Crime Weekly - S3 Ep257: John O'Keefe: Commonwealth vs Karen Read (Part 3)

Episode Date: December 6, 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. LiquidIV.com - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY to get 20% off your first order! 2. SkyLightFrame.com/Weekly - Get $20 off your SkyLight Frame! 3. EatIQBAR.com - Text WEEKLY to 64000 for 20% off ALL IQBAR products and FREE shipping! 4. DraftKings Casino - Sign up with code CRIMEWEEKLY and get $100 instantly in Casino Credits with a $10 wager! 5. Masterclass.com/CrimeWeekly - Get up to 50% off!

Shop the Sherwin-Williams 4-Day Super Sale and get 40% off paints and stains June 6th through the 9th. With prices starting at $29.39, it's the perfect time to transform your space with color. Whether you're looking to revamp your interior or exterior, we have you covered with bold hues, soothing neutrals, and everything in between. Shop the sale online or visit your neighborhood Sherwin-Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales only. Some exclusions apply. See store for details. Hello, everybody.

Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. All right. So today we're diving into part three of the John O'Keefe and Karen Reid case. I know before we get into the episode, there's a few things Derek wants to talk about. So take it away. Yes. If you watch Crime Weekly News, you can probably skip this first part if you haven't. Big announcement. We have funded our second case for criminal coffee. Right now we're calling her Carolyn. And that's a name that we're coming up with. It's not like Preble Penny where there was already a name established. But essentially, it's been a long time coming. I mentioned on Crime Weekly News, there's much more to the story that maybe one day we will share. Maybe we'll do an entire episode on it, but it was very difficult to not only find a case to fund, but find a case where we could track it,

be involved, and hold people accountable to make sure that the money was being utilized properly and that this doesn't just sit on a shelf somewhere for six months. So fortunately, we have some good partners. I want to mention them. Moxie Forensics, shout out to them for being willing to open up this case to not only criminal coffee, but also break investigative group, my company. I have two genealogists, Jeremy and Ryan, who will be working hand in hand with Moxie Forensics on the investigative genetic genealogy portion of this investigation. Intermountain Forensics, that's a familiar name for you guys. They did Preble Penny.

They will be doing the DNA sequencing on this case to see if they can develop a profile that can be examined. Also want to give a shout out to Dr. Julie Feichman from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Science.

She was the one who originally had this case. And a little backstory on Carolyn, just so you guys have it. I'm also going to include some links. If you want to look into it further, again, there's not much out there. It's not like Preble Penny. And that's part of the reason we're covering it, but I'll mention that in a minute. So on September 8th, 1992, the remains of a 20 to 30 year old woman, she was identified as white

Caucasian, was found decomposing in the woods by a passerby. The woman was established to be 5'1 and suffered scoliosis of the lower spine. She had brown hair, which was eight inches in length, and she had an artificial upper front tooth or teeth, which was held in place by a temporary bridge. That's really all we know about this case. And so I'm going to include some links from the Doe Network and NamUs. But basically talking to Dr. Julie Feichman, she was concerned that because there wasn't a lot of information about this case, it would be extremely difficult to get it funded. And I agree with her. There's more popular cases out there that people are pushing for and there's not enough money to go around. So as soon as we heard this, we're like, we're in.

And what's interesting about this case is we don't know much right now. Number one priority is giving Carolyn her name back, her real name. But the circumstances in which she was found decomposing in the woods in Houston is a little odd to just find a body out in the middle of Houston, Texas, deceased. We don't know what happened there. So the number one thing is to figure out who she was, give her her name back, and then find out why she was there and find out who she was last with. This could be something that turns out to be a self-inflicted case. It could be an accident, or it could be something where there's foul play involved. We don't know until we figure out who she was. Once we do, we can determine how she went missing. And then we take it from there.

We do the reverse engineering. So extremely excited about this. This is what criminal coffee is all about. We will keep you updated on it. We're going to update the criminal coffee website with the limited information that we do have. And I will tell you that this case is already underway. We've already cut the check.

It's already been cashed. We donated $5,850 to fund the entire medical lab process. And like I said, we're going to be doing the sequencing and the genetic genealogy with Moxie and Brake. Jeremy and Ryan, they're doing it pro bono. They're not being paid for it. They just want to do it. They want to help out.

So no cost there. And we're hoping we have an update relatively soon. It's already underway. And if we do, you guys will without a doubt be the first to know because we couldn't do it without you. This is why we started Criminal Coffee and we're hoping this becomes more frequent. I know Jeremy who works for you. Stud. He's great. He's awesome. You have a good team there. Ryan's awesome. I did meet Ryan once. Yes, you did. These people that really care and want to donate their time and their energy to helping people like they are the real heroes.

And it was very hard to find a case to fund. We're not sitting here just taking the money. Well, you can donate the money, but they want you to donate the money and just shut up about it. Yes. You know, hey, put on your website, you donated and that's your flag. Listen, we're a little salty about it. So yeah, no, that's your flag. You just donate the money and just shut up about it. Yes. You know, Hey, put on your website, you donated and that's your flag. Listen, we're a little salty about it. So yeah, no, that's your flag. You just donate the money and whether it gets solved or not, that it really doesn't matter. It's just about showing your philanthropic efforts. That's not what it's, we want to solve the cases. We want to solve them. And so we don't want the money to just go into the wind and end up not being utilized properly. So accountability is hard for some people, but Olivia over at Moxie was great. We have more cases we're already talking about. So like I said to her, let's solve, let's give our best effort to this one.

And regardless of the outcome, we'll know it wasn't for lack of effort and then we can move on to the next one, but we're going to keep doing what we have to do on our end. And I'm hoping that we have positive news very soon. That's the hope. Yes, absolutely. Thank you guys so much for being patient with us. We will never take advantage of that. No, absolutely.

Absolutely. It was a long time coming, but we got it done. All right. So before we dive into today's episode, Derek has something he would like to say. And he and I sort of went back and forth. I didn't want to talk about it today because I have a very specific outline for how the series is going to go. But he wants to talk about it. And so he's going to talk about it. But we compromised. I have a whole sheet in front of me, two pages. I'm not going to do that. I'm

going to trust you that you're going to bring it up again and we'll go into more detail. So don't come for us yet. We're going to discuss it. So there was a couple of house cleaning things. First off, Stephanie accidentally said first degree murder for Karen Reed. It's second degree murder. We're aware of that. Obviously that changes the circumstances completely. We'll dive into that more. We're not lawyers, but we will get into obviously intent versus, you know, not needing intent. We know that it was second degree murder that Karen was charged with, not first degree. The second thing that we got a lot of comments on, and I even got a few emails

on it, was the 227 search by Jen McCabe that said, you know, how, what was the exact words? How's long to die in the cold? How's long to die in the cold? I'm not going to go into it right here. Stephanie has a lot. She said she still wants to cover about it. I have found some things that suggest that that timestamp is not accurate. And many of you brought it to my attention. There's a whole video by a YouTuber who's a software engineer and also a streamer named Veritas. It's got a ton of followers.

It was a 36-minute video. I'll have that. I'm going to save of followers. It was a 36 minute video. I'll have that. I'm going to save that link until you can go look it up, but we'll save it until Stephanie has a chance to elaborate on it. But there were two things in question, the deletion of that search and the timestamp behind it. And Stephanie had mentioned one side of it. And I said, well, Stephanie, this, the whole celebrate report that basically this the report that's developed for these searches by these digital forensic experts the celebrate report the commonwealth brought two experts in one of them who worked for celebrate and he stated under oath that these time stamps

are not accurate they're they're grossly miscalculated in fact celebrate has updated their system to not show time stamps at all going forward. And there was a back and forth with the courts on this. Obviously you had the experts for Commonwealth, which were Jessica Hyde and Ian Whiffen, I believe it was. Ian Whiffen actually works for Celebrite and he also created the software RX. And what was interesting is the expert for the defense, Richard Green, he actually used RX, which was developed by Ian Whiffen to do this. But Stephanie has all the details on this. She's like, Derek is screwing up my timeline. We're going to do a whole section on this. So just save it. So I have a ton of stuff to go over.

Just bear with us. We're going to get there. Now that we're up to this part in the story. Yes. Our format is Stephanie's telling me the story. I'm writing notes, but then as an investigator, I'm doing my own research based on what she's telling me. So up to the point, I do have some opinions on this, uh, this timeline, this, this, uh, search, but I'm going to save it till we get there. Cause Stephanie saying, Hey, I got you. We're going to get there. I just touched upon it. I didn't hit on it fully. And just bear with us because up to this point in the story, before we start episode three, here's where I'm at. Three scenarios. Karen intentionally hit John. Karen accidentally hit John, didn't even realize

it. Or there's this scenario with the Alberts where basically John went into the house, something happened in there, and there's this huge coverup. I think there could be another scenario too. It could be another car. It could be, he could have been hit by- Someone else when she left. Someone else. Absolutely.

You know, there was snowing and visibility was bad. Like there's a lot of scenarios, but, and I don't want anybody to think that I just blindly believe everything the defense says. There's evidence that they're going to present in this video that we're going to do today that I'm like, this is a stretch, you know? So we're going to get there.

Yeah. And I don't want anyone thinking, oh, he's already disputing the whole police corruption thing. I'm not. Because it could still be true. But for the sake of thoroughness and being completely transparent, I want to vet all sides. And just because one thing

doesn't line up, it doesn't make the whole thing debunked. So I have a lot more to talk about with it. I'm excited to talk about it, but I don't want to screw up where Stephanie's going with this. And if it's not brought up, I'm sure you guys will let us know. So that was all I had. Thank you. Was that a fair enough compromise? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Cool. All right. Cool. I'm ready to go then. Let's do it. All right. Let's. Cool. All right. Cool. I'm ready to go then. Let's do it. All right. Let's dive in.

All right. So today we're discussing the timeline of the early morning hours of January 29th. And we are talking a few hours here, right? From around midnight to 2 a.m. And you would think this should be a pretty easy timeline to create, but it wasn't, mainly because of changing stories, changing timelines, conflicting expert testimony in court, witnesses whose memories suddenly began to fail them, et cetera, et cetera. However, we're going to do the best we can, and I do believe that many answers lie within this tangled web of a timeline. Derek, get your notebook out. Make sure you're ready because you're going to be making a lot of notes. I want to be very – I kind of want to put this out there right now.

The prosecution contends that Karen's SUV shows her traveling backwards for 60 feet at 24 miles per hour at 1245 a.m. This is the time they claim that Karen hit John. This is the time they claim that John O'Keefe, he was struck by a vehicle, 1245 AM. I want you to keep that in mind. 1245, and how fast was she going? 24 miles per hour? And she backed up 60 feet. 1245 AM. So yeah, I think we're going to really need to break this down. This is the crucial time period where allegedly John was killed. But since we are going to start discussing some serious evidence before we dive in today, I want to quickly discuss the federal investigation, which has run parallel with the Karen Reed investigation and trial. Tonight, multiple sources confirmed that 25 investigates that

federal authorities were already looking into the Karameet murder case in Canton before the public movement to Freer began. As investigative reporter Ted Daniels shares, it's the latest twist in this incredibly high profile case. Most murder cases don't have a basis for federal jurisdiction. The feds do have the power to investigate the investigators. Sources tell me this probe has been run by the U.S. Attorney's Public Corruption Unit in Boston. And we've learned the Norfolk County DA is privately pushing back. April 12th, Karen Reed's lawyers announced a dramatic turn in her murder case. They claim new evidence establishes her

innocence in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe. Pointing the finger at witnesses in this case. It would be the first time the public would hear allegations of cover-up, but not the U.S. Attorney's Office. Two days before, on April 10th, a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to people connected to the case, according to a source with direct knowledge of the proceedings. Yeah, so Massachusetts is kind of a mess over here. It kind of seems like. I was getting some DMs, I won't say their names, but some people from Massachusetts were hitting me up and being like, when you get done with Karen Reid, you have to look

into this case, this case. And I literally wrote back, I'm sure the person who was in my DMs is laughing right now. I was like, what the bleep is going on with Massachusetts? I'm staying on my side of the line because I didn't realize it was this, it was a screwed up over there. I didn't know. There's another case that I covered on my channel, a young woman who was part of the, it's like the police, her name is Sandra Birchmore. That's the one she mentioned. Yeah. That's the one she mentioned.

