Crime Weekly - S3 Ep259: John O'Keefe: The Evidence (Part 4)

Episode Date: December 13, 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. SimpliSafe.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 50% off any new system with a Select Professional Monitoring Plan! 2. Talkspace.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code SPACE80 for $80 off your first month! 3. Prose.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 50% off your first subscription order and a FREE in-depth hair consultation! 4. SkyLightFrame.com/Weekly - Get $20 off! 5. https://bit.ly/crimeweekly - Download June's Journey for free today!

You set the gold standard for your business. Your website should do the same. Wix puts you at the helm, so you can enjoy the creative freedom of designing your site just the way you want. Want someone to bounce your ideas off? Talk with AI to create a beautiful site together. Whatever your business, manage it from one place and tie it all together with a personalized domain name.

Gear up for success with a brand that says you best. You can do it yourself on Wix. It's time to turn your daydream into your dream job. Wix gives you the power to turn your passion into a moneymaker with a website that fits your unique vision and drives you towards your goals. Let your ideas flow with AI tools that guide you, but give you full control and flexibility. Manage your business from one dashboard and keep it growing with built-in marketing features. Get everything you need to turn your part-time passion into a full-time business. Go to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow.

And I'm Derek Levasseur. And we are diving into part four of the John O'Keefe and Karen Reid case. But before we do, we have a special criminal coffee holiday announcement. We're so excited. Derek and I have been working behind the scenes. Well, mostly Derek, but I've been talking to him about it. We've been working behind the scenes to bring you something special. We have great coffee. Everybody who drinks it knows. And now we're adding a special edition.

Derek, I will let you do the honors. That's right. Something that's been probably our biggest request, flavored coffee. You guys wanted it for years. It's a whole different process. And we are finally taking that challenge on. And we're starting with our holiday coffee. You're going to see the bag design right here on the screen. This is our criminal coffee, peppermint bark. And it is delicious. I will tell you that. Stephanie has tried it as well. It's amazing. And we've actually teamed up with Mills Coffee Roasters, which if you look them up, they're one of the oldest roasters in the country.

They started in 1860. And I'm working with Susan Mills, who's obviously of the Mills family. And she's been a huge help. And this is going to be hopefully an ongoing relationship where we're going to offer the peppermint bark just for the holiday season. That one will go away. And then we're going to bring out other flavors throughout the season. That'll be seasonal, but we're also going to have some steady fixtures. We're gonna have to figure out which ones they are probably like a French vanilla or a hazelnut, but we will find the certain ones that you guys love and we'll keep

them in stock all year round. But extremely excited about it. The bag, as you can see the design on the screen here, pretty cool. This is your first visual of Corver City. Nobody's ever seen it before. Now you can. This is supposed to depict

what Corver City looks like in our minds. I think it came out pretty cool. There is a little caveat here. What's the caveat? The caveat is we're scrambling. This was an ongoing process. It's something that we had to scramble to get done. And the bags, as we're recording this, are on their way here. So Mills is going to do their best possible ability to kind of get these bags filled and we will pick them up immediately to get them out to you. So as you're watching this episode or listening to it on Friday, we should have the bags here and I'll be shipping

them out as soon as we get them. There may be a delay or two. So if you order the coffee, it may take an extra day or two than it normally does when you order from us. I wouldn't call this a pre-order. It's on its way. But once you see this link, come up in this description box, click it, order your coffee. And as soon as it hits my door, you're going to have it delivered to your door. So order as you can, because we have a limited supply. I only ordered, I don't know, maybe, I don't even know the number of bags I ordered. It wasn't a lot because I wanted to see what the response was. So if you're interested in trying it, you've been waiting for something that is a little different than just a medium dark and light roast, this is definitely the option for you. Little hint that I've been finding out, and this is from Susan Mills herself,

peppermint bark. It's obviously got chocolate notes and it's got peppermint notes, strong peppermint notes. If you really want to enhance the chocolate note, you have to add a little sugar. So if you're not someone who loves sugar, that's okay. Just add a little bit in there. You'll taste the chocolate so much more. I didn't realize it until she's like, throw a little bit more sugar in there and watch what happens and pop all of a sudden tastes like a chocolate peppermint bar in my coffee. Yeah. It's like a peppermint, a chocolate peppermint patty. That's what it reminds me of. Exactly. Exactly. And peppermint mocha is my favorite holiday drink. So this is amazing. They've got they've got great peppermint mocha creamers out there that

pair beautifully with this. So check it out. Nothing better to give your loved ones this holiday season than a bag of this seasonal criminal coffee is so good. They're going to love it. They're going to drink it all throughout the winter and you're going to be happy that you did it. Yeah, this is going to be like a medium roast and I promise you I will do everything in my power if you order relatively soon. We will try and get it to you before the holidays. I'm pretty confident unless you're ordering like two days before Christmas, we'll be able to get it to you. So that's the plan. Go check them out. Peppermint Bark, you can order it right now as you're hearing or seeing this. Appreciate the

support. Enjoy the coffee and let us know what you think. If you love the flavored coffee and you want, and there's a specific flavor you might want to see or taste, I guess I should say, let us know in the comments and we're going to try to make that happen. But we're super excited. I vote for hazelnut. Yeah. Hazelnut and French vanilla are probably the most too popular, but there's some other flavors like s'mores and sugar cookie that we have on the table that we're talking about. There's also a fall flavor that has a hint of orange that I tasted. That was incredible. So really excited about expanding our product line. And this is just an evolution in building a coffee

company. You have to go through two different processes. You can't use the same machines for the regular blends as you do for the flavored coffee because you have to clean out the alcohol with the flavor components. It's this whole thing. It's really pretty advanced, but we got it done. We're excited about it. So please go over, check it out. Let us know what you think. That's all I had. All right. Well, let's dive in. It's going to be a long episode. We got a lot to talk about today. We're covering the physical evidence and basically what one side says about it, what the other side says about it, et cetera, et cetera. You know the deal. You know it. But we're there. Can we recap real quick? Real quick, after episode three, we've kind of came

to the conclusion you were already there, but now me going through the evolution, asking the questions I've asked, at this point, I've taken off guilty verdict off the table. She should be acquitted. And as you have said multiple times, she shouldn't be tried again. It's too tainted now. There's been too many mix ups in the storyline. There's been too many questions about the witnesses. At this point, I'm transitioning to what actually happened, because that's really important here. What actually happened to John O'Keefe? But as far as being factually innocent, I'm already there. If I'm a jury member, I'm finding Karen Reid not guilty on all charges. That's where I am.

