from the outside looking in. Exactly. So it's kind of like, once again, depending on what camp you're in, depending on where your bias already sways, you're going to maybe look at it differently. But is it believed by both parties that he's already dead at this point or no? No. The prosecution's going to say that Sherri hit him with her car and he's in the snow dying. And the defense is going to say John went inside the house and did not come back out. And that's why Karen was mad because she was like, what the hell? Like you didn't come out. And that's where something happens to him in the house.

I'm with you. I'm following you. This is a complicated case. And I do apologize for people who are able to rewind it. I'm going to have questions like this because you have a lot of names, a lot of players, a lot of times, a lot of 53 calls. You have a lot to remember. So I'm writing as fast as I can. Okay. So like I said, Karen tells John, I'm going back to Mansfield. I can't watch your niece. But in fact, she did not go back to Mansfield because she didn't want to leave Kaylee home alone. She said she fell asleep on his couch, still dressed. She woke up around 4.30 in the morning. And at that point, she realized John was still not home. The weather had become very bad. Remember, a blizzard was coming in. She was extremely worried. Now, at that point, Karen wanted to call Jennifer McCabe. Remember, Jennifer McCabe is the sister-in-law of Brian Albert's

wife. Right. And possibly one of the people she walked out of the bar with, potentially. So she wants to call Jennifer McCabe. She doesn't have Jen's number. However, Karen knew that Jen's niece, who was asleep upstairs, did have Jen's number. So she went to wake her up. Now, Kaylee and Patrick would later tell the Norfolk Advocates for Children Center in Foxborough that Karen spent most nights at their house and that she and their uncle had started arguing quite a bit. It was probably three to four times a week. Kaylee, the niece, said that a week prior to John's death, he and Karen had been arguing and Kaylee was sitting on the stairs of the home and she heard John tell Karen that the relationship had run its course and it wasn't healthy, but Karen didn't want the relationship

to end and she refused to leave the house. So on the night of January 28th, Kaylee said she'd gone to bed around 11 p.m., but she was woken up by Karen at around 4.30 a.m. She said that Karen was screaming, acting frantic, and wanted Kaylee to call Jen McCabe and put her on the phone so that Karen could talk to her. This call to Jen McCabe from Kaylee's phone happened at 4.53 a.m. She was just screaming, Jen, you know, Jen, Jen. Fairly loudly, is that correct?

Extremely. At some point, does the defendant get on the phone with you? She does. And what, if any, conversation do you have with her again? She proceeds to scream my name multiple times and she tells me that

John didn't come home. They got into a fight and that she left him at the waterfall. And how do you respond? I had just woken up. I was, I was confused. I didn't know what she was talking about. I was trying to, I was like, what, what are you talking about? And then she, you know, told me that they had gotten into a fight and she left him there. And now where is he? And she was just kept screaming my name over and over. And so then I remembered that Chris Albert had still been at the bar. So I thought, well, maybe, maybe John walked home with Chris because Chris lives close to the waterfall. I told her that I was going to call Julie and see if John had ended up with Chris. You hang up with her, and then what did you do then? I called Julie Albert.

As you were calling Julie, did you have any conversation with your husband Matt around that time? Yes. He, you know, had kind of shot up out of bed when Karen had called, well, when Kaylee had called because Karen was screaming. And then he was, what's going on? And I said, well, I'm calling Julie because Karen, they got into a fight and I was trying to explain it to him. And he said, what are you talking about? We saw them outside of your sister's house. And at that point I hung up. Yeah. Another example where

if you're depending on what, what camp you're in, right. It seems like she's really laying it on thick. If this is all for alibi seems a little excessive. And again, another example where based on this depiction of her, she doesn't come off looking good at all. Like waking up the niece, calling this woman in the middle of night, screaming. It sounds like a genuine reaction. Probably still intoxicated. Probably still drunk. Absolutely. Yes. And I thought it was interesting because by the time I had watched the trial and I watched all of the trial and we're going to talk about that in a second. But by the time I'd watched the trial, I'd already gotten the timeline down, and I know that Jen McCabe testified or told the police that

she saw Karen Reed's SUV outside of the Albert home. But then hours later, she's like, oh, let me see if John left with Chris when they left the waterfall. And it's like, how did you forget just like three hours later that you saw Karen's SUV at the Albert home and your husband had to remind you that. And it was like three hours later, three, four hours later. Possible. Everybody was drinking pretty heavily. I mean, alcohol is always a bad, a bad supplement when police officers or anybody's trying to get a statement out of someone because your memory can escape you sometimes. But no, I mean, it just, it just, it sounds to me like Karen's in a real state of anger

right now. She's a very buddy said that. And I think that's good for her when we're, we're considering what we're talking about, right? It shows that it's a genuine emotion, regardless of how it may look. It doesn't, it's not a great look for her look for her, but there's a lot more at risk here than just looking bad and overreacting. Absolutely. So she's completely frantic. She's screaming so loud in the background of the phone call that Matt McCabe is woken up just from

her screaming in the phone, right? Now, like I said, I do want to quickly shout out another YouTube channel because after I watched this whole trial, I went to this other channel called Legal Bites because I wanted to get the perspective of a lawyer on some of the legal aspects. And now I officially love this woman. I highly suggest everybody check her out. She had the same impressions as I did when it came to the prosecution's presentation, as well as ADA Adam Lally just being incredibly boring. And multiple times throughout this trial, it really seemed like

he didn't even want to be there. He did not want to be having anything to do with taking part in this trial. He was bored, and as a result, he was boring. And she also, Legal Bites, came up with the same reference that I had when it came to some of Lally's word choices, which brought me back to the Depp-Herd trial when Amber Heard's attorney kept saying things like, she kept saying over and over, what if anything did you hear? What if anything did you say? Et cetera. And Adam Lally does this so much, it drove me absolutely crazy. And I ended up resenting him, resenting every time he would speak because of this. And instead, the prosecution, in my opinion, is putting on a lackluster case. And look, I don't mean to gang up on Assistant DA Adam Lally,

but there's nothing in his overall presentation, vocally, body language-wise, that tells me that he believes in his case. During all of his direct examinations, he actually sounds kind of bored. He's prone to heavy sighs in the middle of a question that seem to suggest he doesn't actually want to be there. Now, so you arrive there, you see Officer Shariff and people from the fire department, correct? And you mentioned sort of a mechanical means of CPR. Is there a specific device that's used for that? And in fact, I don't get the sense that he wakes up each morning of this trial with any passion or excitement thinking, today is another opportunity to seek justice for John O'Keefe, the victim in this case. And look, you

know, the jury might not notice this in the same way that my neurodivergent brain does, but he uses some version of what if any so often in his questions that it becomes an outright distraction. Sometimes it's what if any, sometimes it's who if any, or where if any, or what if anything. What if anything did you note at that time or at any subsequent time in regard to footwear? What if anything happened with them? What if anything did you observe? What if any involvement did you have with that? What if anything?

What if any? What if anything? And if you watched the Dept v. Heard trial in 2022, you're probably familiar with this phrase as a strategy to get around an objection that you're leading the witness on direct examination. What, if anything, had been said about what Mr. Depp did the night before? Objection to the extent it calls for hearsay, Your Honor. All right. Be a hearsay objection. I'll sustain that objection. I'm asking what, if anything, that was still a solicit hearsay.

To me, this use comes from a misunderstanding as to what it means to lead a witness, which is basically asking a question that already suggests the answer in it. And here, as was the case with attorney Elaine Bredehoft and Dept. v. Hurd, I just think that this is an advocacy crutch that ADA Adam Lally has developed over the years into a habit that's just part of his speaking pattern at this point. The problem is, it's personally driving me nuts already to the extent that I've actually started keeping a tally as to how many times Adam Lally uses some version of what if any in his questions. On day one, he used it 101 times. And on day two,

a half court day in which there was a lot of cross-examination by the defense, he said it 66 times. So we are up to a grand total of 167 what if any's in this trial already at the end of day two. Yeah. So I felt the same thing. It says, you watch these trials and they go on for weeks and weeks. I think this one was six or seven weeks and it's like seven hours a day. And it's like, okay, there's not enough words being said as it is. We got to add some more in. And not only that, but the prosecution asked some of the most boring, pointless questions I've ever heard asked or brought up in a trial.

And it made all of the testimony go on and on. And it made me feel like, because people do this and it drives me crazy, like you say 500 words when five would have sufficed. I think he's doing this because it's like, he really doesn't have a lot to ask with these witnesses. And he's sort of just trying to extend it out for some reason. Like he'll ask, oh, at the Waterfall Bar and Grill, how tall were the bar stools? Like how tall would you say the bar stools are? It's like ridiculous.

Every single paramedic, he asked, how do you go about getting an EMT license? It was absolutely insane. So I just, it drove me crazy. And it feels like either he doesn't know what he's doing, or he's purposely just trying to almost create confusion and boredom. I don't know why, but it's awful. Here's what I'll say. And I'll say it really quick because she summed it up perfectly.

As the prosecutor or as the defense, you're also a storyteller. And it's almost like you hear, oh, like for me personally, I can listen or watch Denzel Washington read a telephone book. Me too, love him. Because of his talent and his ability

to have some conviction in that story and emotion where it's believable. Yeah. And I don't know if it's intentional or not, but this guy is very monotone and you're going to have a jury that's going to be bored and not enthused and not engaged with you and therefore missing important facts that you may be trying to convey. And I know we talk about other attorneys that we don't necessarily like, but Jose Baez, but when he tells you something- Dude can spin a tale.

And when he says it, whether it's true or not, it comes off as if he believes it. You're enraptured. Your attention's captured. Even the opening statement, to go back to the opening statement, I believe David. I don't know if he's telling, I don't know if he's right, but he believes what he's saying. And that's extremely important. If you want the jury to believe you, you have to believe it. Now, what if any, okay. What if any, now that I've said this, now that you've heard it, you will not be able to unhear it or stop hearing it. It is going to haunt your waking and sleeping hours until we're done covering this case. Maybe even after. What if any? Who if any?

Oh, my God. Well, I also think this guy's like, what was the prosecutor's name again? Lally? Yeah. ADA Adam Lally. The other issue is that he's probably maybe he's done some profile, high profile cases. I don't know, but nothing more high profile than this. And he's putting he's put under a microscope. So something that, as she had mentioned, just his common way of speaking, wasn't being criticized by millions of people. Like when we do this podcast, there's

things that I say and people in the comments will be like, take a drink. Every time Derek says it, I don't even realize I'm doing it, but it's, it's, it's become part of my speech pattern and you have to correct it. So I'm sure after the fact he's heard these criticisms and probably was kicking himself in the ass. I hope he stops, but I don't think he can. The next trial that's publicized, I guarantee you it will not be as prominent. He would have to put 100% of his energy and attention into not saying that as many times as he said it. I think it's as natural to him as breathing and oof. So let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. So we're back. So we're going back to Jen McCabe that morning. She called Julie Albert to see if she knew where John was. Julie didn't pick up. It's like five o'clock in the morning.