She was in the Police Explorers program. And she had basically been groomed by multiple police officers from the time she was 13 years old. She got pregnant by one of these police officers. Then he murdered her. And then the police department, which was Canton, there was a few police departments involved, but they ruled it a suicide, even though it obviously wasn't. So now they're being investigated for this. So, yeah, it's pretty bad, pretty bad in Massachusetts. But this specific federal probe is highly unusual, and it marks the first time in recent memory that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts convened a grand jury, a federal grand jury, to investigate

the state's handling of a murder prosecution while the trial was pending. So according to Brian T. Kelly, a former federal prosecutor who served as chair of the Public Corruption Unit at the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office, although it is highly unusual, it, quote, doesn't mean they don't have the power and right to do it if they think there are federal crimes occurring, end quote. And since the investigative body they're investigating is the one handling the Karen Reed trial, of course, they're going to want to sort of get ahead of this. Now, this is important for a lot of reasons, but mainly because Karen Reed's attorneys were able to use evidence gathered by federal prosecutors in an attempt to challenge the credibility of some of the state's key witnesses during the trial.

It was disclosed during proceedings in the case that all of the people who were inside the Albert home around the alleged time of John O'Keefe's death were subpoenaed to testify before the federal grand jury. And during one of the pretrial hearings, Karen Reed's defense attorney, David Yannetti, he mentioned that federal authorities had hired crash reconstruction experts who had concluded that John O'Keefe's injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. And the defense would now be allowed to call these witnesses to the stand during Karen's trial, which they did. And when I say these witnesses, I mean the federal investigators. They would be allowed to call them to the stand. So Reed's attorneys also used evidence uncovered by federal investigators that they said had been ignored by state prosecutors, specifically phone

records seized by federal authorities, which showed, quote unquote, suspicious contact between witnesses in this case. For instance, Brian Albert and ATF agent Brian Higgins. At the end of the day, what the federal investigation uncovered would only help the defense and continue to make the prosecution and the investigation in general look shady and unreliable. So let's take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to dive into the timeline. Okay, we're back. So let's go over the timeline thoroughly and through the changing stories and inconsistencies, try to make heads or tails of it.

First, some background, because we're going to introduce a lot of people we haven't talked about up until this point or that we've only mentioned briefly. So we have Brian Albert and Nicole Albert, right? These are the homeowners of 34 Fairview. Brian Albert is the Boston PD cop. This couple has three children, and we're going to talk about two of them, Brian Albert

Jr. and Caitlin Albert. We also have Brian Albert Sr.'s brother, Chris Albert. Remember, he's the Canton Select Man. He owns a pizza shop in Canton. And then we have his brother, Chris Albert. Remember, he's the Canton Select Man. He owns a pizza shop in Canton. And then we have his wife, Julie Albert. They have two children, one of which we're going to talk about. His name is Colin Albert. Now, Colin lived with his parents on Maple Ave in Canton, but they moved there recently.

And before that, they had lived at 7 Meadows Ave on the same street as John O'Keefe. He lived at 1 Meadows Ave. on the same street as John O'Keefe. He lived at 1 Meadows. So reportedly, there had been some issues with Colin Albert, the son of Chris Albert and Julie Albert, maybe not being so respectful of John O'Keefe's property. So he would cut across John's lawn on his way home from school. He would sometimes leave like trash or beer bottles on the lawn, allegedly. And this caused John, I guess, to have some words with young Colin, who at the time of John O'Keefe's death,

Colin's in his early 20s. Now, apparently this caused some tension, but then John apologized to Colin and his parents. And from then on, the Alberts had a running joke where they would call John O'Keefe Mr. Nebuchadnezzar. This is a reference to the 2006 animated horror slash comedy film, Monster House, amazing movie. I know it's a cartoon, but it's great. So in the film, Mr. Nebuchadnezzar is a crotchety old man. He lives in this big, rundown, scary house, and he's well known to

the neighborhood children as being very aggressive and hostile to anyone who steps foot on his property. And then the second is a continuation of that. If not, I'm going to fuck up your lawn, correct? So you mean that's to tell him to come over to the waterfall? Right. Okay. I just didn't understand what you meant. That's fine. So you're telling John O'Keefe this, correct? Yeah, I'm telling him to come over and meet us. All right.

And that little emoji, that face emoji after, if not, I'm going to fuck up your lawn. That's a joke. Yeah, it's a laughing face. Right. So you're saying- It's a joke. You're cracking up. Yeah, it's a joke. One at a time.

Okay. Oh, Sorry. Thank you. You would agree with me that there was a time when John O'Keefe was not home that you and your wife, Julie, went to his house. That is correct. And you entered onto his property, correct? On his front property, yes. And you had drinks in your hand? Correct. And you thought it would be funny to have a photo taken of you and your wife with drinks in your hand on his property, correct?

Correct. And you knew it would be funny because you knew it would annoy him, correct? Jackson, you're on. You can go ahead. Can you answer that? Yeah, he was actually asking us to watch his house while he was away. Right, but that doesn't answer my question, which was, he didn't ask you to go onto his property with drinks in your hand and take a photo, correct? He asked us to watch his property.

Okay, but again, in answer to my question, the answer is no, he did not ask us to go on his property and take pictures of ourselves with drinks in our hand. Correct? Yeah, he didn't ask me to send him a photo. OK, so what do you think of that interaction? I mean, so you can look at this a few different ways. The defense is trying to build a narrative right now because later they're going to bring up Colin Albert. There's a lot of, like I said, inconsistencies with the timeline where everyone at the house is like, oh, Colin Albert left long before John O'Keefe and Karen got there. Colin left at 1210. However,

maybe that's not when he left. The defense is saying he was at the house when John was there. And because John and Colin had had words before, it's possible that Colin may have had something to do with his death. Colin was an athlete. He played football all throughout high school. He was a boxer. And a little bit after John O'Keefe's death, there's a picture of Colin and his knuckles are all scraped up and bloodied and bruised. He says he fell, you know, things like that. We're going to get into the specifics and the details of this. I mean, just hearing that, I've been witness to many fights where someone gets cracked

in the face and they hit their head on the sidewalk as they go down. And if you can disprove the fact, like you were saying in that previous clip that John wasn't hit by a car, that does make a lot of sense. Whether it's Colin or someone else, John could have been approached or encountered the wrong person. Yes. So that's kind of- So I see the narrative they're building, but what'd you think of that interaction? The interaction. So for me, it's funny because when I look at all of the Alberts on the stand, I find Chris Albert to be likable.

I find him, I like him. I like him. I think he's genuine. I don't know anything about him. That's why I didn't know if I could say it, but I found him. But just first impressions, right? Yeah. Now, Julie Albert, we're going to see some of her testimony next episode.

That's Chris's wife. I find her to be not so likable. And on the other hand, when we go to Brian Albert and Nicole Albert, I find Brian Albert to be kind of defensive and not so likable. And I find Nicole Albert to be pretty likable. So does that mean that what Chris is saying is more true? No, I'm just saying in general, he seems like a genuine guy. I think it's a funny kind

of joke. Like Mr. Numbercracker, you know, there's a picture. I think you found the whole thing comical because, because I'm going to be, I'm going to be honest with you. And I've been on the, I've been that guy in that, in that, in that booth numerous times. I've been on the stand hundreds of times. And you know, a lot of the times I know what the lawyer's trying to paint, the picture they're trying to paint. And they're just, in some cases it's asinine and they're trying to show something and they're beating around the bush. And I'm like, yeah, and I'm smiling or whatever. Cause I know where they're going. But to me, this right here, I heard two people making a joke using this cartoon character. I didn't know this never cracker. I didn't know. You haven't seen monster house. You

got to watch it with your kids. It's a great movie. So do I know people and have I done things where we've made fun of neighbors and given them nicknames? Absolutely. Totally. We do this with our friends. It's ribbing. I think it's perfectly fine. And then as far as on the property, what I took away from it is, yeah, John asked us to go over there. There had been a problem in the past. And I will tell you, us Northeast guys, we'll make of like shitty situations where we'll go back to something that we might've screwed up in the past and we'll, we'll make light of it. And so I could see a world where they're on the property, they're watching the property for John. And they're like, Hey, let's send him a picture of us on his lawn. Cause remember when we had that beef

back in the day over the lawn, it'll be funny. We're busting his balls. Yeah. So they sent this picture. It's Julie. no, he didn't ask us to send the photo. That was the point. It was a joke and Chris and they got drinks and they're like kind of hanging over his fence and they're like, Hey, we're on your lawn. And then they didn't do that to instigate him. I don't think that maybe they did it to instigate him. But when you're friends, you fuck with your friends. Yeah. with your friends. And then the text you were seeing at the beginning of that exchange was that night of John's death where they're like, hey, get your ass over to the waterfall or we're going to go on your lawn.

And he put the laughing emoji, or we're going to fuck with your lawn. Now, did John find it as funny as Chris and Julie Albert? Maybe not. The reason I brought up what I was saying about me is I understand what the defense is trying to do here, but I will tell you there are many times in my personal experience where they're grasping at straws. Like they're just like trying to find something that sticks. And to me, I know where they're going,

and Chris clearly knows where they're going. They're going to try to build something later. But it's comical sometimes. Now, that doesn't mean there's not some truth to it, but I think the examples given were poor examples by the defense. As far as like, oh, here you are instigating him, busting his chops. Clearly there was problems. You can tell at this point, at least what they showed,

most of it was in good fun. That's what I interpreted it as. I agree. Now, did John think it was as funny as they did? We don't know. He's not here. Yeah, we don't know. We don't know. But if these people are my friends, we're messing around with each other, I can take a joke. Some people are more sensitive with that. We don't know how John was. So the night of January 28th was apparently Colin's cousin, Brian Albert Jr.'s 23rd birthday. And remember, Brian Albert Jr. is the son of Brian and Nicole Albert of 34 Fairview. This is the house that

John O'Keefe's found dad outside of. So that night, Brian Jr. had some friends over to his house, his parents' house, to celebrate his birthday. And we're going to introduce some of those friends along with their testimony today. So we have Sarah Levinson and Julie Nagel. They were dropped off by Julie's father between 7 and 8 p.m. that night. And the girls said that when they arrived, Brian Jr. was there along with his sister Caitlin, his mother Nicole, and his aunt Julie. Now, the three women were making plans to go out that evening. As we know, they went to the waterfall.