But now I'm trying to figure out who killed John O'Keefe. Was it an accident? Was it intentional? You don't mean that you don't think Karen Reid could have potentially done this. You just mean in a court of law based on what you've seen. Correct. I think it's still very likely to be transparent with you guys that she did do it. She might not even have known she did it.

But that doesn't also mean if she did it that the police still aren't corrupt or wrong in what they did. Because as I've said to you before, and I don't know if it was on camera, off camera, I strongly believe that they decided immediately Karen Reed was guilty and they built their case around that assumption. And that is the wrong way to investigate a case. They didn't open it up to all scenarios and follow the evidence. They said, oh, she did it. Now let's find the evidence that supports that. And it might've even gone as far as lying or embellishing what they

found, not only on the part of law enforcement, but also the witnesses to build that case and make it stronger. So that's what I'm trying to see here. Now, although their intentions may have been in the right place, I guess, if you want to say it like that, the way they conducted themselves is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, which is why people like Proctor are not even on the job right now. I don't think their intentions are in the right place. I'm just going to put that out there. I hope you picked up on the tone there.

I mean, obviously, I'm saying this because not everyone agrees with you, and our job is to represent everyone and to represent all sides, regardless of what we believe in. So- But it is my opinion that their intentions were not good. Yes. If that wasn't abundantly clear

after three episodes that Stephanie believes- You don't unintentionally screw up this much. Well, conversely, I would argue that if it was intentional, they wouldn't have wanted to screw up this much. So they wouldn't. I don't think that they thought anybody was going to look that hard. I don't think they thought Karen Reid was going to hire this badass defense team and fight back the way she did.

I think they thought she was going to roll over and take it because she literally had no memory of what happened because she was so drunk, allegedly. Agreed. Agreed. Yeah. And that's kind of where I'm at. So what I'm trying to figure out now is what actually happened. Clear out the white noise. Go off what we can as much as we can, even though there's always two sides to this, two interpretations of every single piece of evidence in this case. Right. but I am going to choose to believe and try to avoid using testimony of quote unquote experts, because I do want to say one more thing. I know this episode's long, but I have to reiterate it. And this is going to piss some of my colleagues off, but I don't, it's the truth. I worked with the FBI and ATF and DEA for many years, and I have a lot of respect for them. There were some badasses that I worked with, some guys who were in the FBI, who went overseas in Afghanistan and came back

and are just absolute monsters, just the best guys you can think of and would run through a door for you. But I'm here to tell everyone, because there's a stigma behind the FBI that's not true. Just because they're an FBI agent, it does not make them better than anybody else. So when you're using it saying, oh, the FBI said this, the FBI said that, I will tell

you that for me, that doesn't carry a ton of weight because I have seen FBI agents that are no better than my local patrolman. They don't have the experience. They don't have the knowledge. And they're just a human being like you and I, and they make mistakes as well. So ultimately what I'm suggesting to everyone is come to your own conclusions. Don't use the acronyms in front of the expert's name to decide what is more valid than the other. Well, I think in this situation, when the FBI is being tasked to investigate the investigating body

of this case, I would trust their opinion more than the opinion of the Massachusetts State Police or the Canton Police who are being investigated because of the way they handled it. So it's almost like this should be a little bit of an unbiased, more unbiased than the Mass State Police and Canton. It's possible. But I'm also here to tell you that when it comes down to the evidence itself and their interpretation of it, they can also be wrong. And that's not coming from something I'm just pulling out of my, you know what? It's one of those things where I know firsthand that when I read a report from an FBI agent, as opposed to a DEA agent or an ATF agent or a state trooper, you got to evaluate the evidence for yourself. What I'm saying is being an independent thinker, come to your own conclusions. There's a lot of different pieces of evidence in this case that

that filter can be applied. We may talk about it some tonight. Obviously, we talked about the 227 timestamp. That's a big one. That's a huge one for a lot of people, but I do have some opinions on that as well. But overall, use what you believe is the most viable information. Don't go off the assumptions that you may have because of what you've been told. Oh, FBI is, there's this hierarchy where it goes local authorities, state authorities, then federal authorities, and that's basically their rank as far as intelligence and capabilities. That's not true. Now, what Stephanie's saying as far as them being independent investigators, not being connected to Boston, whether it's laterally or vertically as far as their hierarchy, that could be true because they're not connected to Boston. But make no mistake about it.

Just because the FBI is looking into something, it doesn't mean they're more equipped to do so. I would go as far as to say that the FBI being a law enforcement body may be almost more slanted to the police department. They may look out for their boys because there's FBI agents. Like I said, I'm a local. I was a local cop. But some of my best friends were FBI agents that would have my back if I needed to. Not in a legal way, but but they were they would have my back where we're working a case together. We're we're one in one. We don't look at it as, oh, they supersede me. So yeah, to that argument, you could say, yeah, if anything, the FBI is going to be slightly skewed to protecting, quote unquote, their own. So that's just something I want to say, because I was going through my own research and I'm seeing the arguments and the debates and everyone's like, well, the FBI said this, but state police said this, oh, but Canton said this. And it's like, listen, wash out that noise, go to the source, do your own independent thinking, your own independent

investigation and come to your own conclusions. Don't assume that the people relaying that to you just because of their resume are smarter than you. Because I'm here to tell you that's not the truth all right well let's dive in so let's go to the date of january 29th 2022 when an investigation began into the death of boston police officer john o'keefe we are going to the testimony of massachusetts state police lieutenant kevin o'hara who was also the team commander for the state police special emergency response team or cert as we'll refer to it from now on. So O'Hara said that at 2.30 p.m. on the 29th, he was contacted by Lieutenant Brian Tully, who's the supervisor for the Norfolk County DA's State Police Detective Unit.