Matt McCabe, Jen's husband was like, no, Karen could not have left him at the waterfall because we saw them at your sister's house. the sister in this case being Nicole Albert. Now, once again, this is interesting because both Jen and Matt McCabe would tell police that they saw Karen's black Lexus SUV outside of the Albert home after everyone left the waterfall, but no one actually claimed that they saw John or Karen at the house, just that they saw the SUV. And we're going to get back to this, I promise. So John's niece Kaylee said that after calling Jen McCabe for Karen, Karen left the house and she told Kaylee

to call Mike Camerano to come and pick her up. That morning, Karen also called one of John's friends, one of John's close friends since childhood. Her name is Carrie Roberts. I answered the phone and she said, John's dead. Carrie, Carrie, Carrie. And then she hung up. And when she's speaking to you and saying those words to you over the phone, how loudly is she saying those words? Very loud. She woke my husband who was sleeping. Then I got out of bed and Kurt said, what was that? I said, I don't know. I don't know. Something's happening. I tried to call her, I think a couple of times back to be like, what is going on? Finally, she called me back again and she said, I'm afraid John might be dead. He might have gotten hit by a plow. He did not come home last night.

I was not supposed to stay in Canton last night, and he would never leave Kaylee alone. I think something happened. Then she said she checked Kaylee's phone to see if John had called. And I said, okay, where are you now? And she said, I'm driving. Can I come to your house? Will you drive my car? I don't remember anything from last night. We drank so much. I don't remember anything. And I said, you need to

go home and be with Kaylee. If she's there by herself, I'll go look for him or something of that nature. Because I thought, I said, you're going to get a DUI. You were drinking all night last night and you don't remember anything. You shouldn't be driving. Her voice was elevated. She was very frantic. She said, I'm going to come to your house. Will you drive my car? And I said, okay.

Okay. So here's our first acknowledgement that maybe something bad happened. And I'm sure without knowing the dynamic of this, people look at this two different ways. Some people see it as a start of an omission of knowing that something happened to John and maybe setting up an excuse, like, I don't remember, but you know, she maybe gave too much here saying he could have been hit by a plow. Others would say this proves that she really doesn't know. And the fact that again, she's saying these things, which would look bad in hindsight, knowing if she knew what happened, why would she do all of this and make herself a suspect? So, I mean, you could take it depending on where you on what camp you're in.

Last time I'll say it for the entire episode that that is that is how you could interpret that. It's all open to interpretation. Well, yes, it is. But there's going to be statements that Karen is attributed to making that also fall into question because they never showed up in any official reports. So we're going to get there. But so Karen calls Carrie. She's like, can I come to your house?

And then you drive me to find John because I can't drive. Carrie's like, OK. But Karen never arrived to Carrie's house. Carrie believes she sat in her car and waited for about 10 minutes before calling Karen, at which time Karen told Carrie that she had actually driven to Jen McCabe's house. Now, Carrie had only met Jen one time previous to this, and she would testify that they weren't friends. They weren't close friends. They just kind of knew each other through John. I think it was one time. Quintances. Yeah, barely. So Carrie told Karen, okay, you stay there. Stay where you're at. I'm going to drive over to Jen's and we can all get in the same car and go look for Jen. So Carrie's talking to Karen through her phone Bluetooth

speaker thing in the car as she's driving to Jen's. And as she pulled into Jen's driveway, she was still on the phone with Karen and she could hear the conversation that Jen and Karen were having as they sat in Karen's SUV. So Carrie pulls into the driveway. She pulls behind Karen's SUV. She's still on speakerphone with Karen. Karen said that she remembered leaving him at Waterfall and Jen said no you you I saw you pull up to my sister's house and then at some point in the conversation she said what about my taillight what about my taillight and I looked and there was a piece missing but it was caked on with snow you could tell there was a little black hole but there there was snow caked on it. And it was a blizzard at this point.

Or what you were just testifying about as far as the tail end. When is it that you're making those observations? In Jen's driveway. And so about how far away from the defendant's car were you the first time that you see or your attention is drawn to this tail end? I was parked right behind them in the driveway. And can you describe which part of the vehicle we're looking at as far as which tail light that you're observing that's damaged? The right passenger. So now we have some comments about

Karen's back right tail light. So the passenger side tail light. This is going to be very important. And once again, we're going to talk about it in depth, right? Because you heard at the beginning of the episode when we were doing the opening statements, ADA Adam Lally says that they found pieces of Karen's tail light at the scene. They found microscopic pieces of Karen's taillight in John's clothing. They also found a hair on Karen's bumper and pieces of glass on Karen's bumper from the cocktail glass that John was allegedly holding. Now, my question has always been, how did all of that stuff stay on the bumper as Karen's driving around and then as the cars towed from Karen's parents' house to the Canton Police Department. You got a hair, pieces of glass, all of this stuff is staying on the bumper.

And the fact of the matter is, they did not find those taillight pieces until after the initial evidence team had swept through and found, which we're going to talk about, pieces of the cocktail glass and also traces of blood in the snow. But they did not find any of these taillight pieces until later. And then they continued finding taillight pieces for days after, which is quite suspicious. Only pushback, or not even pushback, but just alternative I'll give is maybe the snow being so compacted at that time may have encased some of those small microscopic elements within the snow. Because as she mentioned- You wouldn't find any taillight pieces, not even one, even though they used a leaf blower to blow the snow around so they could get to the blood samples. You wouldn't find a single taillight piece? No, I'm talking about the glass on her car, you're saying. Oh. I'm talking about the

glass on her car where she described it as the snow being kind of caked on. So with the snow and being sticky snow like we get up here in the Northeast, it could be really compacted. Sometimes you got to scrape it off pretty good. So if you're talking about small shards of glass, there could be a world where inside that snow was the glass fragments. As far as the taillight pieces, I'm with you. Yeah, that'd be difficult. So let me ask you this then. Karen Reed hits John outside of the Albert home. That would mean the pieces of the glass were on her bumper. His hair was on her bumper, right? It has not started snowing heavily yet. And then she drives from the Albert home to John's home. That stuff wouldn't be caked in snow at that point

because it wasn't snowing that heavily yet. So wouldn't that stuff have fallen off or blown off at some point during the drive? You would think so. I've had times where evidence has stayed on a vehicle that you would expect not to be there. I've had a time where I put my coffee cup on top of my back of my truck and I drive down the road and then realize it and it's still sitting there and I don't know how that happened. But I would assume the drive is very short from what I know from the waterfall to John's house, right? We're talking a short distance. Well, they're going from the Alberts home to John's house. And the waterfall was somewhat near there, right?

Yeah, but either way. So how far from John's house to the Alberts house to John's house. Yeah, and the waterfall was somewhat near there, right? Yeah, but either way. So how far from John's house to the Alberts house to John's house? I think it was like seven minutes, eight minutes. Okay, seven minute drive, depending on the speed. It is in the back of the vehicle. So there's this kind of like the air is going around the car. Listen, I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just trying to pose another angle where as unlikely as it may seem, they could have quote unquote got lucky without me knowing everything else where the evidence was able to stay on the car. And then once it was parked, you did say that she parked the car in the driveway in the

garage though, correct? Yes. So that would have no snow would have gotten on it then. So it would have happened when it went back out to the road and then snow maybe landed on top of it. I will say you wouldn't expect it. No, you wouldn't. If it's exactly the way it's been described, then law enforcement got lucky at best. Yeah. I mean, especially because when you're towing the car to the police station

later, you're going to put it on the back and there's things happening. The car's getting lifted. Can I say one more thing that I'm thinking of? I want to make sure I hit it all. I have had a case where it was a hit and run and there was fragments from the victim's vehicle found inside the broken taillight. We actually like paint transfer inside the broken taillight. It was like a chip off the car. So I would like to know where the hair and the glass fragments were found because if it was inside the housing of the light, more likely it wouldn't have fallen out. But we'll save that when we get there. And I would say from the defense's perspective, you might say it's already highly unlikely that these things would remain on the car.

And now you add in the whole Michael Proctor aspect. Oh, yeah, that's yeah. That's the problem. Yeah. Yeah. And the skepticism that I even, I'm approaching it with because of what you've already told me as a police officer, I'm still weary about what I say, knowing what you've already told me and knowing what I've heard in these clips. So yeah, if I'm, if I'm doing that, of course the jury is. Exactly. So Jen, Carrie and Karen all drive back to John's house because Carrie said, you know, maybe he is inside the house and you missed it. Maybe he's passed out somewhere, like he passed out behind the couch or on the floor somewhere. And like, did you check everywhere? Maybe you

missed him. So Jen drove Karen's car with Karen in the passenger seat, and then Carrie followed them in her own car. They arrived to John O'Keefe's house and then Karen once again pointed out her rear taillight to Jen and Carrie. Karen did point it out at one point in the driveway. She said, my taillight, look at my taillight. And I looked at it and I said, you told me you don't remember anything from last night. She said, do you think I hit him? Do you think I hit him? And I said, no, I don't think you hit him. I think you probably hit something, but let's just go in the house and look for him that sort of interaction that you had or looking at the tail light when when did that happen i don't know if it was when well it obviously wasn't when we got there it was what must have

been when we were leaving to go out to look for him when you what i'm sorry i wasn't sure if it was when we arrived or when we were leaving to go back out and look for him. But now that I've seen the video, it's obviously when we came back out of the house. So Carrie is saying she didn't know when the taillight was pointed out to her, whether it was when they got there, when they were leaving to go look for John. But then they played surveillance video from John's ring doorbell camera. And he also had a camera positioned over the garage, which showed the driveway. And she said, oh, I see now that it was when we were leaving that happens i mean this

happened in 2022 when was the trial was last year yeah this year yeah so there you go i mean to expect her to remember every little detail it's it's difficult for someone because you don't know how invaluable that information is going to be two years later so something as simple as not remembering when it was on the way in or out, totally understandable. Yeah. So they go in, they look in the house, John's not there. When they realized he wasn't in the house, they decided to go out and look for John. So they all got into the car again in the same car. And during this drive, Carrie drove, Jen was in the passenger seat and Karen was in the back seat. And both Jen and Carrie would testify that Karen was frantic. She was yelling and texting wildly. And on the drive

over to the Alberts' home, she made some interesting statements, allegedly and according to Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts. Karen is in between us, like from the back, kind of pushing up in between Kerry and myself. And she's just screaming, Kerry, Kerry, her name over and over, my name over and over, and repeating certain phrases. Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Carrie is yelling at her to shut up, to sit back, to buckle up, to look for John. And while this is going on, what, if anything, are you and Ms. Roberts doing in the front seat?