And they left about 15 minutes after Sarah Levinson and Julie Nagel arrived. Now we know that they were at the waterfall bar and grill by 8.45 p.m. because Julie Albert texted John O'Keefe at that time telling him where they were and to get down there. This was while John was still at C.F. McCarthy's and Julie Albert texted John about six minutes before Karen Reed showed up to see F. McCarthy's. Nicole Albert would later testify that they met Caitlin's boyfriend, Tristan Morris, at the waterfall around 7.30 p.m. So Sarah Levinson further testified that she and the other young people,

they hung out at the Alberts' house in the kitchen, in the living room for a bit. Some more friends were dropped off between 8 and 9 p.m. These friends were Courtney Elba, Catherine Doody, Emily Fabiano, and Mary Kent. So they all hung out, they drank, right, alcohol, they played music for a few hours before the last four friends to arrive all left before midnight. Now Brian's cousin Colin Albert claims that he arrived to 34 Fairview to celebrate Brian Jr.'s birthday with him around 10.30 p.m., but he would be picked up by Allison McCabe around 12.10 a.m., and she dropped him off at his house just a few minutes later. Allison McCabe is the daughter of Jennifer and Matt McCabe. Additionally, Brian and Nicole Albert are Allison's aunt and uncle.

Okay, can we pause real quick because my head's about to explode with all these names. I'm writing down as fast as I can. I'm going to probably screw these up. So I warn you guys, I just wanted to point out one thing that you mentioned in all of that, that I found interesting, especially based on the back and forth we just witnessed. Julie, Chris's wife called John. Say, Hey, we're over here. So on one hand, we could say, oh, there might have been some dissension over this front lawn. But literally the night that John's whole incident happened, Julie was texting him saying, hey, buddy, where are you? So was Chris, right?

So I just want to point that out that it appears they were on good terms, at least at that point. And also, Chris and Julie Albert are not at 34 Fairview that night. Okay. Okay. But you have, you have Colin there though. You do have Colin there. Yes. Okay. And then, you know, that doesn't go hand in hand. Colin could have a problem with John and Julie and Chris don't, you know, so that, that is something to differentiate, but you know, Colin's young. Maybe when John said something to his parents about him throwing beer bottles, he got in trouble. So maybe he's like kind of pissy. He's pissy vinegar. Yeah.

Alcohol's involved. Yeah. And that changes everything. I've seen best friends beat the shit out of each other. And alcohol was involved. We know that. Exactly. It's Brian Jr.'s birthday.

John had a glass in his hand, allegedly. John, all the adults are drinking at the bar. All the kids are drinking. They're not kids. They're in their 20s. But all the kids are drinking at the Alberts house. Everybody's drinking and driving around town, by the way. Yeah, that's a whole different can of worms.

Yeah, it's bad. It's bad. It's a bad look for the law enforcement body, right? So Julie Albert testified that she left the Waterfall Bar and Grill before everyone else. Around 11.10 p.m., she had a bad migraine. At 11.58 p.m., Brian and Nicole Albert, along with their daughter, Caitlin, left the bar as well. Remember, they were headed back to 34 Fairview to keep the party going. Now, the first person to get to the Fairview house was ATF agent Brian

Higgins. And his movements, once he got to the house, specifically where he parked his Jeep, that's going to be important. You said you were the first one back to Brian to the house, specifically where he parked his Jeep. That's going to be important. You said you were the first one back to Brian Albert's house, correct? Yes. Safe to say you were one of the first ones to leave. First one to leave the waterfall. Probably. I mean, if everybody's hurting out and you're the first one to get there,

you're probably among the first to leave, correct? Most likely. Okay. You've indicated that you took your Jeep, your personal vehicle with the plow on it over to 34 Fairview, correct? Most likely. Okay. You've indicated that you took your Jeep, your personal vehicle with the plow on it, over to 34 Fairview, correct? Yes. And you were among the first to arrive because you were doing that thing with the,

sort of playing around by plowing his driveway. It was a sweep of the driveway, yes. And then you indicated that you parked in front of the house, correct? I did. I know you've been over this before, but I'm going to ask you one final time so it's completely clear. Exactly where was your Jeep in front of that house? By the mailbox.

This is a graphic representation of 34 Fairview. Not a photograph. Just to orient you, do you see what's depicted in Exit 66? Yes. Do you recognize it? I do. Do you see the mailbox which is out right there? Yes.

Okay. Where was your Jeep in relation to that mailbox? So the back end of the Jeep, the rear, would have been about, around equal with the mailbox, and I was not blocking the driveway. Okay, so the front of the Jeep was facing the flat hole. Towards Chapman Street, correct. And the rear of the Jeep was basically even with the mailbox strut or stanchion. It was definitely past the driveway, yes.

Okay. You indicated the plow was a six foot what inch plow? I think it was a 6'8", 6 foot. Meaning the width. Meaning the width, yes. How deep is that plow? How deep? Like two foot, three feet, six inches?

I mean it's probably a few inches. Okay. It's light duty. It's on a Jeep. Okay. And it's obviously curved and to the right. No, it wasn't canted at all. It was straight down. So those listening on audio, they can't see, but they're going to pull up this visual representation of the Alberts house multiple times for multiple witnesses. If you're really invested in this case, you got to go watch. You got to see that. You got to see that photo at least.

And so what Brian Higgins is saying is he arrives to the Fairview home. Nobody's there yet. I mean, the kids are inside, right? But nobody's there yet. He does a few like passes around the Albert's driveway with his plow. And then he sees Brian and Nicole Albert pulling up. And so he parks on the street. So he's not like, you know, blocked into their driveway. So he parks on the street and he's saying he's facing Chapman Street, which if you're looking at the house from the street, Chapman Street would be to your left. And so he's facing to the left and the back of his Jeep is butted up

against the driveway where the driveway would start and he's parked by the mailbox. Yeah, he's parked in the, if you're listening on audio, he's parked in the road, but his passenger side tire would be facing the house. So he's pointing away. So his passenger side is facing the house. He parked in front of the house, just not in the driveway.

Not in the driveway. Not in the driveway. Not left wheel to the curb, which would have been illegal. Yes. I don't think it matters because he was driving. I mean, they're committing crimes all night. Driving after and being intoxicating. He's driving, plowing. Yeah.

I mean, that's, yeah, it's the least of his concerns. But he was parked the way you would park if you were visiting a friend in the road. So Brian Higgins gets there and then Brian Albert and Nicole Albert show up. They're going to walk into the house together. Now, Brian Albert testified that he arrived home around 12, 10 a.m., and as he was getting there, his nephew Colin Albert was just leaving. Remember that. So Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, and Nicole Albert all go inside.

They see Brian Jr. hanging out in the kitchen with two female friends. These friends would be Sarah Levinson and Julie Nagel. They're still there. The other friends that arrived after them have already left. At the same time, 1210 a.m., Karen Reed is seen on surveillance leaving the waterfall. And then at 1211 a.m., John O'Keefe also leaves the bar still holding a cocktail glass in his hand. Chris Albert had decided he did not want to continue the party at his brother's house. You know, he worked at the pizza shop all day. He's tired. He's been drinking all night. He's

like, it's about to snow. I'm all set. So he left and he walked home. And this is just about a five to seven minute walk to his house. Chris Albert would initially testify that he got home at around 12, 10 a.m. He went inside, took his clothes off, he got right in bed. And then about 10 minutes after he got home, his son Colin also arrived home and entered his parents' bedroom to let them know that he was there. However, on cross-examination, Chris was questioned about his timeline and then shown video surveillance from the waterfall, which proved he could not have been home by 1210 a.m. because he hadn't even left the bar until almost 1214 a.m. Mr. Rother, you would agree with me this was clearly the end of the night?

Sure. The lights are all on at this point? point yes the bar appears to have largely emptied out yes okay continue please uh do you know who that person is who's leaving the bar at this point at 12 13 and 43 a.m i believe it's me having now viewed that video with the time stamp of 12 13 and about 43 seconds or so, does that refresh your memory as to when you left the waterfall? Yes. That would mean it would have been impossible for you to get home to Maple Street by 1205

or 1210, correct? Correct. Now it was about maybe a seven minute minute walk home would you agree with me from waterfall to maple no i said seven minutes from d&e to waterfall waterfall to maple is probably less than five minutes uh so now if you're leaving the bar like close to you know 12 14 as indicated on the video you're getting home somewhere around 12 19 12 20 correct roughly yeah now when you came home you would agree with me that your son colin albert was not home correct not when i first got home and in fact i think your testimony was that 10 minutes after you got home he opened the bedroom door

i think that's what i said yeah do you want to stick with that i'm just trying to recollect what i you know thinking it over so obviously it was a little bit longer because you actually woke up when he opened the bedroom door, correct? I don't think so. Did you not just testify before this jury just, I don't know, maybe an hour ago, that you fell asleep and that your son, Colin opened the bedroom door and and woke you up to say good night yeah i guess i guess that's what i said okay all right and when you testified to that on direct examination that was when mr lally was asking you questions correct correct and you

knew that you were under oath at that time correct correct? Correct. And you were trying to be as accurate as possible, correct? Trying to be, correct. All right. So in terms of the timing of this, assuming that he opened the bedroom door after you already fell asleep, if you're getting home upstairs to your bedroom around 12.20 and it takes you 15 minutes to go to bed and that's around 12 35 then sometime after you're asleep after 12 35 that's when colin opens the bedroom door correct i don't remember exactly well it's difficult for you to remember how long you'd been asleep for when Colin opened the bedroom door, correct? Correct.

You don't know if it was five minutes, 10 minutes or long, correct? I don't know exactly. Right. But it was sometime after you fell asleep. To the best of my recollection. All right. I got some opinions about this video, but let's take a break. We'll be right back. I get what the defense attorney's doing here, and I don't disagree with it. He's trying to establish that Colin, the time in which he left the Alberts, which is approximately 12, 10 PM, and the time that Colin got home was a much bigger duration, a much bigger window than what was originally reported,

which would give him a window of opportunity where Colin could have seen John, something could have gone down, and then he still gets home. I get what he's trying to do here. It's obvious. And Chris knows that as well, right? Of course. So you're trying to hold this guy to what happened that night. Obviously, when you're half asleep, things could happen where you don't. I understand. Regardless, it's a much bigger window than was initially reported. He's established

that how big of a window. We don't know if I had to guess just my own experience falling asleep more than likely it was. I don't think Chris was in like a deep sleep and Colin came in and said, dad, dad, dad, I'm home. It was more than likely while Chris was dozing off. But either way, you're talking 1235, 1240. And so it's a 30 minute window of when Colin is unaccounted for. So here's the point. What the defense is trying to show, and they never, I don't believe there's so much trial. I don't believe they ever actually say this directly. But what they're trying to show is nobody that's testifying here is actually testifying to real timelines. What they were doing, because they had plenty of time after John O'Keefe died and before they were interviewed to get their story straight, is everybody's sort of just going by this timeline they've all agreed upon. Colin Albert left at 1210. Okay, well,

if Colin Albert left at 1210 and he got home within 10 minutes of Chris Albert getting home, then Chris Albert must have left the waterfall at 1210. And Brian Albert comes home and it's 1210 and Colin's leaving. Allie McCabe says she picked him up at 1210, drove him right home. That's only a few minutes. So everybody's following this timeline simply because that's the thing they agreed to do before they were interviewed by the police. And then they testified to this in front of a grand jury. And now they're sitting in front of this jury and they're being cross-examined by the defense. And the defense is going to put holes in this timeline. Reasonable doubt. Yeah. So let me preface it by saying, I'm just going with my gut here and half the people, half the audience won't like this,

but it is what it is. I don't, you know, I'm going to speak my truth. Ultimately, here's what I take away from it. What you just said could absolutely be possible. It's also possible that Chris was 10 minutes off with his timeline because he was shit faced and he was coming home that night. For example, I've been out many times and six months later, I'm asked about it. Or maybe even sooner than that could be the next day when they're like, Hey, what time did you leave the bar, Derek? And I'm like, ah, around 1215. Now then somebody could pull up the video surveillance and say, but here you are leaving the bar at 1219. Isn't that correct?