Tully told O'Hara that he was conducting a death investigation in Canton and needed assistance with an evidence search. O'Hara said that he told Tully that members of the CERT team could respond, but it would take some time because of the weather conditions on that day, which as we know, it was a pretty bad blizzard. At 3.45 p.m., O'Hara told Tully that he and his team had been cleared to respond to the Canton area, the scene, and he would testify that his team were told to bring shovels, brooms, and rakes to assist with evidence recovery. At 4.56 p.m., O'Hara and six other members of the CERT team arrived at 34 Fairview and they set up a grid search around where Karen's SUV was believed to have been parked the night before. Lieutenant O'Hara testified that by the time they started to search, it was already getting dark. He also testified that Tully had told the search team that John

O'Keefe had been struck by a vehicle and they should be looking for pieces of a broken taillight along with John's missing sneaker, which is pretty specific information to give. Yeah, which by the way, already, already, that's tunnel vision, right? They've already come to the conclusion of what happened. Now they're trying to fill in the blanks to connect the dots and that they're trying to get to that conclusion now with evidence. So right there, that's already a red flag for me. So O'Hara said they found six or seven pieces of a taillight on the street between the flagpole and fire hydrant in front of the Albert home, and these were found while searching through snowdrifts, and in that same general area,

John's other sneaker was found, completely buried in snow. By 6.15 p.m., the entire search was wrapped up, and O'Hara told Brian Tully that the search team could return during the day to continue searching. Now, in court, the ADA, Adam Lally, showed the jury photos of where the taillight pieces and sneakers had been found. And on cross-exam, defense attorney David Iannetti pointed out to O'Hara that the scene had not been secured and had been left open to the public for hours

before the search team arrived. Iannetti was also able to get O'Hara to admit that the information about where the search was gonna take place and what they were looking for had come with Tully. And he pointed out a portion of O'Hara's report where O'Hara noted that John O'Keefe had been hit and dragged by a vehicle at around 1230 a.m. O'Hara also admitted that he had gotten this information from Lieutenant Brian Tully. Now, it has been questioned how the Canton police officers who initially responded to the scene found no taillight pieces, even though they conducted their search in the early morning hours when it was light out. But then 12 hours later,

when it was dark, the CERT team found some pieces of taillight along with John Sneaker. Now, although CERT collected some pieces of the taillight on the afternoon of January 29th, several more pieces would be found, but not by CERT. Trooper Michael Proctor would enter over 30 pieces of taillight into evidence that he claimed he randomly found during five separate occasions over the course of the month of February 2022. So it's Proctor and a couple other law enforcement people who claim they were just like driving by and would just see pieces of taillight and they'd stop and grab them. And according to the original police reports, law enforcement recovered taillight pieces from Brian

Albert's front yard over the course of two searches, which was January 29th and February 3rd. However, photographs of dated evidence bags showed that additional undocumented searches recovered more taillight pieces. Notations on the evidence bags showed that trooper Michael Proctor traveled to the Alpert home by himself on February 8th, February 11th, and February 18th, at which point he collected more pieces, but no information about where these pieces of evidence were found was notated. Yeah, not only should it have been notated, but whenever you collect evidence, the number one thing you want to do is photograph it, put a placard there, date, time, if you can videotape

it, but at minimum photos, at minimum photos that show it in the place before you remove them. Yeah, this was never done. And not only that. That's a problem right there. It brings into question the evidence, of course. Yeah. Why was Tripper Proctor the one grabbing these? Why wouldn't he call an evidence response team or, you know, make sure somebody else was there to document it so that he could be above board? So this is where I'll get pushed back on it. But the truth is, like, that would be great if you could say, Hey, could someone respond over here to watch me secure this evidence? That's why that's not always practical. What is practical is as a detective, you should have a camera bag with him. And what he should be doing is, okay, I just, I'm coming by as the lead investigator here. I'm checking the scene

and I want to look at it again. I should be noting the date and time that I arrive. I should be taking an overall photo of the residence and the area before not even zooming in just an overall photo. I should then be approaching the area, dropping my yellow placards with the numbers on it and taking photos, showing the areas with a scale. And then at that point, documenting each piece of evidence being put into a bag with a date and time. So there's no dispute about where

and when that evidence was located and the conditions of the environment. That's why you take the overview overall photo. Now that could still be questioned, of course, with nobody else there. But if you do that, it minimizes an opportunity to be questioned. Him not doing that and just assuming it's going to be believed. That's a problem. And let's talk about this broken tally, right? Because it's one of the most, that's a problem. And let's talk about this broken taillight, right? Because it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidence against Karen Reed. Yeah, yeah, agreed. Now, remember that on the morning of the 29th, both Jennifer McCabe and Carrie Roberts had testified that Karen pointed out damage to her right rear passenger

side taillight. At 4.30 p.m. on January 29th, law enforcement, including trooper Uri Buchanek, arrived to the home of Karen Reed's parents in Digham, Massachusetts, to interview her. When they approached the home, they observed that Karen's black Lexus SUV was parked outside and troopers observed damage to the right passenger side taillight. Bukhanik also describing his first interview with Karen Reed that morning in January. She was asked if she saw Mr. O'Keefe walk into the home at 34 Fairview and she stated she did not. She stated that she made a three-point turn after dropping him off and left. He adds Reed was then notified her