We're just, she's slowly driving and I'm just peering out the window looking for John. I mean, it was a crazy situation. She's screaming, he didn't come home. Could he be walking home? Where is he? So we're just looking out the window, looking for John. What, if anything else, did you see her doing in the backseat while you were going from Meadows to Abbotsford? I didn't see her doing anything.

She just continuously screamed that. And then as we got by different landmarks, she then started, you know, screaming, asking if John could be at certain people's houses. Whose houses was she asking if John could be at? If she could be at Bella's house. Referring to the directions that you had provided the night before? Correct. Bella was a child who was around the age of Kaylee and your daughter, correct? Yes. And there have been some years

in the past dating relationship between Mr. O'Keefe and Bella's mother, correct? Yes. So Ms. Reed is saying that in the car that morning as you're driving over to Fairview? Yes. She asked, could he have been with Ashley? And I looked at her and said no, because to me that was a crazy idea. And then Carrie had mentioned, oh, do you think he could have called somebody else that lived on a street over? And she started screaming, who's that? Who's she? It's interesting because I was starting to say to

myself, man, she keeps bringing up like this theory that maybe she hit him and it's starting to become a little questionable that she's fixated on this one scenario, which seems very unlikely that you would accidentally hit someone and not realize it. But then at the end of the clip, she did say that multiple times. Now she was playing out other scenarios. Could he be with a girl? You know, could he be somewhere else? So that was more in line with what I would expect. I still think it's interesting that she even thought it was a potential that she had hit John accidentally because I would. Allegedly, allegedly she said those things. Okay. According to these people that they're saying it.

So just to take them at their word right now, as we're discussing this in real time, if for her to come to that conclusion, I don't know. I mean, I've been drunk before. I've never drove home drunk like that, but if I've had a, if I've had damage on my car, would I, would I assume that I hit someone? I don't know. I don't know. I'm trying to stay neutral and look at both sides with everything you've said,

and it's hard to do. But I think the fact that she was running through different scenarios with these two people is good for her. And it's just more of the same where we can separate the two things we're talking about. Was Karen acting the way she should be in that moment? It seems like she wasn't. She was very erratic. But does that mean she's a killer? No, there's nothing here. In fact, I would suggest the opposite. Her acting like that and not even putting on a show is more indicative of her telling the truth and just being who she is. You heard Jen McCabe mention somebody named Bella. Bella was a young teenager. John had dated Bella's mother, Ashley, in the past. And the night before, when John had called Jen McCabe for

directions to the Alberts, she had mentioned Ashley's house as a landmark because Ashley lived nearby the Alberts. Now, I've always wondered if this started a fight in the car that's why i made that noise i was like oh yeah that could start a fight especially if drinks are involved yeah maybe jen's on speakerphone and she's like oh yeah it's ashley's house and then and karen's like are you serious like we're going to a house right down the street from your ex girlfriend like how often or why is she bringing? Or why is she bringing it up? Why is she bringing it up? Is she trying to piss me off?

Oh, yeah. Especially drinking. And now especially starting to learn a little bit about Karen, right? She's an emotional person. She's kind of jealous. She thinks something's going on. She already thinks. I don't think anybody with a brain is going to sit here and tell me,

based on what we do know for sure, just on the voicemails, the 53 calls that Karen is a emotional person and for her to fly off the handle over something like that comment, absolutely possible with what we know already. And I think it drives you crazy a little bit, right? When you're in a relationship and you feel the person pulling away and you're like, the only reason you would be pulling away if there's someone else, is there someone else and they won't, you know, they won't away and you're like, the only reason you would be pulling away if there's someone else, is there someone else and they won't confirm and you have the suspicion. Women do have gut instincts about these things. And so it kind of ups the ante. Now you feel like you're going crazy. And then anything that you hear as a confirmation bias is just going to sort of go in the column of, oh, I knew there was somebody else. I knew there was something going on.

I also think their relationship, what you said with the episode one with Aruba, not knowing anything about them, you telling that story was important, especially now because it gives us a little bit of insight into their relationship and how they treated each other in public. And in my opinion, John didn't treat her very well. And so that could also create some insecurity and some skepticism about his his feelings toward her and what might be the reason why he's acting the way he does potentially like you said another woman i think that she definitely felt um not appreciated you can hear in the voicemail she's like you're fucking using me you know there was there was things that she felt she was providing

for him as his partner that he took advantage of and didn't appreciate. Yeah. She didn't like it and she was vocal about it. Now, did Jen actually tell John O'Keefe, oh, use Ashley's house as a landmark? We don't know if this was actually said between John and Jen the night before. We only have Jen's word to go on. And it kind of does seem like in this testimony, she's attempting to make Karen Reid look like a crazy, jealous person, right? She was like, well, why would he be at Ashley's house? I was like, that's ridiculous. And it's like, come on, you started this a little bit. So there might be some sort of narrative that is being spun here in this testimony. So they're driving to the Alberts's house the three women turned onto fairview

from chapman street and jen mccabe said that at this time is still quite dark right it's pretty early it's still dark it's um one month did this happen isn't it january yeah so it's dark you know january 20 oh actually the end of january january 29th exactly so it's it's getting dark at 4 4 p.m it's not getting light until noon. We're kind of headed. We're headed to that part now of our lives. And it's snowing heavily and the wind's blowing, blowing, blowing, creating poor visibility conditions. Remember, the wind chill, the wind levels were pretty high, which is also another reason why I'm like, how the hell did that stuff stay on Karen Reed's bumper with the wind whipping around?

But anyways, I digress. We'll talk about that later. So Jen also said that just prior to arriving at 34 Fairview, which was the home of the Elberts, there was a cluster of trees and like a flagpole. And Karen immediately yelled out that she spotted John's body, which confused Jen and Carrie because they claimed that when she said this at that moment, they could not see anything. We pass, we drive past the flagpole area and all of a sudden Karen starts screaming, there he is, there he is, and she's banging to

get out. Banging on the door in the backseat? seat yes and at the time that she's saying this were you able to see anything outside of the vehicle i saw nothing and what if anything is when she's banging and kicking the door banging on the door what did miss roberts miss roberts unlocked the door karen got out miss roberts looked at me and said something like, she's crazy or she's batshit crazy, something like that. Where is it that she goes? She just runs. And runs where?

Straight to John. And again, when she's running, at this point in time, can you see what she's running for or where she's going or anything that she's talking about to you? I was on the passenger side, so as I got out, she was already at John. And all of a sudden, Karen said, there he is, there he is. Let me the F out of this car, and she started kicking the door. How hard was she kicking the door? Pretty hard.

I mean, she wanted to get out of the car, but it was locked because once you start driving, the back doors lock. So I looked over and I didn't see anything. And I looked at Jen and I said, she's crazy. And I unlocked the door and I sat back and watched. And she ran over to a mound of snow. So as you're driving down the road have you seen anything as you're driving down looking at the side of the road have you seen anything on your side of the vehicle? No. And when you say she gets out of the vehicle is it your side or passenger side where Mr. Cave is? The driver's side. So she gets out of the driver's side of the vehicle on the back passenger correct? Correct. And how quickly does she go sort of from where from your car to where she ends up? She ran over to the mound. And at that point in time, even when she runs over, could you see what she was running over to?

At some point, I realized it was the shape of a body. So let's take a quick break, and then we will discuss this. Allegedly, according to Jen and Carrie, Karen sees John's body as they're pulling up, but they could not see anything. It's dark, poor visibility. She seemed to know exactly where he was. Okay, so I just want to ask you a question because you keep saying stuff that's making me wonder if we're not supposed to believe Jen and Carrie. Is there something more that you're going to surprise me with that would suggest they would have a reason to lie? Well, yeah, I mean the stories have changed multiple times from the time of the incident to the time of the grand jury to the time of the actual trial. Okay. Yes. to the time of the grand jury, to the time of the actual trial. Okay. So I will go off because I'm here with you now in real time as we're going through it,

that as I'm listening to this as a jury member, okay? And as a jury member at this point, when Jen is making these statements, it's not good for Karen. It's not good for Karen. Just looking at it for what it is. They're both in the front seat. They have a clearer view. They're unable, both of them, to make out John's body. And yet immediately Karen knows it's

John and where he is. Not even like, oh, there's something right there. It's like, no, there's John. And I don't think that's a stretch for anyone without knowing anything else, but just in this moment for people to put two and two together and say, oh, she knew that was John and that he was right there because she was already aware of that information prior to going out to this location with Carrie and Jen. That's what you would take away from it, or at least that's what's being presented in that way. Now, is that true or not?

We're not there yet. A lot can be taken from it, but at minimum, it gives the impression that she knew john was there but there's even a bigger question and i think we're going to get into this as we go on there is a world something else i always say where karen did in fact know he was there but it still doesn't mean she's a killer and i'll save that for later but that's that's a whole different conversation to have as far as it's not binary where she either intentionally killed him or wasn't there at all and this was some frame job.

It could be something in the middle where could it have been an accident and she was unaware of the significance of what occurred until much later. So there's a lot at play here. Yes, but keep in mind the prosecution is charging her with murder. No, from a judicial standpoint, you're right. She's being charged with first degree murder, Yes, but keep in mind the fact that she was with two other people could hurt her or it could help her, but some may view it as, oh, she brought these people with her to be witnesses to her finding John, which other people have done in the past who were guilty of murder. Yes. And we're going to talk about this later, but the prosecution is going to put forth their theory and their evidence that Karen earlier that morning had already driven to 34 Fairview, which is when she had confirmed basically that John's body was there

and he was dead. And that's how she knew exactly where he was. Interesting. And is that going to be that window where she said, I'm going to come to your house and then she doesn't? Yes, kind of. Yeah. Okay. I can see where they're going with it. I can see where they're going with it. I'll reserve judgment, but I can see it. So Jennifer McCabe would later tell the police that when she saw John's body, he was covered with approximately six inches of snow and his phone was underneath his body on the ground. Jennifer said that Karen then yelled at her to Google, how long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia? And Jen does Google something. She Googled hoes long to die in the cold.

HOS, hoes long to die in the cold. This is going to become very important later. So remember that. I don't know how that could become important. I am looking forward to that. Well, because that Google search was made for the first time at 2.27 a.m. By who again? Jen McCabe.