And I'm like, yeah, you got me. I was five minutes off. I didn't look at my watch as I was walking out the door. That's not the point. It's that everybody gave that 1210 time, that specific 1210 time. Colin Albert wasn't like, oh, maybe I left around like 1213. Brian Albert wasn't like, oh, you know, I got home maybe like 12, 15.

I saw it's everybody said 12, 10, 12, 10, 12, 10, 12, 10. Yeah, they're all going off a faulty estimation. They're all going off of whatever timeline they sort of agreed upon before being interviewed by police. Let's even go down that road. It still could be because they're telling the truth. It also could be because something bad happened and they're trying to cover it up. But I could be because none of them fucking remember.

That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. They genuinely don't know. And they're like, and they're like, hey, guys, what time? What time did I leave? Or what time are we saying? Yeah, because guess what? They don't have access to the video surveillance.

They don't. They can't go, hey, can we double check what time it was? And so but here's what's important. They're establishing that the timeline's off. That's obviously important, but more importantly, what they're establishing through this whole case is what two words, reasonable doubt. That's it. They're showing that there's multiple scenarios that are plausible here other than Karen Reed killing her husband. That's all they got to do. That's all they have to do. That's all they got to do. They're showing other, that's all his job is to show other theories and how viable they are. As far as reasonable doubt, just in the small

amount of trial we've watched, there's been plenty of it. No doubt. No doubt. Of course. I can't, I have no dispute to that. It's 100% accurate. Very. So Jennifer McCabe, her cell phone showed that she too left the area of the waterfall around 12, 13 a.m. At 12, 14 a.m., John O'Keefe texted Jennifer McCabe saying, where to? And also at 12, 14 a.m., Jen called John. He answered. The conversation lasted 44 seconds. According to Jen, she was giving John directions to the Elbert home and this is when she told him to drive past Bella's house.

Remember we talked about this last episode. Bella is a girl that's around Ellie Albert's age or Ellie McCabe's age. In her early 20s, John dated Bella's mom. Okay, so the call would be deleted from Jen McCabe's phone, allegedly. At 12.15 a.m., Karen Reed's black SUV is captured on surveillance, driving down Washington Street, and two minutes later at 12.17, the SUV drives past the Beth Abraham Temple at the intersection of Washington and Dedham, driving towards Fairview. Jennifer McCabe would testify that she and her

husband Matt arrived at 34 Fairview at 12.18 a.m. And seconds after arriving, she got another call from John that lasted 36 seconds. Once again, this call would be deleted from Jen's phone. At 12.19 a.m., John O'Keefe's cell phone pinged in the neighborhood of Cedar Crest and Dedham. And a minute later, when his phone showed he was outside of 138 Dedham, John entered the Fairview address, 34 Fairview, into his Waze app. At 1220 a.m., Brian Higgins, ATF agent, texted John O'Keefe, and he claimed he asked where John was, like, where you at? When are you going to get here? We don't actually know what was said because Higgins would go to some great lengths to destroy his cell

phone and his SIM card. More on that later. I know. I know. He literally drove to a different state to get rid of it. I'm just going to say that. Yeah, that's terrible. And this is what I'm saying.

If these people are innocent, the actions they took in the aftermath of John O'Keefe being dead are suspicious. So like, it's bad. Agreed. I have no dispute. Some will say, and I'm not saying this, some will say they were concerned how it could look even if they weren't involved in something. So they went to these lengths, but I will advise everyone in the future, don't do that.

You're only going to make it worse. But as law enforcement agents, wouldn't you understand how bad that looked? Or were you relying on your boys in blue to have your back even if it looked bad, right? Which we can look at Proctor's statements like, oh yeah, Brian Albert's not going to face no heat. He's a Boston police officer. Maybe this is the idea that like, it doesn't matter how suspicious it looks because who's investigating this isn't going to come after me. Yeah. I mean, it's, that is absolutely a scenario. It's, it's the truth. I will say that it's not always the case. I was involved in a police shooting and the state police investigated my case and I will tell you guys, they treated me like shit. And I love the Rhode Island state police investigated my case. And I will tell you guys, they treated me

like shit. And I love the Rhode Island state police, but I got to a point during my interview, my initial interview where my captain stepped in and goes, Hey guys, this happened an hour ago. The kids traumatized. Can we give them till the morning? It's two o'clock in the morning and you're interrogating them right now. Ask him how many bullets he has left in his magazine. So there's, there's, there's all different scenarios. It depends on the officer, but you're not wrong. I'm not going to sit here and tell our audience that it hasn't happened thousands of times where brothers protect brothers, end quote, right? But it also can go the other way. So you just don't know. And at the end of the day, whatever

happens, if you're not involved in something that you shouldn't be, you leave everything as is and it'll work itself out. So the fact that they went to these lengths, regardless of the reason behind it, it was stupid. And if you genuinely cared about John O'Keefe and you wanted whoever killed him to face justice, you'd probably want to be above board with your actions because now in a trial, all your shady shit is what's going to raise reasonable doubt. Clouding everything.

So you destroyed everything. Yeah, no, I agree. You messed it all up. But at the end of the day, they're worrying about themselves, right? It's all selfish reasons. It's all like, hey, how do I protect myself? Yeah, but why are you worried about protecting yourself if you haven't done anything wrong? Well, that's my point is that it could be because you did something

wrong. Then you have a reason why you would want to do it. It also could be because you know how things can look. And now, oh, my God, I was texting. I was doing this. I got to get rid of my shit, which only makes it worse. Now I'm going to drive to a different location and get rid of my phone and SIM card. I got no excuse. It's stupid. Well, he has a reason. But like I said, we'll talk about that. All right. So we're going to go back to midnight. This is when Julie Nagel, who, remember, is a friend of Brian Albert Jr.

She's at his house for his birthday party. Julie Nagel texted her brother, Ryan Nagel, and asked if he could pick her up from Chris Albert Jr.'s house. So Ryan would be interviewed by Michael Proctor on February 7th. Ryan said that he'd been with his girlfriend, Heather Maxson, and his friend, Ricky D'Antonio, at the Hillside earlier that night. The Hillside's a bar. And when Julie had texted-

Love that bar. Yeah, do you? No, I've never been there. Just want to keep you on your toes. I knew it would get you. Well, that's where Brian Higgins met John O'Keefe at the hillside. Sounded like a bar I'd like to visit, the hillside. And that's where Brian Higgins and Brian Albert were at earlier the night before they went to the waterfall after they drove back from New York City for the funerals of those fallen officers.

Remember? So it's a very small town. Everybody hangs out at the same places. Everybody. That's the one thing I've taken away. Everyone knows everyone in this community. So they're at the hillside earlier that night. When Julie texted him at midnight, he left to go pick her up. Now the hillside is located at 2 Royal Avenue in Canton. It's about a nine minute drive to 34 Fairview.

So even though Ryan would testify that they had arrived to the Elbert home between 1215 and 1230 a.m., we can expect they probably arrived closer to 1215 a.m. And there's going to be other reasons why we think they arrived closer to that 12.15 a.m. time. But they drove Ricky's Ford F-150 pickup truck. Ryan was in the front seats. Ricky was obviously driving. And Heather Maxson was in the back. In his police interview, Ryan said he remembered driving down Cedar Crest. And as their truck approached Fairview, he saw a set of headlights coming from a black SUV driving the opposite direction, down C to V, coming towards them.

So Ricky yielded to the SUV, allowed it to make a right-hand turn onto Fairview before them, and then their truck followed it, making a left-hand turn onto Fairview. Ricky then stopped the truck directly in front of the driveway at 34 Fairview, and Ryan remembered the SUV stopped alongside the right-hand curb towards the left side of the property as you look at the house from the street. So the SUV is in front of them, parked on the street outside of 34 Fairview. At 12.23 a.m., Ryan Nagel texted his sister, Julie, that he was there. And then they waited for her to come out.

Now, Julie did come out and she basically ran up to the truck and she's like, hey, I kind of want to stay here. Like, do you guys want to come in and also hang out? And the others, Ryan and Heather and Ricky, they were like, nah, we don't want to come inside. They eventually left. Now, after- Yeah, didn't she just text them to come pick her up? Yeah, 12. Ought to have been pissed. Yeah. So after Julie returned to the house, Ryan noticed that the SUV had pulled up a few feet to the edge of the property line between 34 Fairview and the neighboring property where the

flagpole and some bushes were located. Remember, this is where John O'Keefe's body is going to be discovered hours later. Yep. The black SUV and the flagpole. If you were looking at the video earlier, you could see where the flagpole is in relation to the opposite side of the property where the driveway is. Yes, exactly. So the driveway and the mailbox on one side and then further up, there's the flagpole in the bushes. Yep. Closer to Chapman or Chapel. What was the name of that street? Chapman. Chapman. Closer to Chapman. And closer to the neighbor's house. All right. So Ryan would also state that in no time did he believe the driver of this SUV placed the

vehicle into park because he said the rear lights were illuminated to include the third top center light at the initial positioning and after it had pulled up. So the entire time, this vehicle is not placed in park. He also said he never heard screams, never heard arguments, never heard any sounds coming from the SUV or from outside his vehicle. So at a time when you were in the truck, still stationary, that SUV had pulled ahead of you at least three car lengths, correct? And by the end, yes.

Okay. You've already indicated, but I want to make sure I'm clear about this. Did any car pull in between Ricky's truck and the SUV when you were sitting behind the SUV? No, sir. You didn't see a Jeep? No, sir. With a big old snowplow on the front of it? No, sir, I did not.

That car was never between your car and the SUV, was it? I never saw any other vehicle in between us. All right, fair enough. When you got to the location, you indicated that you had texted your sister that you were arriving. Correct, sir, yes. How long before she came out the door

to meet you at the car? Since I like the text you mean? Correct. Two minutes, because we were coming down Cedar Crest and I texted her saying we're almost there. You talked about whether or not she wanted to get in the truck and leave. I asked if she was coming, yes. You also talked about whether or not you would come in the house and stay.

Yes. She asked that, yes. Okay, so there was a conversation back and forth about either you staying at 34 Fairview or her leaving 34 Fairview and getting in the car. Correct, sir. There was also a conversation about whether or not you guys needed to give her a ride then or if she could get a ride on her own after you guys left, if she wanted to stay. Correct, sir. Yes. And when you pulled away, you didn't speed away, correct? Correct, sir. Gradually, slowly pulled away and out and around the SUV that was in front of you. Correct, sir. Yes. So y'all made up the distance at that point after you had this maybe five minute conversation with your sister. You made up the distance and got up to the SUV that was in front. Yes.

All her taillights, all the taillights were intact? To my acknowledgement, yes. I mean, as you said... May I? Of course. I mean, I'm not there to, you know, look at a car and be like, oh, is there any damage on a vehicle? It's 1230 at night. Obviously, I had a few drinks. I'm not looking for that. I just noticed that the brake lights were on.