SUV and cell phone would be seized. She was asked if she knew if how she found out about the damage to her vehicle to which she stated quote I don't know it happened last night. This video showing Reed backing up into O'Keefe's car then driving off. Reed's defense team has pointed to this incident causing the taillight damage. Another surveillance video capturing Reed and her father later looking at it. So I observed the defendant her father at the rear right taillight damage. Another surveillance video capturing Reed and her father later looking at it. So I observed the defendant and her father at the rear right taillight gesturing or signaling towards the affected damaged and missing parts of the taillight. This Sally Port video from the Canton Police Department showing Reed's SUV stored and taped off. We're establishing a perimeter around

the vehicle. Her vehicle then later transported to Milton. The Kent Police Department had recused themselves from interviews and in that portion of the investigation. Outside of court, we asked Reed about her taillight. Karen, how did the taillight get damaged? You saw it. I backed up into John's car. Her father saying the same, but it makes contact with the O'Keefe vehicle and you'll see his left rear wheel jetson forward, then return to its previous position. And that's how I believe my daughter's taillight got cracked. Okay. So we're going to talk more about this video of Karen Reed's SUV backing up into John O'Keefe's car the morning of the 29th. We're going to talk more about that in a minute.

But that's pretty much what the defense says. That's how her taillight got cracked. I mean, listen, it's convenient. That video being there is pretty damn good. So allegedly in this video, you can see the taillight was not as broken as pictures taken after the car was towed, illustrate. And this is actually supported from Sergeant Nicholas Barrows, who is with Uri Buchanek at Karen Reed's parents' home on the 29th when the vehicle was towed.

And at some point, did you make any observations of the right rear part of that Lexus SUV? I did. And what, if anything, did you observe about that area of the vehicle? I saw that there was some damage to the right rear taillight. To my best ability and recollection, that taillight was not completely damaged. It was cracked and a piece was missing, but not completely damaged. And then beyond the taillight area of that vehicle, what, if anything else, did you observe as far as damage to the rear passenger side area?

Like a dent on the rear quarter. And as far as the dent on the rear quarter panel that you saw, was that above the taillight, below the taillight, or something? It's probably right in conjunction with the taillight in that same area. Okay. So Karen's SUV arrived at Sallyport at 5.32 p.m. And there's a video of this happening. But there's a few things wrong with this video. Aside from it seemingly being altered with jump cuts and,

you know, a bunch of time missing, something else isn't quite right. Video of Reed's SUV that prosecutors showed to the jury may not be what it seems. This video appears to be flipped, the image of it. The defense says flipped on purpose. NewsCenter 5's David Bienik live at the courthouse in Dedham to explain more. David. Erica, this revelation came at the end of today's testimony here and it caught everyone off guard. Some jurors even looked at each other quizzically and some may have wondered if they'd just

been tricked. The video shows police pulling Karen Reed's SUV into the Canton Police Department garage after it was seized as evidence. The video appears to show the passenger side, including the passenger side taillight, which prosecutors say was damaged after Reid allegedly backed into John O'Keefe and killed him. I testify that this is a accurate scene. But under cross examination, state police investigator Yuri Buhannik confirmed the video is actually inverted. It shows not the passenger side, but the driver's side of the SUV. At one point, it shows the driver getting out. Not once did you mention that this video is actually completely inverted. I did not know. How did you discover that the image was inverted? I saw the word police and thought I had dyslexia.

In the video, the word police appears backwards on another vehicle parked in the garage. So does the number four on one of the garage's overhead doors. Defense attorney Alan Jackson believes it was no accident. The time stamp across the bottom is not inverted, which means somebody had to put that on the inverted, the manipulated, the altered video on purpose. Here is the video again after we have un-inverted it. What is in fact the passenger side taillight is out of view, and there appears to be somebody standing near it. Who's the guy in the watch cap, in the winter cap, back there by that right rear taillight, the entire time by himself? That's Proctor.

Proctor is Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case. Now, the defense has said that he is the one who broke the taillight as part of an effort, they say, to frame Karen Reid. I did reach out to the district attorney's office about that inverted video. They said they would not comment. OK, so we're going to hear a little bit from Uri Buchanek in a second, because basically what the defense is trying to show is that Karen Reed caused some damage to her taillight when she backed into John O'Keefe's car in the morning of the 29th, maybe a crack, as Barrows had testified to. But the defense is also trying to suggest that the Sally Port video was intentionally inverted so that the jury would think what they were seeing was the passenger side of the SUV, and they would see that while in collected pieces of Karen's taillight so that he could return to 34 Fairview and plant these pieces in the snow to be discovered later

by himself and other law enforcement officials. And we're going to talk about this in a second, but first, let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. Running a business can be exhausting. Building your website shouldn't be. With Wix, you can express your ideas, give direction, then leave the heavy lifting to AI, from site creation to branded content and images. Have fun with the details. Customize what you want the way you want

and manage your whole business from a centralized dashboard with expert AI tools. Build, scale, and enjoy the incredible results. You can do it all yourself on Wix. There's nothing more satisfying than finding the perfect green paint for your living room, except maybe popping open that can of Valspar Ultra and rolling that first smooth stroke on the wall. And there's nothing more satisfying than admiring your freshly painted wall. Except maybe peeling off the painter's tape to see those crisp edges. But the most satisfying part of all, Valspar Ultra's price tag, starting at $29.98 a gallon. Affordable, durable, available

at Lowe's. Price varies by sheen. We're back. So do you want to comment on the inverted video before we hear from Trooper Buchanek? So just not even as a police officer, I don't understand why the video was inverted. And also, I think the defense makes a great argument as to why the motive behind why you would invert it. But to be honest with you, it almost doesn't make sense either because if you were really trying to convey that was the passenger side, the guy gets out of the car after driving it in the lot. So anyone with a brain is going to know, unless you're in the UK, that it's an inverted video, right?