Ah, okay. Now I get it. So I'm going to give you a little spoiler into that whole mess. She grabbed my hands and she said, Google hypothermia. Google how long it takes to die in the cold. And so I had my phone out and it was cold and my hands were frozen and I had MS and I took my phone out while she was screaming and shaking my arm and I attempted to Google how long does it take to die in the cold

that Google search was at 2 27 in the morning that's when the Google search was at 227 in the morning. That's when the Google search happened. And you'll find out why we know that. Alan Jackson telling Court TV and the other media gaggle as he was leaving the courthouse there during after her direct examination, saying that they have proof that this was done at 227. So we expect to hear about it tomorrow. All right. So we are back from that clip. So what you were saying or what you were alluding to wasn't necessarily what was typed, but when it was typed. Both, I guess.

Right. Because if the prosecution is. Shows a sense of urgency. Well, if the defense is saying, no, Karen did not hit him and leave him to die in the cold. He went inside the house. Somebody or more than one somebody's beat him up and then they put him outside to die in the cold. Maybe somebody in the house at that time would be Googling, how long does it take to die if you're left in the cold? Well, maybe I'm framing that wrong.

So basically what I was saying is it's not the typo of hose. It's more when it was typed. Oh, yes. You get what I'm saying? Yeah. I mean, as far as who typed it. It's just a typo, yeah. But when you said hose, this is gonna become a big part. I'm like, what the fuck? How could this tie into it? But the- Hose long to die in.

Yeah, you were hiding a little Easter egg of, oh no, by the way, that typo was done at 2.27 a.m. That's the- The Google search was made, allegedly. And obviously the prosecution is gonna bring in their witnesses who are gonna be like,

no, that's not what happened. She was using an already open web page. But the FBI, we're going to get into that. The FBI gets in on this case, which they don't typically do. And they're the ones that pull that extraction of her phone and say that the Google search was made at that time. So this Google search is going to be very important and a huge point of contention for the defense and prosecution. Okay. I could see why it would. 2.27, not a good time window when you think about him last being seen around 12.30. So he could have been inside for a couple hours. Prosecution is saying, no, Karen hit him at 1245,

but we've got Jen allegedly inside the house Googling at 2.27 a.m. How long does it take to die in the cold? Yeah, we know she was at the party. So why would she be searching something like that? Yes. If that's what actually happened. Yes, if that's what actually happened.

All right, so Jennifer McCabe, Carrie Roberts, and Karen Reed, they find John's body outside of 34 Fairview at around 6 a.m. And at 6.04 a.m., Carrie Roberts places a call to 911. And in the background of this 911 call, you can hear Karen Reed. She's absolutely going ballistic. Now, Officers Seraf, Good, and Mullaney of the Canton Police Department were dispatched to the address along with the Canton Fire Department and EMS. Officer Steve Seraf was first on scene, and this is going to become a huge issue because that's not what the Canton Police Department dispatch log claimed. The dispatch log said that Officer Mulaney arrived first, Seraf arrived second, and Officer Good arrived third. And basically, the dispatch log makes it look like they all arrived within seven seconds of each other, but that was the order. Mullaney first, Seraf second, Good third. Now Seraf actually

in reality got there at 6.10 a.m., Mullaney got there at 6.11, and Good didn't even get there until 6.16 a.m. Not only is the dispatch log in the wrong order, but the times are also completely wrong. During the trial, Officer Seraf was asked if everything else in the dispatch log was correct. And they presented to him and he looks at it and he's like, yep, it all looks great. At which time it was pointed out to him. And I don't know why these witnesses don't do a better job because when the defense is cross-examining you and the defense started Officer Seraf's cross-examination and they were like,

hey, is there anything you want to change from your statement yesterday? And he was like, nope. I said it. I mean it. Let's go. Yeah, I've had that happen to me too. That's a pretty common tactic on narcotics where they try to get you nervous beforehand. I've had that happen. Well, they're getting him nervous because they have something that they're about to follow it up with. But what I'm saying is they're always going to say, no, I don't, because sometimes it's a bluff. So he's like, is everything else on the dispatch log accurate? Seraf looks at it. He's like, yep, perfect. It's great. And then it's pointed out to him by the defense that the address on the log actually said 32 Fairview Road.

And on top of that, Seraf had testified under oath in front of the grand jury that he'd responded to 35 Fairview Road. And in Officer Good's report, he also wrote that they had responded to 32 Fairview Road. Obviously, we know the correct address and the actual location that law enforcement responded to that morning was 34 Fairview Road. Now, the defense is going to suggest that this was an active attempt to mask Brian Albert's address, to not have it in any public documents. But Seraf said, no, these are all just mistakes. And the defense is like, okay, you testifying in front of the grand jury, the incorrect address was a mistake? He's like, yep. And he's like, y'all writing this wrong in every report, that's a mistake? He's like, yep, all mistakes. That's it. Which, you know,

given the fact that now we have all of these things piling up is going to be harder to believe. Steve Seraf also testified that when he was on scene, Karen Reed made a statement to him. She said, quote, it's my fault I hit him, end quote. However, in Seraf's incident report, he makes no mention of this statement. In the incident report, Officer Steve Seraf said that Kieran Reed continued making the same statement over and over again. But that statement was, is he dead? Not, I hit him, it's my fault. The day after this, on January 30th, Seraf was interviewed by state police detective Michael Proctor. And once again, Seraf claimed that Karen Reid's statements at the scene were simply her continually stating, is he dead? He never says in his own report or to Michael Proctor, who's the lead investigator, that Karen said, it's my fault, I hit him.

He actually never says that until he's testifying. So in April of 2022, for the first time, you attributed the phrase, this is my fault. I can't believe this happened to my client. Correct? That's correct. Nowhere in your official report did you say that? That's correct. And nowhere in your interview with Tupper Proctor the next day did you say that? That's correct. And nowhere in your interview with Chupacabra the next day did you say that? That's correct.

You think that was a pretty important omission on your part? It was an oversight. An oversight? Yes, sir. That a woman whom you made contact with, standing over the body of a fallen police officer, said to you, this is my fault. Dismissed that one. Yes, I missed it. I didn't write it down.

He's kind of flippant and dismissive here, which is not a good look. We always talk about perception and how you're coming off to a jury. I'll be the first to tell you I've definitely messed up dates and addresses. And sometimes it'll be coming to question at court because my partner would write something different down and we have to just come out and say, yeah, I screwed up. I messed up. It wasn't accurate. It was a different address or whatever.

But as you mentioned before that clip, with everything else that we have and Proctor and all these different connections, it does raise a lot of eyebrows. And when you're painting a narrative that this involves a coordinated effort amongst police officers and you have a mishap like this, knowing who that address belongs to, I see where you're coming from. But they're not questioning him about the mishap with the address at this point. They're questioning him about Karen Reed standing over the body of her dead boyfriend and saying, it's my fault I hit him. If something like

that was said to you at the scene of a crime, do you think it would have made it into your report? Yeah, 1000%. No doubt at all. It's self-incrimination. I mean, you're going to have that in there, obviously. Hello. Exactly. The fact that it was not in his report and that he did not say it to Michael Proctor the next day and it doesn't even come out until he's sitting in front of a jury. Yeah, no, it's a problem. That's an issue. Yeah, it's a problem. And it kind of at this point, do you even believe it? Because it's just so late in the game. You can't. No. And I'm sorry at this point when you're sitting there and you're questioned with this and you're asked, oh, how did this happen? And he shrugs and he's like, hmm, it's an oversight.

That's a big ass oversight, my friend. It's a confession. Hello? So the one thing you omitted from your report is the confession. Arguably the most important thing. Not even arguably, the most important thing. So that's where I was going with that book. I know you're passionate about this part, but yes, that's what I was gonna say. The address I can see the, the, the omission of this statement, if it did happen is unacceptable. And I have never seen something like that in my personal experience or through, through one of the guys that I would supervise or was writing the reports and I would review it. I don't think that's something you would miss.

Does not look good, man. Does not look good. Okay. Going back to the initial law enforcement response to John O'Keefe's body, Steve Surrath recalled pulling up to the address. He said that as he approached the address, he saw three females waving at him from the front yard. He said that if you were looking at the house from the street, the three women were in the left corner of the property near a flagpole and a fire hydrant. He said that John O'Keefe was on the ground. Steve Seraf said he had a light dusting of snow on his chest and that two women were performing CPR on him. Now, the prosecution would tell the jury that it was around 1230 a.m. when John O'Keefe's body ended up where it was found. And the defense claimed that he would have ended up there a few hours later after he'd gone inside the house for a period of time. So for Steve Saref to say there was only a light dusting

of snow on John's body, that might have suggested that he had been in that position for a shorter time since the snow had started around like 1030, you know, pushing to 11. But as these blizzards start, they start pretty lightly, they pick up speed throughout the night. So if he only had a light dusting of snow on him, then that would kind of support the defense's claim of he hadn't been laying there in the yard for that long. But Jen McCabe says he had six inches of snow on him. So once again, the big difference dusting versus six inches. Oh, yeah. And although Steve Seraf said he observed that John was not moving or breathing and

he was cold to the touch, he went to his patrol vehicle to retrieve his AED device, which is a defibrillator. Now, I also want to mention that it is shown on Seraf and Good's dash cam footage that Jennifer McCabe at some point while after they showed up, she entered the Alberts' house. During the trial, Officer Seraph is questioned about this. He's asked by the defense

why a crime scene should be secured and why witnesses should be kept separate. And Seraph said, well, that's so they can't collaborate and get their story straight. And so the defense was like, yeah, so why would you allow Jennifer McCabe to walk away from a dead body in a yard and enter the house to make contact with the other individuals?

Do you think that was appropriate? And Seraf was like, nah, probably not. Probably not. And he's like, but nobody stopped her. You guys allowed her to do that. So now she can go in the Albert house and be like, guys, you know, not saying that this is what happened. But if you're the defense team, you're going to put forward a theory. It opens up this scenario.

It makes it possible. As she went in and she's like, okay, guys, John's dead. Like the police are there. You know, we're going to say Karen said this. We're going to stick to this story. Yeah. Brian, you stay in the house. Brian, you stay in the house.

Dude never does come out, does he? Yeah. So. Yeah. Interesting. Nope. dude never does come out does he yeah so yeah interesting nope the fact that at minimum this just police incompetence creates opportunities like this for the defense now i'm not even saying it's an opportunity it could be exactly what happened but just by not doing your job appropriately

and not not treating every investigation regard you know as if it's a serious crime in hindsight can come back and really bite you in the ass and make you look like an idiot. And it's going to, in court, even if you have a guilty person, have an opportunity that that person walks because you didn't do your job properly. 100%. That's the best way to say it. We're not saying Karen's guilty, but that has happened in other cases where there's police misconduct and because of their incompetence or their ineptness, it leads to a not guilty verdict. Rightfully so, because the police didn't do their job.