Right. But the point is, as you sat there and you testified about this before, you noticed no damage on any of the taillights? Not to my acknowledgement, no. Okay. There's three taillights, one to the left, one to the right, and one center top. Correct, sir. And you didn't notice or note anything out of the ordinary with regard to the rear of that truck? No. Okay. There's three taillights, one to the left, one to the right, and one center top. Correct, sir. And you didn't notice or note anything out of the ordinary with regard to the rear of that truck? No. Like I said, it was dark out.

Okay. At any point, did you see that SUV in front of you drive up 50 or 60 feet, slam into reverse, and then drive backward? No. Okay. At any point, did you see that SUV reverse and hit a pedestrian? Jack, sir. I'll allow that. You didn't see that, right? No. At no point did you see a person laying on the lawn? No, but I also wasn't looking. But you didn't see it? No. And you did see the truck in front of you? The SUV, yes. Sorry, the SUV in front of you?

Correct. All right. You didn't see a person standing or lying on the ground anywhere around that SUV, did you? No. And it's not just that you didn't see that SUV hit a pedestrian. That did not happen while you were sitting there, did it? Jackson. You can go ahead and answer that.

No, I did not. All right. So that was a lot from Ryan. We're going to talk about that in a minute. Should we take a quick break and come back? Yes, let's do it. All right, let's take a quick break. We'll be right back.

Okay, so what did you take from Ryan's testimony? To me, it's pretty self-explanatory. We know now that SUV was Karen Reed's SUV, kind of assume that, right? And the defense is just trying to establish that his client isn't responsible for this. And Ryan's pushing back and basically saying, listen, dude, I wasn't there for that. I would think if the taillight was broken, even though it was dark, he probably would have noticed. If you've seen a broken taillight before, the bulbs inside the taillight, unless I have to look at this vehicle specifically, but if it's a halogen bulb, if the taillight's broken, the red plastic surrounding it is gone and you see the white bulb.

And it's pretty obvious. But if this is like an LED taillight, it might be different. I'd have to know that information. But yeah, I mean, the defense is doing what he's doing, basically showing my client didn't at this point at 1230, 1245, there's no damage to the car. And at that point, John O'Keefe is not in the snowbank or on the sidewalk. So they're basically saying, okay, something else happened. It's going to be more of like, okay, he gets there around 12, 23, 12, 24. He's out there talking to Julie, his sister, let's say five minutes. That puts it around like 1230-ish.

But what did you make of Ryan saying they pulled up and parked in front of the mailbox when Brian Higgins said he parked his Jeep in that exact same spot. That didn't make sense to me. I know that he was asking about the Jeep and being parked in between them or behind them. I don't have an answer for it. It doesn't make sense. Again, it could go back to the timelines being off, and maybe they're already out of there before Brian Higgins pulls up,

or maybe Brian Higgins is lying. Brian Higgins got there first before anybody else. That's what he's saying. And Brian and Chris, Brian Albert and Nicole Albert also say this. So does Jennifer McCabe. We're going to talk about that in a second. Right. So where the hell is this big ass Jeep with the plow?

Because not any of those three people in that car saw it and they would have been what? Parked on top of it. Yeah. One other observation that I have, and it's speculative on my part, but it's something that I just noted was Karen Reed's car not being put in park and just continuously moving up. Maybe this is coming from anecdotal experience. I don't know, but you've been in situations where you're having a heated discussion with someone and you're not sure if you're going to get out or not. And the person has their foot on the brake and they may lose sight

of their foot being on the brake for a second. And they, they, they crawl up a couple feet continuously because the car is not in park. Maybe they're making a decision of, are we getting out or are we not getting out? Are we staying or are we not staying? And the car's moving up three car lengths. So that's what I took from that, that maybe something was being discussed in the car that was maybe heated and Karen wasn't sure if she was the one driving. She wasn't sure if she was staying or not. I don't think she was intentionally rolling up about three car lengths intentionally.

I think it was her losing track or sight of her foot being on the brake for a second and the car creeping up a little bit. That's what I took from it anyways. So she was the one driving and more than one person has testified to the fact that the SUV, Karen's SUV pulled up more than once, right? Yeah. So there's something going on. Jen McCabe is also going to say this, but Jen McCabe is going to say that as she's texting John, which we're going to get to in a second, she sees Karen Reed's SUV outside. And so when she sees the SUV pull up, she texts John. And then she sees the SUV pull up a little bit more. She texts John again. And then she sees the SUV pull up a little bit more. She texts John again.

And she's saying that she is witnessing this. She's got eyes on it. And every time she gets up and walks to the door or the window to look, she's seeing that the SUV has moved. So that's good. We have two corroborating statements as far as Ryan. And Ryan's a great witness because Ryan doesn't, so to this point, have any vested interest in lying. The time periods though, of when Jen McCabe says she sees the car moving and what we see from Ryan, which is that the SUV gets there, stops at an initial spot, and then he sees it move up once. Not super cooperative. I'm going to keep saying this, and you guys might hate me for it. I don't care. We're talking about a lot of people drinking here

too. All of these times when they're on the stand talking about it and they're asking for references in their reports, when I'm looking at these videos, that's what I'm saying. The timeline is the timeline. It's going to be based on the text messages. Those are indefensible. That's what they are. So as far as where you're going with it, I get where you're going with it as far as Jen saying that she saw those things, but it doesn't align with when Ryan's saying he saw it. And we have text messages that dispute what they're saying they saw when they saw it. So the reason behind why they're wrong, I don't know. I'm just putting it out there that one of those reasons could be that they truly didn't remember or to whatever, you know, a lot of people think is that this was a deliberate attempt to throw off the timeline,

to maybe decrease any type of skepticism that may be surrounding it. So I'm just, it's tough. A lot of people drinking who shouldn't be. And this whole, this whole case so far is just ugly. Everyone's drunk. Everyone's breaking the law. Everyone's using their position of authority to basically, this is the wild west where because they have a badge, they can do what they want.

And then you have other people who aren't police officers, like I said, drinking. And it's just a cluster. Driving to police officers' houses. It's just the whole case is embarrassing to me. Maybe people are going to be mad at me for saying that. Just the whole thing. People drinking, driving, people arguing. Just a sloppy case.

Yeah. All right. So after Ryan and Ricky and Heather, they get ready to leave. They pass the SUV and Ryan noticed the interior dome light was on. And he said he saw a woman with long hair sitting in the driver's seat, her hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2, staring directly forward. He said he did not see anyone else in the SUV at that time. Now, Ryan's girlfriend, Heather Maxson, would testify that when both the Ford and the SUV were pulling up to the house, she saw a female in the driver's seat and a male in the passenger seat. Now, when they left 34 Fairview, the SUV remained in its same position. It was running, and the lights were on, including the interior dome light. And when they passed, Heather said she saw only the woman in the driver's seat and no passenger. Ricky D'Antonio didn't recall seeing anyone inside the SUV when they passed, Heather said she saw only the woman in the driver's seat and no passenger. Ricky D'Antonio didn't recall seeing anyone inside the SUV when they passed, but he said he wasn't really looking because he was driving. Good for you, Ricky.

Thank you. So none of these three people recalled seeing any damage to the back of the SUV or the taillight, and they sat there for a good several minutes with their own headlights focused on the back of the SUV. None of them said they heard anything. They didn't see the SUV back up or hit anybody. No commotion, no arguing. By the way, during that testimony, it was kind of weird when the defense attorney was like, and you didn't see the SUV hit anybody. And then the prosecution's like, did it have objection?

And then the judge is like, you can answer that. You didn't see that, did you? That was kind of weird for a judge to say, you didn't see that, did you? I don't know, right? Why couldn't she just say, answer the question? I agree with you, but I'll also say- I'm sure it wasn't nefarious. It just stuck out as weird for a judge to say. I think that the judge made an educated guess there that if he had seen someone get hit, we probably wouldn't be at trial. Correct, but a judge shouldn't be asking leading questions.

I'm with you. I'm with you. You're definitely nitpicking there, but you're not wrong. It's just, I've never heard a judge do that before. And I've watched a lot of trials. Oh, they have. Really?

I've had judge look at me and go, Derek or, you know, detective, you didn't pull your gun and put it in their face, did you? That's what they're asking you. Like, even if I did, now that didn't actually happen before everyone gets in the comments, but something so obvious where someone I'm not, if I had done that, I'm not going to sit up here and say it. It can get a little casual sometimes, but you're not wrong.

You're not wrong. It's stuck out to me. You're not wrong. So Julie Nagel initially testified that when her brother had texted her to tell her that, you know, he was there, she went outside. But she said she left through the front door while Ryan said she came out the side door. Julie also said that she had looked outside prior to Ryan arriving. And at that time, she had seen a black SUV.

But when she went out to talk to him, she did not see the SUV. Now, Julie's testimony is very confusing because at first she said she saw the SUV when she went outside, but that a few minutes later she said she was sitting in the dining room table and she looked outside and that's when she saw the SUV pull up near the mailbox and then it pulled up a little bit in front of the yard where it stopped before pulling up again near the flag pole. Now, she said that as she watched the SUV, she didn't see anyone get out of the vehicle, but she also didn't remember seeing anyone inside the vehicle. Now, this is funny to me because there's all of these bunch of people, Julie Nagel,

Jen McCabe, who say they saw Karen Reed's SUV pull up and they continued looking outside enough to see it move twice more after it initially stopped. And yet nobody saw her hit John and nobody saw a body in the yard, even though they kept looking outside and the yard would be directly between the SUV and the house that they were looking outside of. I don't want to get ahead in the story,

but this is a relatively new case. They didn't have any cameras on this house. Oh, they did. They weren't working that night. Okay. And you know what the- How about a ring doorbell? Oh, it's just not working. It's just not working that night. Okay. And you know what? How about a wind doorbell? Oh, it's just not working.

It's just not working that night. Also, the police officer, remember where they got the red Solo cups directly across the street from Brian Albert? His cameras were out too. His cameras were not working either. Not convenient. Yeah. So, yeah, interesting. Now, on cross-examination, obviously it came out that, you know, Julie had had quite a bit to drink that night.

No. Yeah. Maybe she had a hard time remembering the details, right? Yeah. You get what I'm saying about that? I feel like people are going to be mad at me, but I'm just talking in general, this whole case. Yeah. But here's the problem. You don't remember stuff because you were drinking, but yet you have these accurate recollections of seeing the SUV pull up and stuff. It's because you all got your story straight is what the defense is trying to say. There's no doubt in my mind that happened. The question for all of us is why?

Because it happens all the time. And you could just say you don't remember. Even if you're in a car accident and Allstate's about to call the four people in the car and interview them, it's common sense that you're all talking to each other. Even if you're in the right, hey, we're all, this is what happened. We're good. And then the appraiser or the interviewer will call from Allstate and you interview. It's okay to do that. But the question is, why did they do it? Is it because they were nervous about being inaccurate or were they trying to cover something up? That's the million dollar question. Yeah.

Because why couldn't Julie just say, I was drunk, guys. I don't remember. Yeah. And now you're not even on the stand because you ain't got nothing. If they're not guilty of anything, even if they are guilty, that's what they should have said. I agree. But instead, it looks like they all sort of, you know, tried to get the story together.