Because he gets out of the car. I don't think that anybody is really thinking that hard, especially when you're a jury member and you're sitting there watching a video that you hear Trooper Buchanek say is an accurate representation of what happened. You're not really thinking. You're just like, oh yeah, it's right. I guess it's my detective brain because I saw the guy get out of the car and I'm like, oh, okay, it's backwards. Yeah. Nobody was by the right rear passenger tail. So how could it have been tampered with? Yeah. I think it's a great argument to make. And again, it's a great argument. It's a great argument. I immediately was like, oh, a great argument. It's a great argument.

I immediately was like, oh, this video is backwards because I saw the dude get out of the quote unquote passenger side because he had just driven it into the lot. Two people get out of the car. So maybe we just missed that part of the video, but two people, one in the driver's side, one in the passenger side. So it kind of looks like there's two people. Yeah. I mean, listen, you want to represent the video accurately and they didn't do that. And so even if it was inverted because of the technology in this, in the computer, you should invert it. You should switch it back. You want it to represent what, what it actually is. And by not doing that again, you raise all these questions and,

and it's, uh, and I think the argument put forward by the defense to show, oh, nobody's near the passenger side taillight the whole time when in fact they were is very problematic for the prosecution. I agree. So let's hear a little bit from Trooper Buchanek when he's testified about this on cross. You do recall seeing the video that you saw yesterday, the sort of clear one that has the crime scene tape being put up and all that. You have seen that one before? Yes. And that was with Mr. Lally, correct? That is not correct because I do not recall when I saw that video or what video I saw

with Mr. Lally. I see. All right. You indicated that the video, all the videos, everything that you saw yesterday was true and accurate, correct? Based on your memory of the events that were memorialized in the video the video captures events taking place in an accurate fashion yes in an accurate fashion all right that's what I wanted to find out and after you watch the

video I think you were asked by mr. Lally does the video show you or trooper Proctor having access to or messing with in any way that right rear taillight in any fashion? And you said never. I was asked if at any point Trooper Proctor and I had came into contact, I believe, and or touched the vehicle and that portion of the vehicle and I said never we never touched the vehicle prior to it being properly processed with a search warrant and that was the specifically his question was to and your answer was to the right rear portion right that rubber tail the right rear damaged tail I correct it does look accurate. Okay.

All right. That shows the vehicle coming into the Sallyport, and we're looking at which side of the vehicle. So that is the driver's side of the vehicle. What that video depicts is a mirror collection. Although mirrors are accurate representation of what you're seeing, it's just inverted. So that is the driver's side of the vehicle. I don't know, do not know why it is inverted, but that's the way it was presented, collected and presented from Canton Police. Can you see a time stamp or time and date stamp on the bottom of that? It's in blue.

I cannot know. Who is that that just got out of a moving car? I do not know. I think that that just got out of the car? I do not know. I think that's the tow truck driver. He would have the only access to the vehicle. We did not touch the vehicle. Who's that on the left? I missed it. I was looking down at the laser pointer.

I do not know. I know for a fact I'm the gentleman that's wearing a dark olive drab State Police baseball-style hat, and Trooper Mike Proctor's wearing a winter hat. Yesterday when you testified, you indicated that the two individuals in this scene were you and Trooper Proctor, correct? That is correct. Not correct.

There was two individuals in the rear of the vehicle I shined my light to. That was me and Trooper Proctor. Did you see Trooper Proctor toward the back of the rear of the vehicle there? I can't tell because of what the head is. I just know that Trooper Proctor was wearing a black hat. Which the person in the video to the left, to the rear of the car is wearing a black hat, correct? I can't tell. I don't want to be locked into a statement where later on you show me that it's somebody else magically. I can't testify to that. There's no magic about this. It's your testimony. I'm just asking what you see. I don't see that, no. Do you see the person toward the back of the vehicle walking between the opposite side of the

suv i do um what area does he appear to be going to he appears to be going towards the rear passenger side of the vehicle although it does not appear so because the video is inverted a mirror image that's where he's going and sergeant butnik you testified for at least a half an hour about this video yesterday, correct? I'm sorry, it was a long day. I don't know the timing of how long I testified. You significantly testified about this video yesterday, did you not? I testified about this video. And you testified that it was true and accurate, correct? Correct. accurate correct correct you testified that it was a uh it was reflective of your observations

of what was happening in that sally port that morning uh that evening correct i testify that this is a accurate uh scene and collection of video evidence from the sally port and as that truck sits in that sally port just like, it appears from all perspective that what we're looking at is the passenger side of the car, and that right rear taillight is right there shining in our face, correct? From this perspective. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? that the jurors are looking at. From all indications, that would appear to be the right side of the truck, the passenger side of the truck, and that taillight that you can see is the right rear taillight from

this perspective, correct? The way it presents itself, yes. And yesterday, during the entirety of your questioning by Mr. Lyle, not once did you mention that this video is actually completely inverted. I did not know. Mr. Liley didn't ask you if it was inverted, correct? That's correct. And if I hadn't gotten up here

because of questioning you, that would be left uncorrected, correct? Objection. Sustained. The person with the winter cap appears to walk directly to the, what ultimately should be the right rear tail light of this car, correct? That's the vicinity, yes. That's where he is. I'd like you to pay attention to the right rear of this car. I know they're completely backward, but it's the far corner of the car. Do you see a person's head there? It appears as if someone's still there. And that person is located at or near

what portion of the car? In real life or as it's depicted? Is the person near the, in real life, near the right rear tail light of the car? Yes. As a matter of fact, standing there, hovering around it, correct? We don't know the distance that they are in proximity to the actual vehicle. We just know that they're behind the vehicle.