If you don't do your job, the defense will exploit that. But also, let's be honest. These guys are veterans of the police department. They've been in there 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Oh, do I got stories for you? But they all know better. The fact that- I'm going to be honest with you. No, they all don't. I can do I got stories for you? But they all know better. The fact that- I'm gonna be honest with you.

No, they all don't. I can tell you, you struck a nerve there. I had some veterans on my job, morons. Are they morons or are they lazy? Well, they're a combination. I mean, they're showing up, their shirts are hanging out. They should not even be on the job anymore. And it's just, maybe they didn't start off that way but i don't want them anywhere near me because they're

they're idiots and that i can promise you every police officer who watches this show you're lying to yourself if you say you don't have that guy on your job where you're like one guy maybe yeah but everybody oh yeah i mean everybody or is it more likely that because this was brian albert's house they handled things differently than they normally would it's also possible yeah absolutely and and let me ask you another question because i know you don't live in massachusetts but you're familiar with law enforcement there we've got uh michael proctor we haven't talked about too much but he's's going to be the lead investigator. Yeah, he's with MSP. He's a Massachusetts State Police detective.

That's a pretty coveted position. Mass State Police is, well, before the Karen Reed thing, I mean, they were very highly regarded. One of the best state police departments in the country. Probably have to know your shit to be on there, right? State police in general is supposed to be the cream of the crop in every state, including Rhode Island. You know, they're the best of the best. So arguably, you probably wouldn't say that Michael Proctor or any Massachusetts State Police detective would be one of those people

that just was an idiot and didn't know their shit. Because how would you get that position? No, you got to earn your stripes. You do. All right. So now Canton Fire and the EMS arrive. They take over resuscitative efforts on John. Lead paramedic Anthony Flamati would testify about John's injury. He said that John had a low body temperature that would put him in the extreme hypothermia range. He said John did

not appear to be dressed for the weather, right? John had cuts to his right arm. He had a distended abdomen that didn't appear to have external signs of trauma. Flamati also mentioned that John's pupils were dilated about four millimeters. They were non-reactive and there was dried blood in several places on his body. Flamati said he tried to get some info from Karen so that he could figure out how to treat John. Basically like, hey, do you know what happened here? That way he knew what kind of efforts to put in. And he said

the only response he got from her was the repeated statement of I hit him I hit him I hit him however on cross-examination Alan Jackson one of Karen's defense attorneys once again called into question how much we can trust Flamati's testimony since he had not included Karen making the statement in his initial report this is starting to become a pattern not only did he not include this in his initial report but when he transferred John to the care of the hospital staff he didn't tell them either which you know if Karen is saying I hit him I hit him you'd think that flamati would follow this up with some

clarifying questions like you hit him how you hit him that Flamati would follow this up with some clarifying questions. Like, you hit him how? You hit him with a car? You got in an argument last night? You hit him with your fist? How did you hit him? How do we treat him? He does not ask those follow-up questions. He does not put her statements in his report. And when he brings John to the hospital, you know, since he claims he was asking these questions of Karen so that he could figure out how to treat John's wounds, he doesn't say anything to the hospital staff either, allegedly. Like, hey, he was potentially hit by a car. Yes. Something worth noting.

Something worth noting. Now, during his testimony, Flamati said that he did tell them, but that documentation for EMTs ends at transfer of patient care. According to his memory, he did remember relaying that information to the doctors and nurses. But we're going to see in his cross-examination, maybe that's not so true. Testified at the grand jury that you wanted, once you got to the hospital, you wanted to be as quote-unquote helpful as possible when you handed over the patient, correct? Correct. You said you actually stayed at Good Samaritan for an additional 10 to 20 minutes,

which is your habit in cases like this, because you wanted to be quote unquote an asset to the medical intervention team, correct? Correct. That team includes the doctors and nurses that were trying to provide life-saving services to Mr. O'Keefe. Correct. But you never relayed to a single doctor or a single nurse a single word about a woman who said, I hit him, did you? The documentation for us ends at transfer of patient care.

As far as my memory, I do remember relaying that information to the doctors and nurses. You do? Yes. Have you ever testified about that? Never been asked about that. Oh, nobody ever asked you, so you didn't tell anybody? In the court setting, no. Testified in front of a grand jury, didn't you? Yes. Mr. Lally asked you a bunch of questions. Yes. During the course of that conversation that was under oath, did you ever disclose that you told the doctors and the nurses that you heard a woman say, I hit him? I recall telling the doctors and nurses

that there is a question of that the patient was hit by a vehicle or we don't know, is what I directly said to the doctors and nurses you directly told the doctors and nurses that there was a question about whether or not he was hit by a vehicle right yes have you ever said that in any context either to the police or in a grand jury before today? I don't recall. You were asked a bunch of questions yesterday,

the day before yesterday and this morning by Mr. Lally. Yes. Did you say it on your direct examination? I wasn't asked that question. Ah, so since Mr. Lally didn't ask you, you just left it out that you told the doctors, the medical professionals, that in fact you described that this patient was likely hit by a car. Objection, Your Honor. Sustained.

You wrote a report as well, correct? Yes. We talked a little bit about that report. There's an area in the report for a narrative. Yes. We've talked a little bit about that report. There's an area in the report for a narrative. Yes. About your observations, your experiences with this patient, correct? Correct. Your job as a lead paramedic is to be as detailed as possible, correct? Correct.

You want to provide and impart the most detail you possibly can about an incident to assist in medical intervention correct correct take a look at page three of five of your report yes you see that narrative area i do can you point to that portion of your report where you indicate that my client said the words i hit him it doesn't say that. Can you point to that report, the portion of your report, where you indicate that you told the doctors and nurses that she said, I hit him? It doesn't say that. Can you point to that portion of your report, where you indicate that your concern for the patient was that he had been hit by a car?

It doesn't say that. You indicated on direct examination that you were, quote-unquote, looking for anything that we could pass on to the emergency room that would assist. Yes. I think it might have been an assistance to the emergency room personnel to indicate that you believe this person had been hit by a car.

Objection. Sustained. Do you believe that that would have been an important piece of information to pass on to the emergency room assistants? Objection. I'll let him have that. It would have been important, yes. And it's nowhere in your reports, correct? It's not in the reports, no.

You didn't tell that to the police when you were interviewed eight days later? I was not asked about how or what I was. My question is, did you tell the police eight days later, or nine days later when you were interviewed? And you didn't tell the grand jury that, correct? No. And you didn't mention that on direct examination in front of these jurors, did you? You know, you're not going to like it.

But, I mean, listen, to me, being in that position, I feel like there's a real strong possibility this guy could be telling the truth, but the defense is focusing on a specific angle. So we write a report, and our reports as police officers are for court purposes. A lot of the times EMTs, my brother's a firefighter. Uh, their reports are after the fact where they're writing those reports. And normally those reports are internal reports that are there to document your, what you did on that call. And so if he's saying in one breath, I told the doctors and nurses when I got there, but also saying I didn't write it in the report. They're two different things. The lawyer asked him at one point, would you think that information would be important for the people at the hospital who are assisting him?

He should have said, yeah, that's why I told him. But instead, he just answered the question directly and said, no, it's not in the narrative. My assumption is that that narrative is the internal report that's written on their computers in the back of the bus or the back of the rescue truck, you would call it, right? That's what my observation of that was. And it's also possible he's lying, right? That's where we're going with it. But I think there's a world that the defense attorney was driving home the fact that he had never mentioned it before. And in that vein, it is a problem because that is something that you should bring up. If you know somebody is going to be questioning you,

even if it's direct, when you're getting briefed at the beginning, that might be something that was worth mentioning to Lally. Like, hey, you may want to ask me about this because this is something that I heard. And I would also say, I'm wondering if the doctors or nurses were interviewed or put on the stand at this trial,

because you could easily find out who was working that night. And that EMT would be able to go back and say, these are the people that I told to see if he's lying or not. Okay. So he doesn't write it in the narrative section of the report. Okay. He doesn't tell it to lead investigator, Michael Proctor, when he's interviewed a week later. So this is a different thing now. This is not your report anymore. Now you're being interviewed as a potential witness. Don't you think that would have come up then?

That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. It should have came up. But this guy also seems like a dumbass, if I'm being honest. No, I think he seems like he's in the spotlight and he doesn't want to say anything that's going to catch him up. I think that's what he seems like to me. He's being very careful.

And then you testify in front of the grand jury. You do not bring it up. He says, well, I wasn't asked. How the hell could you be asked about it when you didn't tell anybody about it? Well, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, he's got it. He's got to be briefed on it. But I mean, it's one of those.

I see what the defense is doing here. I'm just going to keep it 100%. It's the angle you're going with that, you know, this is something. But I would push back and say if Michael Proctor's in on all of it, that would be the time where Michael Proctor would give a wink and a nod and say, you heard her say I hit him, right? And so that kind of contradicts the whole, the whole theory of this is like an inside thing. They're all in on it. I truthfully am listening to that statement and the defense

is right. The way they're pushing back on them, everything they're saying. No, because by that time, nobody had really, it wasn't in anybody's report. So this could have been a narrative that was created later that then everybody who was involved was asked to sort of fall in line with. I'm acknowledging that, but I'm also giving the other side where it's, like I just said, the question I would have for you and everybody else, this guy is now saying, I told people at the hospital that she said I hit him with a car very easily. Now, in hindsight, they can't do this right now because they're in the middle of a trial. But I would think at that point, prosecutors would have went to the hospital and said,

who was working that night? And who did you tell? Because that's critical. Now, if you have doctors and nurses corroborating your statement, that makes it more compelling. Maybe the prosecutors did do that and there was nobody to corroborate their statement. I could tell you who didn't do it. The defense? You got it. Yeah. But I mean, why would they, right? Once again, the burden of proof is not on them. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm just telling, I'm looking for the truth. So I actually am glad you said that because the prosecution could have easily done that to support his statement. So they either didn't, which why the hell wouldn't you? Or B, they did, could find nobody to cooperate his statement and they were just hoping that it

didn't get brought up. Yeah. I don't know. I don't even know how it works. Could they bring it in after with the discovery already been being presented? Could they go back and add witnesses? I don't know. I don't know. I guess he should have brought it up during the grand jury or yeah. I mean, I keep saying it at minimum. It's just a stupidity. I still feel like as the prosecution, even if this, this wasn't an issue, you still would have wanted to question the medical staff that were on, on, you know, on a shift when John came in. Right. And what did the MMT say? Usually they give you a brief verbal synopsis hey listen just brought one in that you know the doctors in the emergency room they're not looking at a report they're going what happened what do we have and you know that's the

EMT's job to relay that information all right so clearly he didn't do that another paramedic on the scene Matthew Kelly he admitted he had not heard Karen utter the statement, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, while on the scene. Even though he and the other paramedics were all working on John, they were close together at the scene, he just heard her asking, like, is John dead? John's dead. What's going on? You know, she was frantic. Let's take our last break. We'll be right back. Now we have Canton firefighter, EMT Katie McLaughlin, and she would

later be interviewed by Massachusetts State Troopers Proctor and Bukinick. And she said that she had seen trauma to John's face and eye area, as well as vomit in his mouth. She also claimed that when she asked Karen Reed if Karen knew how John had gotten injured, Karen looked at her friends and said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Now, this claim and testimony would later be called into question due to Katie McLaughlin's relationship with Caitlin Albert, the daughter of Brian Albert, whose home John was found dead in front of. Who's McLaughlin, who's Caitlin Albert?