Yeah. Which is weird. So Julie decided she was going to stay and she would be brought home later by Jen and Matt McCabe. And they would leave the Alberts at 1.47 a.m. So Julie testified in court that as Jen McCabe's car pulled away from 34 Fairview, she saw what she described as a dark blob in the yard near the flagpole. And that dark blob was five or six feet long. On cross-examination, the defense called Julie out for never having remembered these specific details before that day in court. You claim now to have seen a black object in the snow, correct? Yes. Object is the term that you use when you were finally interviewed about this matter, correct?

A black object, yes. Right. You never before ever told any investigator that what you actually saw was a black blob, correct? I don't remember. And you also never, ever told any investigator that this black object that you described was actually five feet or six feet long, correct? Correct, yes. The very first time you're now mentioning this testimony that this black

object, as you describe it, was actually five or six feet long was just today after 12 noon on May 14th of 2024, correct? Lally asked me how big it was, so I just told him right now, yeah. Yeah, when you say Lally, you mean Mr. Lally. Yes, Mr. Lally, correct, yes. Once again, this could just be a weird thing. Like, oh, she didn't think about it until that day. Maybe she was never asked that specific question. So why would she say it? But why wouldn't you be asked that specific question, though, when you're initially being questioned and you're like, oh, yeah, I saw a dark object on the lawn

at 147 a.m. when we were pulling away. And then that guy who's asking you questions, who's Michael Proctor, isn't going to be like, what did the blob or the object look like? He's just going to be like, okay, you saw a dark object. Cool. Let's move on to the next question. This is pretty important. She's the only person who claims she saw a dark object. Which would have been John O'Keefe. Right. And she's not being asked clarifying questions about that dark object, size, shape, anything like that. They're just like, dark object?

Cool. Let's move on. Instead of me trying to just, because I can see where this series is going for me. It seems I can tell, I can hear myself. I got these headphones right here. Sounds like I'm just like defending everything. And it's not meant to be that way. It really isn't because I don't have any skin in the game.

I can't explain why other than saying stupidity. Yes, as Stephanie just pointed out, it all could be a conspiracy, right? It could be that she's saying it now to make the case stronger against Karen Reid and it's a complete flat out lie. I don't know this woman. I've never met her before. Probably will never talk to her. It sounds to me like she's just doing the bare minimum. If she's asked a question, she answers

it. And I don't know why that is. I don't know why she wasn't asked those questions by the investigators. But even there's moments where you can just tell she's not the brightest bulb. Just going to put it out there. I mean, there's even a point where the defense attorney says, oh, you mean Mr. Lally, right? Like she, he's, he's defending the Commonwealth's prosecutor. I think, I think it's because she's using kind of, she's kind of being like familiar, like, like familiarity because they all know each other. Right. I get what she's doing. Like I get what she's doing and he's correcting her. It's a game. It's a game guys. You have to experience it. There's some passive aggressiveness there on the part of the defense attorney. It happens with game, guys. You have to experience it. There's some passive aggressiveness there on

the part of the defense attorney. It happens with all of them. The prosecutors do it as well. Why she wasn't asked this before, I don't know. She should have been. Should have been a more detailed interview taken from her. And basically what the defense is doing here, which is what they should do, is they're pointing out, oh, now you remember seeing John O'Keefe in the snow after Karen Reed pulled away. How convenient. So he's just basically trying to dispute it and trying to poke holes in it, which is 100% his job. I leave it to you guys. You got to listen to the tape or watch the video. Do you believe this woman? Do you not believe her? That's up to you to decide. So I don't believe her.

Of course you don't. But also, I will say, I don't necessarily even think it's an admission or a sign of guilt. It could be that all of these people are like, we know we didn't do anything. We 1 million percent believe Karen Reid did something. And we're family. We're all friends. We're all close. We all know each other. We're all related. And we're going to close ranks and we're going to come up with a story that we can all stick to because we 100% know we didn't do this and we 100% believe she did. Can I point out something else though? Isn't it human nature that if you

know the defense is trying to paint a picture that your family, like you just said, everything you just said, I don't want to be redundant. They didn't do anything. They're a close-knit family and they know the defense is bringing up a theory that they were somehow responsible for his death. Wouldn't it be human instinct to close ranks and be defensive? It might be human instinct to do that, but logically and intelligently, you should know that if you're randomly making things up to make the defendant look more guilty because in your head, you 100% believe she is, that is wrong. We're on the same page there. And it's going to make you look shady and it's going to bring up reasonable doubt and you're going to end up losing this case. And John O'Keefe's

not going to get the justice that you believe he deserves. Yeah, there's already reasonable doubt here. We're in episode three. I mean, there's enough of that. And that's what the defense is doing. And this all comes back to really one main thing. It's the law enforcement agency. It doesn't matter what the motives are to sort of start adding details. That piece of information, a normal person with half a brain should know that would be something that even if not solicited by an interviewer, you should probably bring it up knowing the circumstances of why you're being interviewed. Hey, I know why I'm being questioned by the police. Maybe I should mention at the time of being interviewed, I did see a black figure that was five to six feet in length in the snow. You know, like a human shaped blob. Yeah. I don't know if that's valuable to you, but considering we're here for the death of a guy

who was found right in the proximity of where I saw that blob, maybe I should bring it up, even if it's not asked. So I'm with you. I'm with you. So that's why I don't believe that Julie actually saw a five to six foot blob. But I'm not also saying that she's lying intentionally to cover up the real murderers. No, but you're saying she's lying about it. You're saying she didn't see a blob. I am. I am saying that I believe that she's lying. She could have seen a dark spot,

but this girl was drunk. She can't even remember when she saw the SUV or what happened. You know what I mean? So it's like she's texting her brother, come pick her up. He's there within a few minutes. And she's like, I'm going to stay. Yeah, I mean, not right there. I mean, that was odd too. You're not a reliable witness, dude. So no, I don't believe that.

That's a fair assessment. Yeah, of course. I'm interested to see how, I think I know, but I'm interested to see where people fall on this whole thing. And after seeing these videos, if there's someone who hasn't already made up their mind, where they fall on this whole thing. And after seeing these videos, if there's someone who hasn't already made up their mind, where they fall on all this?

Well, according to cell phone data, John O'Keefe's phone first pinged at 34 Fairview or in that area at 1224 AM. And so the testimony of Ryan Nagel and his friends is problematic for the prosecution since they would have been parked there behind Karen's SUV for a good amount of time as she was parked outside of the Alberts, and none of them remember seeing a man in the passenger

seat or a body in the yard next to the SUV. And if what Karen is saying is true, which she pulled up, so they saw a man in the passenger seat when she's driving up. But when they pass her car, he's no longer in the passenger seat. And Karen Reed testified or told the police that when she pulled up, John got out of the car and she was waiting for him in the car to come back out of the house. Yeah, that's what the picture they're painting here. That's why they keep emphasizing it. When you drove past, it was only Karen in the car, therefore creating an opportunity that John could have been inside the house at this point.

Now, they also never saw her throw her car into reverse. They never saw her hit someone as they sat there. This time period is going to become very important. Now, let's turn to Jennifer McCabe's testimony. Because at 1227 a.m., she texted John, here, question mark, exclamation point. And this is when she claims she first saw the black SUV pull up outside 34 Fairview. During the trial, Jennifer McCabe testified that when she arrived at the house earlier that night,

she saw, which is just actually like 10 or 15 minutes before this 1227 part, but she saw Brian Higgins' Jeep parked by the mailbox. But she had told Michael Proctor on January 29th that she had seen Karen's SUV initially at 1227 pull up and park in that same spot. As a heads up, getting testimony on cross from Jennifer McCabe is like pulling teeth. She's very, very defensive. And the rear end of that Jeep would be a butting up against the driveway. Yes. Or at least the line of the driveway correct yes that's quite a bit of detail about where that jeep was would you agree no because i drove down the street and i took a left into the driveway and there was a jeep there okay what i'm asking is you didn't

just say your memory was not just somewhere in front of the house it's literally right in front of the mailbox the front end of it uh adjoining the line of the driver correct yes that detail obviously stuck out in your mind it did because i was wondering whose jeep it was did you discuss that detail with your husband at any point not sure you're not sure you might have You're not sure? Why not? I'm not sure if I said whose Jeep is that. No, I don't mean then. I mean between then and now, have you and Mr. McCabe ever discussed where that Jeep was, your memories of where that Jeep was? Possibly.

You're aware that he put the Jeep in the exact same place that you did? Jackson. Are you aware of that? I am. Oh, wait. No. Excuse me. Repeat the question? Jackson are you aware of that? I am oh wait no Excuse me repeat the question. You're aware that he puts the Jeep in the exact same spot You just right in front of that mailbox. I know he knows where the Jeep was I'm not aware what he said in here does he know where the Jeep was because you told him what to say about the

Absolutely not it's because we drove together in the car and I asked. I possibly could have asked. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to step on your words. That's okay. You can continue. Thank you. Appreciate that. I did not need to tell Matt where the Jeep is. Was. He knew because we were in the car together. But you two discussed it. When, are you asking? At any time between January 29th and today.

I'm sure we have, yes. You were also interviewed by Trooper Proctor on January 29th, 2022, correct? Yes. And you were asked a series of open-ended questions. What did you see and where did you see it, correct? Yes. And you were asked a series of open-ended questions. What did you see and where did you see? Correct? Yes. Did anybody put any words in your mouth?

No. Nobody told you what to say at that time? No. And you told Trooper Proctor that when you arrived at the scene, after you got there, you quote, "'First observed the vehicle,' meaning Ms. Reed's SUV, parked on the street by the driveway facing the direction of Chapman.

Can I do something I can look at to refresh my memory? Sure. That refresh your recollection? Yes, I know. I told. I'm asking you, I'm so sorry to do this. I don't mean to be rude. Yes.

I'm just asking you, does that or does that not refresh your recollection? Regarding? What you said to Trooper Proctor on the 29th. Well, I know what I said to Trooper Proctor on the 29th. Okay. I have to do it this way, as the court rules. Does that help you with your recollection of what you told Trooper Proctor? I didn't tell Trooper.

I told Trooper Proctor the car was outside the, when I looked at the front door, it was straight outside. I did not say this to Trooper Proctor the car was outside when I looked at the front door, it was straight outside. I did not say this to Trooper Proctor, no. It doesn't help you? No. So you did speak to Trooper Proctor on the 29th, correct? Correct. And Trooper Proctor asked you some very specific questions about where things were, correct? Correct.

Focused on Ms. Reed's SUV, didn't he? Asked you questions about where Ms. Reed's SUV was. You can show me in the report. Just read it. So just off of what I just read, is that what you're going off of? Yes? I'm asking for your memory. You're testifying.

Yes. So my memory is exactly where the car was. Hold on. So it's very important that both of you, one person at a time, speaks. Did you talk to Trevor Proctor about where the SUV was? Yes. Thank you.

And he asked you questions about where it was situated outside, correct? Yes. And you told him that you first observed it parked on the street by the driveway facing the direction of Chapman correct I told him that when I looked out the front door the car was straight ahead and yes it was facing up Chapman. That could have been his interpretation or an error on his part. I see. So Trooper Proctor is wrong about what you said. Objection. No, I'll let him have it. Do you

think he's wrong about what you said? I 100% said it was straight out the front door. Okay, next question, please. Thank you, Your Honor. And during the course of that conversation, you never once, Ms. McCabe, not once, mentioned a several-ton Jeep with a snowplow attached to it, did you? I'm not sure if I did or not. Let's take another look at the report. Would that refresh your recollection to see the report? Rejection. Do you think that will help you? I'll take a look at it.