That looks like it's pretty close, doesn't it, Sergeant? Objection. Does that look like he's in close proximity to the right rear tail light as I said I can't tell how far away he is from the vehicle his head's right there sir you can't tell that he's right next to the right rear tail light objection

sustained alright um I want you to pay attention to what that person does as soon as the other person comes out from behind that car. Do you see him move? Stop it. Do you see that person move? I saw movement in the frame, yes. Right when the other person is in eyesight

of the person toward the right rear, correct? I mean, the video speaks for itself. Yeah, it does. I think it's a great interaction between the defense attorney and the state trooper. I think that Yannetti really drives home the point that, for me, what really stood out, again, if I'm putting my juror hat on, is not necessarily the inversion. Obviously, I think he made his point. Like, it's presented as if that's the passenger side. If you look at it quickly and you're not really dissecting it, I think most people would say, oh, that's the passenger side of the vehicle and nobody's near that taillight. I think that's a commonsensical opinion to come to. I don't think many people

would dispute that. I think what's more important to me is that what Yannetti said was that Lally had asked the trooper if anyone had been near the taillight, the rear passenger side taillight. And he said, no, nobody had been there. And the video clearly shows that's not true. There was someone hovering over it, possibly Proctor. It was Proctor. Okay. It's Proctor. And so you have someone standing in the area of the taillight and they're there for a decent amount of time. And that is an area where at the crime scene, as I pushed back a little bit, where if you're out at the scene, you want to collect something before it's disturbed, you take photos, you do what you can. But if you're waiting for

that search warrant and you have the opportunity to have another officer present, if you find something that's potentially a smoking gun in the case, you would want another law enforcement officer there to document that situation, to maybe video record it before you start doing a preliminary search. I don't know if they had obtained the search warrant at that point, but I'm assuming they hadn't. Proctor made a mistake by doing that and the video does not look good. I know that the trooper wasn't willing to lock himself into the distance away from the vehicle at that point. Was he in arm's reach? Was he not? It's difficult for me to see if they're within arm's reach or they're closer to it, but it doesn't really matter.

The perception is all I can see as a jury member is a state trooper standing behind the car at the taillight, and all I can see is his hat. So he could be doing a variety of things back there, and none of it is on camera. So I think the defense in this exchange made his point. And I'm sure it's something that resonated with the jury. Yeah. And when he says, oh, as soon as the tow truck driver kind of comes around there, he moved. Yeah. He moved a little bit. Yeah. And then it's, yeah, it's that's something we do all the time. It was, you know, to make light of it real quick. I see that you see the person

standing in front of the car that looks like a person. It's a dummy. And it's so funny in my Sally port, we had the same thing. That's a dummy for a taser training. You use that to shoot in distances. So it's just funny how different police departments have the same thing, but yeah, no, the video's troubling. It looks bad and it does appear initially that it's the passenger side of the vehicle, which looks good for law enforcement. But in reality, there's a trooper now that identified as Proctor standing at that back taillight for an extended period of time without any supervision, not on camera, which at minimum does what? Raises reasonable doubt that he could have broken off a piece of taillight, stuck it in his pocket, and now he can go transport that back to the crime scene

where he quote unquote later finds it by himself. Would you say that you agree that the video was intentionally inverted though? Because like the defense attorney said, the timestamp is not inverted. So it looks like somebody inverted the video and then added the timestamp onto the inverted video. So this was intentionally. Yeah, that's something I was asking myself. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if you inverted the video or sometimes videos are naturally, they're already inverted. I don't know why. I'm not a security camera expert, but sometimes the security camera footage is inverted for whatever reason. I don't know why, but I don't know if that would necessarily invert the timestamp unless the video was exported. And then in secondary software,

after the fact, someone inverted the entire thing, which I would expect at that point, the timestamp would be inverted as well. Yeah. That's, I don't have much more to elaborate on that. I don't know the technicalities of that camera system and why it would be inverted. I'm surprised the prosecution didn't bring anybody in who would have been able to testify to that. But yeah, I don't know. I don't know why that video was inverted and the timestamp wasn't. So like I said, the defense is saying, hey, Michael Proctor is over there. He may have gotten some of these taillight pieces.

He may have planted them. Possible, yeah. But according to Michael Proctor and the district attorney, Michael Morrissey, who we haven't talked about yet, but is a big part of this. Proctor hadn't been at the Albert home on the 29th at all, even though he was the lead investigator. And you'd think that he would want to have been on the scene of the crime as the lead investigator. But here's a statement that Morrissey made in relation to this case. This will be the first statement of its kind in my dozen years as Norfolk District Attorney. Michael Proctor, the state police trooper being accused of planting evidence outside 34 Fairview Road, was never at Fairview Road on the day of the incident.

Proctor and his state police partner traveled together the entire day while other officers were processing 34 Fairview. Trooper Proctor was not there and did not plant evidence at 34 Fairview Road. In addition to having no opportunity to plant the evidence, as has been suggested, Proctor would have no motive to do so. Trooper Proctor had no close personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the investigation and had no conflict. And he had no reason to step out of this investigation. Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

Okay, I have a few questions for you. And I'm going to ask these questions because I saw the comments and I was apologizing a lot for asking questions that you've already answered earlier in the script, but people seem to like that. So just to recap real quick for me, on the day of the incident, now Proctor didn't show up that night, but on the day of the incident before Proctor had a chance to go to that scene, was there any taillight fragments found at all that day, that entire day that Proctor had a chance to go to that scene. Was there any taillight fragments found at all that day, that entire day that Proctor had not been there? According to what Morrissey's saying, was there any taillight fragments found at the

crime scene that day? The taillight fragments were not found until the CERT team got there and they wrapped up their search around 6 p.m. Okay, so 6 p.m. And now if we're to believe what Morrissey is saying, he's saying that there were taillight fragments found at the crime scene before Proctor ever responded to the crime scene. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. So if that's true, well, then that's obviously compelling, right? If there's taillight fragments already at the crime scene before Proctor, who we have on video at the taillight area, having a chance to respond there, that's good for the prosecution. What I was getting at before this, which I still think is important, is if you had, and that's why I asked this question, if you refreshed my memory and told me that that entire day there had never been a single piece of a taillight fragment found, and then I coincidentally, after Proctor has a chance to visit the crime scene, he finds a piece of taillight.