I went to high school with somebody named Caitlin Albert. Somebody named Caitlin Albert? I went to high school with somebody named Caitlin Albert. So do you know Caitlin Albert? I do. Are you friends with Caitlin Albert? I do. Are you friends with Caitlin Albert? I would say more acquaintances, not close friends. How do you describe an acquaintance? I would say that we have mutual friends,

so we might see each other occasionally because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly. Is this your dad? I don't know. Any objections? Do you know who her family is? Objection. Sustained. May we approach the panel? Yes. Since Katie McLaughlin testified on Thursday and Friday,

we received a deluge of photographs that put her with Caitlin Albert on many different occasions after they graduated high school we received information from their high school yearbook that they were more than just acquaintances in high school they were teammates on the track team and even after I sent that email with the photographs that I attached to it. Late last night, we received another photo where Katie McLaughlin and Caitlin Albert are standing next to each other in a photo at a baby shower in June of 2021, about eight months before John O'Keefe's death. It's very clear to us that Katie McLaughlin perjured herself. And I wanted to discuss the issue of the admissibility of not only the photographs

that we're now providing that we just received over the weekend, but I also want to resurrect the admissibility of H, I, J, and K for identification. And I think a discussion of this, Your Honor, needs to start with what court orders are currently in place. The leading case with regard to the provision of reciprocal discovery when the defense is offering... So you want to get back to Rule 14, the Rule 14 issue? It is a Rule 14 issue. Okay.

That's supplemented by... Hold on one second. So on top of that, we can discuss this later. I'd like to get the trial started. That's fine, Your Honor. We just, my belief, my strong belief is that we need to determine this today. And the reason is that Caitlinbert is coming up as a witness for the commonwealth um she faces the same areas of cross-examination that katie mclaughlin

faced and these photos are relevant to her cross-examination okay so first of all this judge beverly canone i've got issues with her too because she sustains objections from the prosecution that she really shouldn't like when katie mLaughlin was asked, do you know who Caitlin Albert's family is? And the prosecution's like, objection. And the judge is like, sustained. Why? Why? You asked her a valid question.

I wanted to hear the answer to that. But Katie claimed she didn't know who Caitlin's family was. This is a lie. They went to high school together. They were on the track team together. Eight months before John O'Keefe died, they're at a baby shower together. And even from the beginning

of Katie McLaughlin's testimony, when he's like, who's Caitlin Albert? And she's like, I went to school with a Caitlin Albert. Like, girl, you know exactly what's happening. You know what he's asking you. Why are you being so elusive? Y'all are looking so suspicious that if you're not guilty of anything,

you're certainly doing a good job of making it seem like you are. Yeah, I would have disowned it. I don't know why she didn't disown it. Well, because she doesn't- The small community, I would have said it. Because she doesn't want to show that there is an actual conflict of interest. To your point, by trying to pretend like, I know a Katie Albert, that's a problem. That you should have just came right out and said it. Yeah, I know who that is. And then that's more believable. So here's another thing that I just found out this morning, actually. And once again, this is my research and what I'm figuring out. It's constantly evolving. So apparently,

that night, the night before at the Alberts house, Brian's son, Brian Albert Jr. was celebrating his 23rd birthday. And there was a bunch of his friends there. And one of the girls who was in the house that night was the daughter of the fire chief. Now, I don't know which girl it is. I've got to look more into it. And I have to even make sure it's true because this is just what I found out this morning. But Katie McLaughlin was an EMT with the Canton Fire Department. The daughter of the fire chief is inside the house. This is all a very tight knit sort of group of people. Yeah, for sure. You can see they're all they're all interconnected. Yes. So that's that's concerning. Now, once again, not only does Katie say that she

heard Karen make this statement, she claims that it happened in front of a police officer. But that statement, I hit him, I hit him, that all these people are claiming Karen made that night or that morning, that statement doesn't appear in any reports, not even in the police reports. And according to Katie McLaughlin, Karen made the statement in front of a police officer. What do I always say to you? What our motto wait which motto police motto if it's not in the report it didn't happen oh you never you never i never said that to you before no but you have but damn that the fact that you would just kind of say that is you saying karen reed never made that statement

no what i'm saying is if it's not in the report, it didn't happen. It's not in any reports, Derek. That's the problem. And I told my guys that all the time. I don't care what you saw. If it's not in the report, it didn't happen according to the courts. So you got to make sure you document it. And it's also on the supervisors, you know, but clearly that didn't happen. If it was said, it's not in the reports. And therefore you have this type of situation at trial where the defense has eaten your lunch. And so Karen's over here standing outside the Albert home, standing over the body of John, telling everybody and their damn mother, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him.

All these people hear it. What do we have? Like six people? Yeah. Like six people. And none of them find it important enough to place in a report? Yeah. Come on.

Well, some of them are not even professionals. We're talking friends as well. Jen and Kelly. They heard it as well. Didn't they say that she said I hit him as well to them? Yeah. But I mean, they also are relaying this to police officers. Jen McCabe told the police officer.

Oh, no, I'm not. I'm saying it should be in the report. I'm just saying now we're up to like two, I would say like four or five people that heard this. Right. Yeah. Well, if you're including Jen and Carrie, then, yeah, we've got not Kelly. I'm sorry. You're right.

We got Katie McLaughlin. We got the one EMT who clearly was trying not to perjure himself on the stand. Forget his name. We've got the police officer. We've got, yeah, that's Jen and Carrie. Yeah. So like five. It's crazy. So it's not going to appear in any reports. This claim only makes its appearance later throughout the investigation, grand jury, and then the trial, like sporadically. So John's body was located about 30 feet from the Alberts' home. He was wearing the same clothing he'd been wearing

when he was seen on surveillance video earlier that night at the bars. The autopsy was performed on January 31st by Dr. Irene Scordibello of the ME's office, and she ruled his cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia. John arrived at the hospital with his body temperature in the low 80s, and his pancreas was dark red in color, indicating that hypothermia was a contributing factor to his death. But the blunt force trauma had occurred before hypothermia set in. There was a laceration to the back of John's head, approximately two inches in length, along with multiple skull fractures that had resulted in brain bleeds. Dr. Scordibello also observed that John had two swollen black eyes, a small cut about his right eye, a cut to the left side of his nose, and several abrasions on his right forearm.

John O'Keefe would be pronounced dead at Good Samaritan Hospital at 7.59 a.m., and when Troopers Proctor and Buchanick viewed his body at the hospital, they both observed six bloody lacerations of varying lengths on his right arm. They noted in their reports that these cuts extended from his forearm to his bicep. Now, the prosecution is going to say that these cuts were from the glass that John was holding, and they cut his arm when he got hit. The defense is going to say these cuts were made when he was attacked by a German shepherd inside the house. Good old Chloe. Troopers Proctor and Buchanek also noted in their reports that both of John's eyes were swollen shut and blue in color. And they both

made a note in their reports that John's boxer shorts, which were in a pile of other clothes on the floor, were saturated with blood and vomit., this is weird. Saturated with blood and vomit. In my opinion, if he got hit by a car, he's going to fly up in the air, he's going to fall down, right? And he's going to be knocked out. And this is why he's unconscious. And then the hypothermia sets in. How is he vomiting to the point where it's ending up as boxer shorts? That sounds like something that would happen if you were standing upright and vomiting, not if you were laying down and vomiting. Yeah. Could he have been, could he have tried to get up, maybe stood up for a couple minutes, threw up and then lay back down?

I agree with you. It seems like the physics would take hold there and it would just be out the side of his mouth on the sidewalk. But the injuries itself, they just seems like pretty significant for someone who was hit by a car in reverse, but they could have been hit and then flew to, like you said, hit something else. They could have hit a wall or whatever. I don't know what's in that immediate area where he could have. Nothing really. There's a flagpole, but he wasn't close enough. No, he wasn't close enough. No. Yeah. No, it's a lot of injuries. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. And there was only one shoe present with John's other clothes, He wasn't close enough. No, he wasn't close enough. No. Yeah. No, it's a lot of injuries.

And there was only one shoe present with John's other clothes, a black Nike sneaker. So the EMTs. No other shoe was ever found. They did find it several days later. Where was it? They found it by where his body was found. So the EMTs. If you told me it was in Brian's house, then I'm leaving. How would anybody know if it was Brian's house?

Nobody searched Brian's house. I'm just saying. Could have been. Could was in brian's house then i'm leaving how would anybody know if it was brian's house nobody searched brian's house i'm just saying if the shit i would could have been could have been in brian's house and then it got thrown out later you know because it wasn't found during the first sweep but you know you're from you you get more snow than me you know they used we're going to talk about they used a leaf blower to blow the snow away. They found shards of clear glass, but not red rear taillights, pieces of plastic, some of them pretty large, by the way, not pieces of red plastic, not a black Nike shoe. Don't you think those things would stand out in the white snow more than clear glass from a cocktail glass? So I know you're not trying to do this. You just can't help yourself. So you clearly believe at this point,

I mean, you just got to call it what it is. Like we're beating around the bush. You believe all of this was planted. I don't know what to believe. I'm trying to find, I'm finding it hard to believe. I'm just saying, that's what you're inferring. Everything was planted there. I'm not inferring anything. That's what the defense infers.