Okay. May I? Yes. That looks like a report from Trooper Proctor of your interview, correct? Correct. That interview was taken on January 29th, correct? Correct. That interview was taken just a few hours, not days or weeks, hours after the

events in question, correct? Correct. And you were asked what you saw, what you observed in front of 34th Fairview on that morning, correct? I'm sorry, the night before, correct? He asked specific questions about Ms. Reid's vehicle. Okay. And when you said where you remember Ms Reeds vehicle being, you placed it

in the exact spot where you're now saying there was a Jeep with a snowplow on it, correct? Incorrect. I never placed Miss Reeds' car in the spot where Mr. Higgins' vehicle was. So as Trooper Proctor was taking notes about what you were saying, he just got it wrong? You'd have to ask Trooper Proctor. I will. And you never mentioned, according to that report, not one word about a Jeep, right? I was, I may never have been asked about a Jeep. Ah, so if you weren't asked about a Jeep, you also weren't asked about a Nissan Altima. Mention that?

No. Right. Following the events of January 28th, 29th, you spoke extensively to Chris and Julie Albert, correct? What do you mean by extensively? Did you speak at all? Yes, we did. Between then and now, to Chris and Julie Albert? Do I speak to Chris and Julie Albert?

Have you spoken to them about these events between then and now? About this case? Is that what you're asking? Yes, Ms. McCabe, I'm asking about this case. Of course I speak to them all the time about the vicious harassment we are all receiving. Let's take a break. We'll be right back. So, yes, we don't have much to talk about as far as Jen McCabe's testimony here. Once again, it's just changing stories.

Very combative. Yeah. And she initially told Trooper Proctor this, and then she changed her story later. She's putting Karen Reed's vehicle right where she already testified that Brian Higgins' Jeep was. Once again, that's not possible. And she is very, very defensive. Yes. There's another observation to be taken from this, and I'm extrapolating here a little bit, but I think it's becoming from this and it's I'm extrapolating here a little bit but I think it's it's becoming a theme and it's it's probably accurate when this case initially happened there's no doubt that trooper proctor and the rest of the people involved whatever their intentions were I can't speak to their intentions the reason behind it they focused on Karen Reed they were building a case against Karen Reed why they were doing that you guys can decide but they were building

a case against her and that's why their questioning was focusing on Karen Reid, her vehicle, where she was. Now, there could be something more there. We're going to get into that, obviously, as far as corruption and all that stuff as we need to. But at minimum, there's tunnel vision on Karen Reid. And the questioning was around that. I mean, we know that because they never even went inside the Alberts' house. They never went in Albert's house. I have no doubt in my mind he asked her a million questions

about Karen Reid and her vehicle and probably didn't say, because when we start a statement, an interrogation, an interview, whatever, what I always started with is, hey, tell me everything you remember. Just everything. It's a blanket statement. Just tell me everything you remember, everything that you think is important. Then I'll get into the specific questions that I had to ask or maybe new questions that were derived from what they said. That's how you always start it. It's a big summary, a big synopsis, and then you start to dive into the details that you want to

know about. But at minimum, that's what I'm taking from all of this witness testimony is that the questions were around Karen Reed's vehicle and her and everything else. And they were building that case against her. Clearly they ended up charging it right now, as far as her defensiveness here, I've said it a couple of times. I won't say it again. Everyone's doing it. The prosecution's doing it. The defense attorneys are doing it. And some of the witnesses are giving it back. There's nobody here who's going to tell me as great as this defense attorney is, I really do like his style. He's an asshole in his own right. They all are. That's their job. He's smug. He's smug. Yeah.

Perfect. Perfect word. Thank you. And people don't like smugness. No, no. And listen, I have been that guy. I have been her on the stand where they're asking me stupid questions. Have you also been the smug person? I've been the condescending smug person responding to them. Like, you know, something like with the police officer, the last episode. Yeah, I know what a stake is. You know, those are, it's the back and forth, passive aggressive thing that they're doing. You know, well, you have to ask Proctor about that.

I, oh, I will. It's, it's, you know, it's a pissing match, right? They're all, it's an ego competition to a certain degree. Here's the thing that bothers me about Jennifer McCabe specifically, because I've had to watch a lot of her testimony. You know what happened. What happened is what happened. The fact that you have to continue asking the defense attorneys in the court to show you reports so you can read your own words back so you can have a better idea of how to answer these questions is concerning to me because you've changed your story and added details and taken details away

so many times that you now have to continue asking to see the reports and to see the grand jury testimony that you made so that you don't perjure yourself. That's a problem. There's no doubt in the theme of what I just said, she's being a jerk and an asshole to him as well. She's going to hold him to every single word in a report. She's not being cooperative. He's trying to hold her. He's trying to hold her accountable. She doesn't even remember her own words. No, she does remember it. No, she doesn't.

She's being an asshole. No, she doesn't. She's being, I think she's doing it. Oh, if it's in the report. There's so much space that I've had to cut out because I can't just have dead air, but he'll ask her a question and then there'll be a good 10 to 12 seconds where she just looks completely confused. And then she's like, uh, can I check that?

So she literally doesn't remember what she said to the grand jury, to Proctor. She has to look at it and read her own words back so she knows how to answer these questions. And you have a problem with that? No, I have a problem with it as in there's one story. So answer the question. But he's not asking that question, though. Did you or did you not tell Trooper Proctor that when you look directly outside, you placed Karen Reeds, you placed Karen Reeds SUV in the exact same spot that you're now telling me Brian's Brian Higgins Jeep is. And what does she keep saying?

Can I see where I said that? What was the other thing she keeps saying? That's not what I said. She's she's claiming Proctor misinterpreted. She keeps saying I 100 percent said the Jeep was in front of the door. So all I would say and I don't like the way she's testifying here. I'm not a defender of her. What I'm saying is you just framed it perfectly.

The lawyer's asking her, did you say this to Proctor? And she's not remembering that, which, you know, take what you want from that. And that's why she keeps going back to what she does remember saying. Now, should she know everything she said to Proctor six months, a year prior? That's up for you to decide. So we're moving forward. John O'Keefe's phone recorded an eight second call from Jennifer McCabe at 1229 AM, as well as several calls afterwards. Now, Jen claims she does not remember making these calls. She says she never deleted them from her phone before she handed it to the police for extraction, even though that extraction report showed that those messages, I mean, those calls were deleted from her phone.

You saw in his extraction report that all of those calls after 1218 were missed calls correct in the his report that you showed me correct in other words the only two calls that were answered were the 1214 and 1218. everything else was a missed call i believe so i would have to refer to it again because i've seen so many reports and this became according to the extraction reports that you've seen this morning comparing yours to his every single one of those calls was deleted off your phone correct according to the reports according to that report, yes. Let me ask you another question. Have you ever misplaced your phone? Yes.

In life, everybody does it, right? Yes. What's one of the first things you do if you're with your daughter or your husband or a friend, and you're in your house and you misplaced your phone? What do you do? I'll ask them to call my phone. Right. Even over and over and over, right?

Correct. Could be as many as five, six, seven times. Usually I hear it's the first or second time. You're looking for a buzz or a ring, isn't that right? Correct. And you might do that if you're searching for a missing phone, correct? Correct. With regard to the calls that were deleted

from your phone, you were asked about this under oath at another proceeding, weren't you? Correct. And you claimed at another proceeding that you had an explanation for all these missed calls starting at 1229, 1241, 1241, 1243, 1246, 1247, 1250. You have an explanation for that, right? Can I see the report?

I'm asking you about your prior testimony. And I'm asking- About these calls. Yes, I'm asking, can I see it, please? I'm asking you a different question. At I'm asking, can I see it, please? I'm asking you a different question. At this other proceeding, which you underwrote. Yes. You explained that these calls were what? These missed calls, incessant missed calls.

What were they? You used a word. Matter of fact, it's two words. I believe I used the word butt dials. You claimed that every one of these calls was a butt dial, is that right? Yes. So according to you, you literally butt dialed John O'Keefe's phone six times in the span of 19 minutes. Is that right?

I don't remember making any of those calls, so my assumption is I put my phone in my back pocket, and that was it. When you dial someone by mistake, you hit a button, set your phone down. The phone has to be open. You'll agree to that, right? Correct. It's got to be locked because it takes several iterations of movement to get a phone open. Base ID or password, right? Correct.

So when you hit the button, by mistake, walk away, that's a butt dial, people call butt dials. What happens with the call? I assume it goes to voicemail. Good assumption, because that's exactly what it does, isn't it? You've had a phone for a lot of years, right? Yes.

It rings and rings and rings until it goes to voicemail. Correct. So in order to hang up that butt dial, you have to interact with that phone yet again, don't you? Yes. So if you had six butt dials, seven, I think it's seven butt dials, you'd not only have to interact with the phone once

to butt dial, John, you'd then have to interact with it every single time to turn off that phone ringer so it doesn't go to voicemail i suppose which makes 14 interfaces with that phone over the course of 19 minutes. Is that right? I mean, I guess I don't have it all right in front of me, but there were also text messages I was sending. So again, maybe I said, oh shoot, I called them and then I turned it off. But your claim is you don't remember those incessant butt dials

and those incessant hangups at all, correct? I honestly don't. That means you would have had to interact with that phone 14 times over the course of 19 minutes at the exact time frame that the Commonwealth suggests Donald Keith lost his life. Objection. Sustained. You can ask that differently, and this will be your last question for today, please. The period between 1229 and 1250, which is the exact period that you were, quote,

butt-dialing John multiple times, that's also the exact period that John O'Keefe, which rendered incapacitated, was not right. Josh, that's sustained. We'll start up again tomorrow, okay? All right. So you understand what he's saying here, right? That Jen McCabe called John O'Keefe all of these times, says she doesn't remember that they were butt dials, but in order for those to have been butt dials, you would expect that every time she called, not knowing that she was calling, there would be an associated voicemail on John O'Keefe's phone. But there wasn't, which meant she called, and before or when it went to voicemail,

she hung up, which that can't be a butt dial. Jennifer McCabe also claimed that she had looked outside of 34 Fairview multiple times after midnight on January 29th and saw a dark SUV. She'd seen Karen's SUV, Ryan Nagle's truck, and Higgins' Jeep. And in court, she confirmed that she had a clear view of the SUV across the front lawn, which remember is where John O'Keefe's body would be found hours later. Basically in her testimony, she's asked many questions about her field of view. They're saying, hey, if you kept getting up and walking to the door or the window and you saw the SUV, you saw it arrive, you saw it move up a few times, and then you saw it leave, right? Allegedly at 1245, you saw it

leave. At no time, even though nothing was obstructing your field of view between yourself and the SUV, did you see a body laying on the lawn? Nor did you see this backing up of Karen's SUV, of her throwing her car in reverse, of her hitting John, and you never saw a body. And she's like, well, I wasn't looking at the ground. So basically, that's her explanation there. Now, we know that Karen Reed's cell phone and vehicle connected to the Wi-Fi at John O'Keefe's house at 1236 a.m. This is not in question. The information came from a prosecution witness and even a neighbor on John's street said he saw headlights pulling into John's driveway around that exact same time.