That is that is bad. And you're not in your head. So obviously you agree that would be really bad. But I see what he's trying to convey here. Now, I want to push back on one thing Morrissey said. He said that that Proctor would have no reason to or no motive to plant evidence. He had no relationship. Yeah, no relationship. I disagree

with that. It could be as, it could be as trivial as what I said earlier, where Proctor is taking this case personal. This is a cop that was killed and he's looking at it as, I know this woman did it. She killed one of our own and I'm going to make sure that she goes down for it. It doesn't have to be a personal connection. The connection could be that they're brothers in blue. No, we talked about how Trooper Michael Proctor said that the Alberts were basically his second family, Trooper Proctor's own mother. We talked about this, I think, in episode one. Yeah, he's saying that he had no relationship. What Morrissey's saying here is he had no relationship with John O'Keefe. No, he's saying he had no relationship to the people inside that house. He had no relationship to any witnesses involved in this case. So that's not true. He's lying about

that. And then also, I don't even think you need that. It can also be what I just said. I agree. I completely agree with you. I don't think you need to have a personal connection, although there is a connection here. I don't think you need that. I've seen cases where the personal connection is the detective to the case and the victim. They make it personal. And that's sometimes all they need. And like I said, we're going to get more into it. Michael Proctor is going to need a big, there's going to be, our next episode is going to

be about all the conflicts in this case. Oh, you haven't gotten to the conflicts yet? We haven't even gotten to the conflicts. I don't know what these last four episodes have been, but. So the specific conflicts, which are glaring. We haven't even talked about that yet. The fact of the matter, and we're going to talk about the assertion that Proctor had no closer personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the investigation

in a different episode. Let's focus on Morrissey's statement that Proctor had not been to 34 Fairview on January 29th. First of all, that doesn't even make sense. He's the lead investigator. You'd think he'd make an opportunity at some point that entire day because John O'Keefe's body's found like 5.30 a.m. You could go there at some point during the day, but he didn't, allegedly.

Now, during a cross-examination of Brian Albert, who's the homeowner, during the trial, he made what I believe to be or what I believe he thought to be a benign statement. But he did place Chupac Proctor at his house on January 29th. So the defense wasn't even trying to get this out of him. The defense was trying to show how weird it was that Michael Proctor hadn't even, you know, hadn't even gone there or conducted any interviews or gone to the scene of a crime that he was the lead investigator on for days because allegedly he didn't do any interviews with the Alberts until like February 3rd, I believe. But while he's trying to get Brian Albert to admit to this, Brian Albert says something else that I believe surprised even the defense attorneys.

Talk a little bit about Michael Proctor. Did Michael Proctor come into your home at 34 Fairview on January 29th? Yes. Michael Proctor? Let me rephrase the question. I want to make sure we're, I'm not talking about Officer Lang, Officer Good. Right. Michael Proctor in the Massachusetts State Police, did he come into your home on January 29th? He conducted an interview with my wife and I don't remember if it was the 29th or the 30th that's who you're asking wasn't that interview on February 3rd I feel like it was earlier than that but it could have been February 3rd okay presumed for purposes of my question that it was February 3rd that Michael Proctor interviewed your wife then he would not have come into your home on the 29th 30th 31st 1st and 2nd right and you know

from your training obviously as a first respond to the first 48 hours in an investigation absolutely correct Jackson do you know that in sir? In that context, I don't. Okay. Next question. I mean, you're aware there's a TV show called First 48? Jackson, Your Honor. Do you think the first 48 hours of a criminal investigation are critical? Jackson. You do know that the longer you wait to properly investigate anything, the better chance that evidence can be manipulated or destroyed.

Right? You would agree with that? Yes. Did an investigator or any forensics team ever come into your house, ever, to photograph your entire home? No. I wish they had. Did an investigator, yeah, me too. Check your neuron. Just.

Did an investigator or a forensics team ever come into your house to search for physical evidence? No. Did an investigator or a forensics team ever come into your house to search for trace evidence? No. Did an investigator or a forensics team ever come into your house to take carpet samples, flooring samples from the basement, for instance? No. Okay, so Brian Alberts asked, did Trooper Proctor go into your house on the 29th?

He says, yes, without hesitation. Yeah. And then to the defense attorney, he's like, wait, Trooper Proctor? Yeah. Because he's trying to get something completely different out of him. And then he's sort of stunned by this. So I don't know which is worse, that Trooper Proctor was there on the 29th and said he never was, so he couldn't have possibly planted evidence, or that Trooper Proctor was there on the 29th and said he never was, so he couldn't have possibly planted evidence,

or that Trooper Proctor never even conducted interviews with the Alberts until February 3rd, which is several, several days later. Wait, you believe that that's true? That he was there on the 29th? Yeah. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. I didn't take it that way.

I think if it was true, I think that he got the date wrong. And I don't even think that because of what he said, because I think that Yannetti is really good at his job. I think we he got the date wrong and I and I don't even think that because of what he said Because I think that Yannetti is really good at his job. I think we've established that he's already established that he was there on the third Which is why he says, okay Well, let's work off the february 3rd date if it wasn't and there was an opening I think we know at this point yannetti would have taken it I think albert was wrong and this just goes to show you how bad

These witnesses are and how bad witnesses can be in general He's completely completely off on the date. And I'm not going off Brian Albert, guys. I'm going off Yannetti because even though he was wrong, Yannetti said, let's work off the February 3rd date because he knew what was the date. And he was more focused on the fact that there was a lack of a search. He knew what the official date of the interviews was? I think he looked into it. I think he probably confirmed it. But if Trooper Proctor made an unreported visit to the Alberts on the 29th and talked to Brian Albert and his wife inside their house, and I think obviously, you know, he's just continuing on with his line of questioning because that's what he had to do because that was what he was doing. But he's going to bring this up later, which he did, where he's like, hey, why did Brian Albert even say that he was there on the 29th?