I am looking at how the evidence was discovered, and I'm trying to find a logical way of how you would find clear glass, but not red plastic from a taillight and not a shoe, a size 12 black Nike man's shoe. The clear glass was found on the ground, not just on her bumper. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. So state of his boxer shorts is weird. The cuts to his arm, also weird. That'll come into play later. So put a pin in that. At 9.08 AM, Karen Reed's blood was drawn at the hospital and her blood had a reading of 93 milligrams slash DL. What does DL stand for? No clue. No clue. Okay. So Nicholas Roberts, a forensic taxologist from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, he performed both a serum conversion and a retrograde extrapolation on this reading. And he would testify that he believed that Karen Reed's BAC at that time that her blood was drawn was between 0.07 and 0.08%, which meant that around 1245 that morning, her BAC would have been somewhere between 0.13 and 0.29%. So like pretty drunk. Okay. Smashed. Yep. Absolutely. So when the EMTs removed John's body in order to put him in the ambulance

and transport him to the hospital, his phone, his cell phone was under his body and it was also reported that under his body, the grass could be seen. So this is another thing people point out and they're like, oh, well. He was there before the snow. Or he was still warm when he laid down and the snow under his body melted.

Yeah. Okay, so that, but that is a great, let's talk about that for a second. Because that's this case and a lot of other cases. Think about what we just said. And it's important. I just said something just that the first thing that came to my brain, which was, oh, grass underneath him. You know, that means you move something that was there before the snow started. Right. Commonsensical. But then you just said something where it's like, no, or it could be that he was so warm and he was still alive that he melted the snow below him. Both can be true. And depending on where you are in this case, that's the one you're going to go

with. And I only say that because no matter what I say or what you say, there's an alternate angle and it's going to explain how the narrative that one person believes in is not true and the one that they believe in is true. And that is the story of a lot of these cases. What does this do in a trial? It's not about what's true. It creates doubt. Yeah. No, the defense is just trying to create doubt. What story is the jury going to believe? Yep. There's a ship going down this, you know, this body of water. The defense's job is to poke holes in that ship. It's all they're supposed to

do. And to be fair, neither of those things could be true. It could be something else entirely. Of course. Of course. But these are the two stories that the jury's being presented with. Which one are they more likely to believe? Well, it would align with theories, right? If it's the theory that he was there before the snow started, it gives more credence to the idea that maybe Karen accidentally did it or didn't do it at all. Now, if it's later, then it gives more credence to the fact that he was in the party for multiple hours. So that's what I'm saying.

We're giving two scenarios, but what we're really doing is supporting two theories. Dude, especially if he had his cell phone. Like if he was alive, let's say she hit him and then they're going to say, oh, well, he was alive for like two more hours before he died. He had a cell phone. Why wouldn't he have gotten his cell phone? He was, I would think at that time, 1237, we said 1242, he's already in the condition that he's in. Yes. So now this is, we're coming, the episode's getting long, but we got to talk about the red solo cups before we go. So this is the last thing we're coming. The episode's getting long, but we got to talk about the Red Solo Cups before we go. So this is the last thing we're going to cover.

OK, I need to know about the Red Solo Cups because I need you to know. I need to know because I can't keep pretending to not look it up. I got to know. OK, so after John's body was removed, Lieutenant Paul Gallagher, Sergeant Michael Lank and Sergeant Sean Good of the Canton Police began searching for evidence in the snow in the immediate area around where John's body had been found. There they discovered a broken cocktail glass, and they also took samples from the snow where a red substance, which looked like blood, was found. And they always say it looked like blood. That's what they say, but it was blood, obviously. However, the way the blood samples were collected was unorthodox, to say the least, and would later obviously be called into question.

Sergeant Michael Lang of the Canton Police would later testify about his methods in court. And I cannot wait to hear Derek's take on this one because he's been trying to be fair. I really literally don't know how you could be fair about this. Well, you know, you're not setting I mean, you're serving as a defense right now, but okay, let's play this clip. Here's what we have to say. I stood by and observed while Lieutenant Gallagher used a leaf blower to try to clear the top layers of snow off of the scene. The purpose behind the leaf blower was to just take the top layers of snow off to reveal what was underneath and try

to preserve any potential evidence. Ultimately, we were able to see what appeared to be blood drops in the snow as well as a drinking glass, cocktail glass. Drinking glass was secured into an evidence bag and the blood drops were secured into six uh solo cups and um why why were they secured into six solo cups we did the best that we could with the situation with the weather and deteriorating situation uh lieutenant gallher was able to attain the solo cups from lieutenant kelleher's house which was diagonally across the street they were secured just in reference to the solo cups beyond sort of just

putting them into solo cups what if anything else did you or the other officers do to secure those those items specifically they were secured into a brown evidence back and following them being secured where where did they go from that they were then excuse me they were then placed into my uh truck at that point my uh police truck that i was using that day and ultimately transported back to the police and ultimately transported back to the police station and transported back to the police station by me i do want to talk for a second just a brief second about um setting up a crime scene outdoors you indicated that the crime scene was relatively secure as your word was relatively secure because there were patrol cars or cruisers sort of around the perimeter of the yard.

Is that right? That's correct. The crime scene tape wasn't working because it was windy? Crime scene tape was up, but it was being blown all over the place. Okay. And, of course, Canton PD has the ability to go get steaks and just hammer some steaks into the dirt if you wish to. No. You don't have steaks at Kenton PD?

No. You don't have any steaks? E-S-T-A-K-E-S. I know what a steak is. No, we don't have any. Kenton PD doesn't have those? No. So if crime scene tape was blown down, that was just sort of a let's give up on it?

Wasn't doing any good? No. In your mind, it was futile? The crime scene tape was futile, yes. It was left up until we made the determination to take it down, but it wasn't really doing its job. Alright. And once the scene was cleared, all those cruisers that were protecting that crime scene were now gone, right? Yes. And all the cruisers that were protecting that crime scene were now gone, right?

Yes. And all the cruisers were gone by about 7.50 in the morning, 7.50, 7.55. Yes. So before 8 a.m., that crime scene was completely open. I'm sorry, after 8 a.m., that crime scene was completely open. Yes. Unsecured. Yes.

And available to anybody who wanted access to it. Correct. Who literally, physically leaned down and scooped that blood up? Me. And that was done in a plastic solo cup that we've heard a little bit about.

Yes. You're aware that those solo cups are unsealed? I believe Lieutenant Gallagher got them out of a sealed package. When I say unsealed, I mean they don't have a lid on them. They're not airtight containers. Correct. So once you scoop up the snow and the dirt and the debris and the grass and everything else, along with the blood, they're just open to the air.

Yeah, there was snow and blood. There was no dirt and debris in the glass that I can recall. You're sure about that? There's no dirt and snow? I didn't observe any, no. You didn't observe any dirt and snow? You don't think there's dirt and snow? I didn't observe any dirt in the glass.

Excuse me, the cup. Okay. It certainly wasn't a sterile cup. No. It certainly wasn't a sterile cup. No. It certainly wasn't a crime scene cup. No. You're aware that the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab warns against collecting any biological material in anything made of plastic, correct? Are you aware of that?

No. When you scooped up the blood, did you videotape that process so we know exactly which blood stain was scooped up from where? I don't recall if it was videotaped, but we did not document which scoop went in which cup. Okay. So if there's multiple contributors to blood, sorry, multiple contributors of the blood, we sort of have no idea which blood drop belonged to whom, correct? Objection. Once these unsealed cups were in your

possession, what did you do with them the cups were placed into the Toyota Tundra that I was driving that day and ultimately returned back to the police station okay and you talked a little bit about the process once you return back to the station they were put in a brown evidence bag correct yes and ultimately when you log these items into the, tell me the name of it again, temporary evidence? Temporary, excuse me, the blood was put in temporary evidence refrigerator.

OK, inside the evidence bag. Pups are still inside the evidence bag, and it's logged in. I don't recall that. I'm not sure if I took them out or not. I don't recall. You indicated that there's an item number or property number that's assigned to them. Yes.

There is generated a seal or a label to go on the evidence that's being stored, correct? It should, yes. And the bag is sealed. The evidence bag is sealed like this red tape that we see on this thing, correct? When possible, there are certain items that can't be bagged, and sometimes you create a tag and attach it to a tag. Right, but if it's a brown paper bag that's an evidence bag, you certainly just fold over the edge of it and just put a red evidence seal on it

to make sure that that's secure and not tampered with, correct? That would be one way to do it, yes. I don't recall if I left them in the bag or took them out of the bag. I don't recall. If you left them in the bag, you likely would have, if you're booking them into evidence, you likely would have used some red crime scene, not crime scene tape, evidence tape. If I had left them in the bag, I would have put the property label right on the bag. So everybody could see it? Yes. Okay, it's an evidence bag with important evidence in it.

Don't mess with it. It's secure, correct? Yes. Can we have tab 23? Do you see that white rag? Yes. Sorry? Yes.

Okay. Sorry. Do you see a bag sitting next to it? I do. Doesn't look like an evidence bag, does it? No, it looks like a stop and shop bag. Actually, it looks like an evidence bag. It just doesn't say Canton Police on it. It says stop and shop, but it does look like an evidence bag. It's the same thing. That's a grocery bag. It is. And that's exactly what our evidence bag looked like,

so that's what I thought it was at first. Right right because it doesn't say anything about evidence on it it says stop and shop correct correct what do you think is in that bag i'm sorry stop and shop bag i'm not sure you're aware when these pictures were taken i could tell that it's the canton police sally port so it's it's some point after the state police had seized the vehicle. And at some point after you had brought the Solo Cups back to the station? Correct. As a matter of fact, these were taken on February 1st. Do you recognize that? It appears to be Solo C cups with substance inside.

Are those just any solo cups or the solo cups that you took back to the station from 34th Air Force? I mean, I couldn't say definitively, but it certainly looks like it. It appears that they have red liquid material floating in the bottom. Yes. It appears to they have red liquid material floating in the bottom? Yes. It appears to be blood? The top three I can see. Yeah, the only two I see that don't have it are the bottom two left.

Okay. And do you see somebody with gloved hands opening that bag, same bag, little white rag right there? I do. Okay. Does that appear to be the same six solo cups? That you just showed me in the previous slide? Yes. Yes.

Are those the same six solo cups that you gathered at the scene at 34 Fairview and ultimately brought back to Canton PD? They certainly appear like they are, but I can't say definitively. And the reason you can't say definitively, Lieutenant, is because there is no label on this bag is there not on that side of it no there is no property number on this bag is there not on the side that's visible to me no there's no evidence tape on this bag is there not on the side that's visible to me no well let's look at the other photographs are you tell well we do that, are you suggesting that all of that material is on the other side of this bag? I don't know.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you I don't know. Okay. Looking at it from the top, does it appear anywhere from that vantage point that there is evidence tape that's ever been put on that bag, that's ever been secured? I wouldn't be able to tell you that. that there's evidence tape that's ever been put on that bag, that has ever been secured? I wouldn't be able to tell you that. Well, one of the ways that you can tell that evidence tape has been put on an item

is because when the evidence tape is placed on it, it's completely sealed. And if, in fact, that seal is ever broken, it's not torn off, it's cut, and there's initials put on, correct? Objection. Sustained. have you ever used evidence tape before to steal anything i'm sure i have i don't recall off the top of my head

how long have you been a detective i'm sorry how long were you a detective when you were detected i was a detective for 11 months as a sergeant and then i was a detective for 11 months as a sergeant, and then I was a detective for 15 months back in 2011-12. And in your experience, and how long have you been a police officer? Over 24 years. So in your 24 years of experience and over a year as a detective, you can't remember if you've ever used evidence sealing tape? As I said, I'm sure I have. I just can't recall one off the top of my head. If you believe, if you recall using it at all, isn't the protocol that when evidence sealing tape is used to seal an item of evidence, when it's removed, it's not torn off, it's cut, and then new sealing tape is put over it with an initial and a date, correct? Jackson.