So this is not in question. Information came from a prosecution witness. Now, Jennifer McCabe testified that she first saw the SUV at 1227 when she sent the here text. Then at 1231, Jen texted John O'Keefe, pull behind me. And she claims at this point, she saw the SUV move up a bit. At 1240 AM, Jen says she saw the SUV move again up by the flagpole and she texted, hello. At 12.42 a.m., Jen texted John, where are you? And she says that the SUV was still there. Jennifer McCabe says that Karen Reed and her SUV left 34 Fairview at 12.45 a.m., at which point Jen texted John at that exact same time saying, hello, and then John O'Keefe never came inside. Here's the issue with this timing. It is a six

minute drive on a good day from 34 Fairview to 1 Meadows Avenue, where John lived. So if Karen was back at John's by 1236 AM, which is not in dispute, she would have had to have left Fairview no later than 1230 AM. That means that all the texts Jen sent after 1230, which she claimed she sent as she would get up and look outside to make sure the SUV was still there, were sent when the SUV was not actually there, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Yeah, I can see that. 1240, like you said, just not to be redundant here, 1240, she's sending,

hello, 1242, where are you? At that point, Karen Reed's SUV is already home. It was, it was done. Ben home. She got to John's at 1236, but Jen's saying, I sent those texts as I got up, walked to the door and saw the SUV there. Even the pull behind me text, which she claims she saw the SUV move up a little bit. And she thought they were trying to figure out where to park. And so she's like, Hey, pull behind me in the driveway. There's no possible way that Karen Reid and her SUV were there unless she transported herself and her car in the matter of seconds.

Six-minute drive on a good night, and this was snowing. Yeah. Yeah, so it might have taken a couple minutes longer, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, the only thing that would have been more advantageous for Karen Reid's defense would have been if during, let's just say at 1231 or at 1240, when she said, pull behind me if he just put K or something like that, because that would show Karen Reed's back at the house in the SUV and John O'Keefe is still alive. But unfortunately he never responded. So for the people who are on Karen Reid's side,

this is great. This is great for her. And it lines up because again, Jen McCabe is a terrible witness and is an absolute nightmare for the prosecution. And her timing's all off. And regardless of what the truth is, her timing's off. Just leave it at that. So with her timing and what she's adamant about, she's wrong. There's no doubt about it. At minimum, she's wrong. Worse, she's lying. She's doing this deliberately. But you would think if she was going to lie, she would have a better story because obviously through GPS and cell phone data, they're going to be able to discredit her statement. So yeah, this is great for Karen Reed, obviously, because Jen is adamant about the fact.

Now, if she came back and said, I'm sorry, I was wrong. The car wasn't there when I was texting that. I knew Karen was guilty of this and I was trying to build a stronger case against her because we all know she did it. That would be more believable, but she's dying on this hill and technology is proving her wrong. And that's kind of what the defense is trying to say. The defense is trying to say, no, no, man, you didn't get up and look and see the car every time you texted. OK, you're just saying that because in the aftermath, y'all got together.

That's what lines up. And you got together with Trooper Proctor. And the state was like, hey, we think because it was that 1245 time that the reconstruction of Karen's vehicle shows it backing up and going, you know, 80 feet or whatever. And that's when the state says Karen Reed killed John O'Keefe 1245. There's no possible way she could have been at 34 Fairview at 1245. So Jen McCabe built her testimony based on the state's case, which she knew through her close relationship with the police officers who were investigating the case. So what's the prosecution's counter to that? They stuck with the 1245 killing? So how did they dispute that?

They had to because of the reconstruction of the SUV. So then how did they explain away that her car is in the driveway at 1236? There's no explanation for that? They didn't, dude. No. They just said, we know the car's in the driveway, but we're still sticking with the fact that it's 1245. They don't really have an answer for that. So anybody who's on the side that Karen Reed is guilty, you guys have been good about quote unquote correcting us or coming back with new information to dispute certain things. From what I'm hearing, there's proof that Karen Reed was home by 1236 and yet the prosecution is sticking with this 1245 timeline. If we're wrong, let us know because that doesn't add up. John O'Keefe would already have to be at least struck by the car at that point. And I'm not

saying he's dead. I think there's a strong argument that regardless of what happened to him, as we know from the autopsy, he died from hypothermia. He died from being out in the cold. And the blunt force trauma. So there was a combination there, but he might not have died instantly. So he could still be alive at this point. But regardless, whatever happened to him, if Karen Reed's responsible for it, it already happened at this point. But how could that be true? How could they stick with the 1245 timeline as far as when he was struck by the vehicle, when the vehicle has already been gone for almost 15 minutes? And how could it be true when we got all these people looking out, looking out, looking out?

That's a different conversation. I already said Jen's horrible. Jen's horrible and her time's off and she's killing the prosecution. I want to know what the prosecution response, because we know what the defense is, what they're painting here. They're saying her car was no longer there when the prosecution is saying John O'Keefe was struck by the car. Did that change? Did they have an explanation for it? Did they find a way to dispute the fact that Karen's car was already back at the house by 1236? You said 1236? 1236 is a prosecution witness that gave that time. Yeah. 1236 that they're home. Is that time wrong? We need to know. We need to know. So yeah, this is all, it's all messed up, but I keep coming back and I know we're getting ready to wrap this episode up soon.

Here's where I'm at just as we're getting ready to wrap this episode up soon. Here's where I'm at just as we're getting ready to close down part three. Just like many of the cases we have, you can't answer everything with one question. When you're talking about this case, what I've come to at this point is you have to ask compartmentalized questions. The first being, did Karen Reed kill John O'Keefe? That's the first question. Or at minimum, did she strike him with the car? Okay. The second question you have to ask, which is completely separate from the first, should she be found guilty of a crime? Two different questions, because you can say that you believe she struck him with the car and still answer,

absolutely not. She should be charged with a crime and that would be okay. So that's just two of the main questions you have to ask here. If you say, oh yeah, it's all one, just round it all up and it's a yes or a no, you're already starting with a shitty foundation because it's impossible in this case. It is true that someone could commit a crime. And yet, because of how botched the initial investigation was and how inadequate they were as far as following policy and procedure, and then not asking the right questions, and then having witnesses who are uncooperative and at minimum, at minimum, not being forthright for whatever reason and it's a horrible case we're three episodes in and i would as a as a prosecutor i'm just like what are we doing here as a jury member what are you as a jury member i'm like i'm ready i'm ready to make my decision

i don't need to hear anything else regardless of what what I personally believe, I could be sitting in that jury box going, yeah, it's possible she hit him with the car and didn't know it. It's possible, right? But guess what? That's not what you're telling me here. And the defense has done a great job of showing multiple ways that that could not be true. So I know we got more to go. I know we got more to go. And I think as we go forward and you're the storyteller here, I think it almost transitions from, is this an accident where you have people believing they know what happened and they're lying to support that narrative? Or as we go on in the series and you've alluded to multiple times, is it way worse than that?

Is it an effort by the state police and the Canton Police Department and BPD and the Alberts and other members to create this narrative against this woman and frame her, which many people believe that's not a crazy idea I'm throwing out there. And I think that's where the progression of this series is going, because I think at this point, it's very obvious that she should be found not guilty of any crime just based on what I've heard so far. I hope I'm not burying the lead here, but that's the truth. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. So we will continue. Next episode is going to be pretty evidence heavy, Apple health data,

forensics, stuff like that. I would like you, Derek, to kind of look into the Apple health data controversy before we meet again next week, because let me guess, there's going to be two experts who disagree. Yeah, of course. There's several experts that disagree. It gets complicated. It's complicated for me. I do not have a technical brain. I know your brain is far more technical, so maybe you can make heads or tails of it and you can give a better explanation when we talk about it next week. Yeah, no, there's a lot to cover. But I think that's where I am right now.

And I'm not sitting here for storytelling purposes, not telling you guys. That's where I fall. Like, I'm not 100 percent convinced that Karen didn't accidentally hit John with the truck. And these timelines are off. And that's why it sounds crazy. But she accidentally hit him with the truck. I don't know if I can get to the point where she intentionally did it she was and i want to go back to something when we go when we talk about the messages and the phone calls she was making

after if she did hit him that does not sound like a person who intentionally hit someone and is covering up for herself no i agree and i said it in episode one where if she did do it and she was trying to create an alibi, would you create an alibi that gives you motive as to why you would do it? No. And the prosecution uses those to be like, see, she's full of rage. She's so angry. It's like, yeah, she's full of rage. Like, like we've all been at our significant others from time to time, but this is not how you would be. But those calls were way after he would have already been hit. Yeah. Why would you want anyone to think you were full of rage at that point? No, exactly. That's what I'm saying. Like if she was going to create an alibi, it would be something more

along the lines. It's not that three-dimensional where she's so smart and so above it where she's like, I'm actually going to make calls and make everyone believe that I'm super pissed at him because that's exactly what a guilty person would do. It doesn't make sense. So I'm not completely off that path that she could have still been responsible for it in some way. Like I said, an accident, you know, everyone's drunk. I've said that a million times this episode and that's still in play here.

But there's also a lot of other things in play, but at minimum, leaving episode three, we're over six hours into this series. I don't need to hear anything else. As a jury member, let's convene and let's come to our decision. Prosecution, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, appeal it, try again next time because you lost me. Your witnesses were not prepared. They were argumentative. They were combative. And regardless of their reasons for it, like they were being attacked and harassed. I'm not doubting that I've seen the stuff online, but they were not prepared. They weren't familiar with the reports. They weren't

familiar with their statements. And the defense attorney is eating their lunch. Yes. Yes. It's pretty, pretty hard to watch actually. And that 1245 thing, I still want to know about that. Like I want to understand, is it not that they're disputing the 1245? It's that they're disputing the 1236. That's possible. That could be the angle of attack. So anything else before we close this up? Nope. That's it. Guys, this is an emotional rollercoaster. I'm a little heated and I think I'm heated for probably different reasons than many of you. I'm pissed off because I already know between the lines here how bad of a police investigation was conducted.

And that's on the low end of the spectrum. I think a lot of people in Massachusetts feel that way. And they feel worse. You got a lot more to go. And it's going to be, we haven't even talked about Proctor. And I had looked up where he is currently as far as his status in the police department. Spoiler alert, he ain't working. So I'm already upset because this is a black eye on all of law enforcement and this is what I try to combat. So this right here is just a really, really poorly done investigation and it looks negative for not just the Massachusetts State

Police, not just the Canton Police Department. It looks negative for all just the Massachusetts State Police, not just the Canton Police Department. It looks negative for all of us, including myself, because it looks like I'm trying to defend them. So it frustrates me that I have to come on here and try to make sense of something that's indefensible. So that's where I'm at. So if I'm a little irritated, that's why. And trying also to show that not everybody is like that in a situation where it seems like everybody sucks. Exactly. Exactly. And it's tough. It's a lose-, lose, but yeah, I'm leaving part three, Karen Reed, without a doubt acquitted on all charges, second degree murder included. Uh, you didn't prove anything lesser than that. And with all the questions that

we have here and all the different players and all the inconsistencies in the statement, there ain't no shot in hell that a jury's finding her guilty of second degree murder. Well, they actually, they didn't. They didn't. That's what I'm saying. But now they're going to appeal it and try again. Well, they're going to try again, but that's kind of double jeopardy considering. I don't even know how they're able to try again because whatever the statements were.

We're all very confused. I don't see it, but that's where I'm at. I feel that way about the second question. The first question as far as what actually happened to John O'Keefe, which is the most important thing. I don't know yet. I don't know yet. So we'll keep it going.

We appreciate you guys being here. Everyone stay safe out there. We'll see you next week. Bye.