Do you know the answer to that? I don't. Okay, next question. Thank you. the answer to that? I don't. Okay, next question. Thank you. All right, so defend this, Derek. Not going to defend it, but we're going to have a little show and tell today on our YouTube version

for anybody who's watching right now. I haven't been a police officer since 2017. I've been even longer since I was in detectives. I was in detectives for four years. And even now, in my podcast studio, as we speak, I have a couple items that I would like to show to you. First item being evidence tape. Oh, look at that. Do you know what evidence tape is, Detective Levasseur? Have you ever used evidence tape? But even more so. So this is evidence tape and it is exactly like the defense attorney

described this type of tape. Once you put it on there, it doesn't come off. You have to cut through it to open it up, which is how you'll know it's no longer sealed. But I got more just in case. And again, I'm not on the job anymore. We also have a different type of evidence tape. If it's a smaller, something like a smaller item, like maybe this vial that I still carry that I would put blood in. Not a red solo cup, you mean? No. You mean a sealed, sterile? Yep.

I'd put this in a sealed container with evidence tape. And then also, if you're really good at your job, you keep a roll of the biohazard tape with you as well to wrap around it. And then we have what's called gloves. We have also, if you know, if you're unable to put something on this because it's a little difficult, we have evidence tags. Look at that. It says evidence right on it. So, you know, we're prepared over here in Lavasser Studios. Wait, hold on. Do you have stakes? I know what a stake is. That was the one good line he had. S-T-A-K-E-S. taught that in some scenarios you have to improvise, right? Because time is of the essence. So like an example I always give is you always want to have a scale on you, basically a ruler.

We just call it a scale. If you don't have a scale, because sometimes that can get misplaced, use your flashlight or you use something of reference. When you mean scale, you don't mean a weight scale. You mean this is how far this blood drop is from this blood drop. This is how far this blood drop is from the body. It's stupid, but sometimes the scales are like L-shaped, you know? So you'll use that in your photograph, but sometimes you don't have one. So you'll use something that you can use later, like a point of reference, like if I had, if I only had my cell phone, I would put my cell phone there to give you an idea of the size. That is a rare circumstance, but these items that I'm describing

to you, when I was in detectives and we were on call, we always, inside our vehicle, and I have the bag over there, that's where I pulled this out of, where we had these items at the ready for any call. If we got called out to a scene, we had these items because they are critical in any investigation. And it's very apparent to me that this officer was not prepared for duty that day. I don't remember if I had evidence tape in my duty bag as a patrolman, but minimum the detective that shows up, he should have all these items like I have here. So you have a couple issues you have. I also have an issue with the leaf blower too, to a certain degree, because when

you're using a leaf blower, obviously you're not a professional leaf blower. So you potentially are blowing away evidence as well. Like he could have blew the shoe further down the road. We don't know. Leaf blowers are pretty strong. They're pretty powerful. Yeah. And so if he was out in the middle of the woods and he had trekked into the woods for like an hour and the, you know, the bags back at the car and he wasn't able to get it in there, I could see this justification, but you're right next to the car. The items should have been in the car for you to utilize. The fact that he's going across the street using solo cups that we don't know if they were used or not used at minimum, you have cross-contamination, you have a chain of custody

issue. And when we talk about creating doubt about it when he couldn't remember whether or not he sealed the bag or even more so if he's used evidence tape in the past it was uh not a good day for him hold on a second he kept saying i put in an evidence bag you didn't put in an evidence bag dude you put in a freaking stop and shop bag. No, no. I got to look.

Well, maybe I'm confused. No, trust me. It's a stop and shop bag. And that is this dude, Link. He's like, but it looks exactly like evidence bags. So even the paper bag? Because I thought the Sally bag wasn't an evidence bag. It was a grocery bag.

Okay. So the paper. Okay. So I missed that because I was thinking about it as two different things. I thought the paper bag or the stop and shop bag. Shout out stop and shop. Love stop and shop. This is not a paid advertisement, but we love stop and shop over here.

Do you have stop and shop where you are? Never heard of it. Oh, love stop and shop. Shout out to Rhode Island mass people. No, love stop and shop. Staple. Anyways, I thought in the Sally Port, you know what the sally port is right i would assume it's like the place where they tow cars i don't know okay yeah sally port no this is good because a lot of people

wouldn't know so basically when you arrest someone it's usually one or two garage bays you pull in and it's a secured bay the door will shut behind you and then the other door there's usually a little locker there where the officer will take off their gun, put it into the locker with a key. And then at that point you can either get buzzed in or, um, let in by someone. What it does is it creates like a, they call it a man trap where if you, if you're pulling a prisoner out of the Sally port, they can't escape, right? They can't run out of the garage cause it's already locked, but they also can't run into the police station because of that secure door there. So it's basically the gray area before you go into the holding area or you go into the station.

And a lot of times if you're going to process a car in inclement weather, you'll bring the car in there because it's a controlled area that's on camera, that's secured. So the entire vehicle is now part of evidence and can be monitored at all times. So we'll usually put a sign on the door outside the Sally port for patrolmen saying, evidence in here, vehicle in here, do not enter. So those are all things you got to do.

But yeah, I mean, it's just a cluster. I don't know what else to say. So red solo cups, right? Not covered, not sealed. Yeah, it's a problem. Stop and shop bag, not an evidence bag. And you can hear yeah not covered not sealed yeah it's it's yeah stop and shop bag not an evidence bag and you can hear him he's like it's the same thing no he looked like he looked like a moron the defense attorney's like it's not the same thing it's a grocery bag i was cringing not only that i grabbed all these items these these things these samples if you can

even call them that at this point were collected on jan January 29th. This picture was taken on February 1st by Karen Reed's car. Those red Solo cups with the blood samples are sitting next to the car in the garage in that bag still. Yeah, it's a problem. They do not have evidence tape on them. They were not put into refrigerated storage, temporary storage, as he claims. I mean, if they were, why would they be taken out and then put next to the car? It's literally a paper bag with some cups in there that has now water from the snow

melting and blood. And whatever happened with this stuff, right? This is ridiculous. That's two days later. Yeah. No, it's bad. And I keep saying the spectrum, right? It could be just pure incompetence or it could be something more nefarious. And that's what we're trying to go through now, because I have to say, and you know, did you follow,

follow policy and procedure? If you didn't, we're going to hold you accountable and you could be responsible for this case going in the trash can just because you're an idiot. So that's what their job is, you know, and, and that's, you have a lot here that, um, just brings into too many questions. But it seems like it's, it was handled so badly that it was like intentionally handled badly. Right. So yes, but also it's almost like the same thing I said about Karen earlier, where it's almost so obvious that it's too obvious.

Does that make sense? Like you would think she was making all these weird admissions. Yeah. It's just like, it's so obvious that it would be a cover-up that is it a cover-up that's the question like it's so many there's so many red flags that like you would think that if this was a calculated cover-up by investigators who do this type of work all the time they would leave less of a paper trail

but there's just constant examples of, of just mistake after mistake after mistake. Yes. It's horrendous. And I mean, once again, it will be on sale on the crime weekly podcast website. If you'd like it,

I'm just kidding. You know, you know who should buy it? Lank Sergeant Lank. He needs some, I don't know. He can't often bring props on the show. This might be a first.

He can't remember if he's ever used it. Is this a first for us? A prop? No, of course not. I don't know. I don't show. This might be a first. He can't remember if he's ever used it. Is this a first for us? A prop? No, of course not. I don't know. I don't know if we brought a prop before. He doesn't know. Did I ever use evidence tape?

I cannot recall. This is, by the way, this is exactly what you would use. This is exactly what these tubes are for. You have bigger ones too, but you usually use some type of Q-tip or something to scrape it and then obviously gloves on and then you'd put it in here. Then my favorite part, he's like, there's no dirt and debris it was just snow and blood and he's like there's no dirt and debris in the snow no no dirt and snow dirt dirt and debris in the snow and he's like i didn't see any dirt and of course there's freaking dirt and debris in the

snow dude of course there is but it's just like he he was it possible there could be no dirt in the snow if it's like on the top level? They used a leaf blower. You don't think shit was getting all mixed up in there in this hurricane of snow? I mean, I've eaten snow before and didn't taste any dirt. You didn't taste it, but it was there, my friend. Probably. It was there. Probably.

You know what else was probably? I don't want to talk about it. Anyways, listen, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We have barely scratched the surface, if you can believe it. And I mean, we are two and a half hours in right now. And it feels like this was a very jam-packed episode and unbelievable how much is still left to cover. So we're going to wrap up now, but stay tuned.

Stay tuned, folks. Yeah. Everyone, if you like what you're hearing, like, comment, subscribe. Let us know what you think in the comments below. We know this is going to be a popular series. It's already the first episode. It's a popular series. So we're going to keep it impartial. I know Stephanie's on one end. I'm always going to try to stay in the middle. So what he means is

he's going to try to keep it impartial. That was like, we're going to try to keep it partial. He's like, I know Stephanie's very biased, but I'm going to try. I mean, everyone, everyone knows you by now. It's hard to when you're literally faced with the facts of this case. I think I'm doing a pretty good job of balancing it here. I'm literally bringing out props. I'm calling it how I see it. And I'm taking this case at face value. And I'm looking at the players in this case.

I'm not extrapolating it out to the entire state of Massachusetts or law enforcement in general. I'm talking extrapolating it out to the entire state of Massachusetts or law enforcement in general. I'm talking about these officers. I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't agree with how they've handled this so far. And I can understand why people are very upset about this case and why so many people support Karen, because there's a lot of problems with this case, just from a procedural standpoint. And we haven't even gotten too deep into it yet. So, you know, before we keep going, I'm looking forward to hearing more. I know you guys will be weighing down in the comments below and letting us know what you think. And we'll go from there.

We'll take it to the next episode. So without anything else, before we continue on for another 45 minutes, everyone stay safe out there and we will see you next week. Good night. Bye.