Was he there on the 29th? And he just didn't put in his report. And that's why Morrissey's over here saying it with his chest. Yeah. I don't believe it. I believe that it was a mistake in the date. And I think if there was more to this, they would have confirmed it. You could grab Proctor's GPS data from his phone to show if he was there or not. And Yannetti's been so thorough, if there was any possibility to prove that Proctor was there on the 29th, they would have hung him out to dry.

So I think that maybe there was things done that didn't come to fruition. But I'm sure you're not the only one. I'm sure there's a lot of people that agree with you that this spontaneous utterance, if you will, is is an indirect omission that Proctor made an unofficial visit on that date. And he didn't mean to say this. So I get where you're coming from. I don't personally believe that. But I mean, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Well, let's continue on with the taillight evidence.

So Maureen Hartnett, who's a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, testified that she reported to the Canton Police Department on February 1st. Well, initially she said February 2nd. It says February 2nd in her report. She testified February 2nd at the grand jury, but then they got her to admit, no, it was actually February 1st. At that time, she examined Karen Reed's SUV. Hartnett noted that there was damage to the rear passenger side of the vehicle and a dent in the trunk door, as well as scratches on the rear bumper and the broken taillight. Maureen Hartnett also testified to seeing what she referred to as an apparent hair on a rear quarter panel of the SUV and some pieces of apparent glass on the rear bumper. On cross-exam, Maureen Hartnett admitted that she had no conclusion about

what caused the scratches, dents, or broken taillight on the SUV, and she could not conclude whether they had gotten there recently or because of a motor vehicle accident. She's like, yeah, they could have been here at any time in the time before I saw it. Yeah, it could have been from that video we saw. Could have been anything. Could have been from that video we saw when she bumped that car and played John's car. Dude, I get scratches on my car and I'm like, I could fix this, but it's going to be expensive. I'll wait till I get more scratches and then I'll just get it all fixed. Oh my God.

Oh my God. So she also talked about performing a blood screening on the undercarriage of the SUV along with the bumper, the rear tires, and the tire flaps. You did, however, look for tissue, human tissue, blood, biological material, and things of that nature on the car itself. Did you not? Yes, I did. In that review, I think you testified that you saw nothing that suggested the transfer of human tissue to the vehicle, correct? I did not see any visible stains or tissue on the vehicle.

And you didn't take any, I'm sorry, the swabs and samples that you did take variously on the car all came back negative for human tissue, et cetera. The testing that I did on scene from the various areas of the undercarriage, which I had mentioned before, the tire flaps, the edge of the bumper, and the exhaustcarriage, which I mentioned before, the tire flaps, the edge of the bumper, and the exhaust pipe, screened negative for blood. So that's interesting, right? That John was pretty bloodied up and there's no blood on the

underside of the car, tire flaps, things like that. But she's seeing this apparent hair and this apparent glass and that's all still intact. We're going to talk about that in a minute, but first, let's take a quick break. Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years, guaranteed on MyPlan. And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on unlimited welcome

with auto pay plus taxes and fees, guaranteed for three years. Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local DC Verizon store today. $20 monthly promo credits apply to over 36 months with a new line on Unlimited Welcome. In times of congestion, Unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions apply. Okay, we are back. And defense attorney Alan Jackson also questioned Maureen Hartnett about blood samples she had taken from those infamous red solo cups. You also mentioned that you took swabs of what you believe to be blood evidence

contained in six solo cups, correct? Yes, I noted those as frozen red brown stains in red cups. Were those solo cups in any way labeled among themselves? In other words, solo cup one, two, three, four. I don't believe they were, but I don't have a photograph of that. So I'm not 100% sure. You did not thereafter label those solo cups. If they hadn't been done beforehand, you did not undertake that to label those Solo cups, correct?

No, I did not label them. How did you take those swabs? Was the swab done in one Solo cup, or did you take a swab from all six? Or how did you take those swabs that you ultimately did take? I took those swabs from one Solo cup. How did you choose which of the six Solo cups you were going to take a swab from? I don't recall exactly how I chose which cup.

It was reported to me that those cups came from the same area of red-brown staining, so you make an assumption that they're all related. From what I was told, it came from one area of red-brown stain at the scene. And you, of course, know as a forensic criminalist that bloodstains can contain multiple contributors correct yes that's correct you don't know as you sit here which blood stain found at the scene related to which solo cup in the bag correct objection i'll allow it no it was my understanding they were all taken from the same stain, but I was not there. From the same scene or stain?

Excuse me. It was my understanding they were all taken from the same stain. Okay. If they in fact were taken from multiple stains, you would have no way of knowing that as you see it. That's correct. Okay. And ultimately, once you did take that swab from that single Solo cup, what did you do with the rest of

that blood evidence? I left that with the Canton Police Department. By the way, I should ask this. I've been saying swabs. Was there one swab taken from that one Solo cup or were there multiple swabs taken? There were two swabs taken. Of those two swabs, did you seek to do DNA testing or was DNA testing done on either one of those or both of them? DNA testing was not done on those swabs. So

as we sit here now, there's been no DNA confirmation of what the, who those, who that blood relates to, I should say. There was no testing done on it at all. And so therefore we would not know if there were multiple contributors to those stains or that that swab that you took from that single solo cup. That's correct. Okay. So I don't know, and maybe you're, you're better at this cause you've been in the investigatory process, but is it common to just take a few swabs from one of these cups and then not even test this DNA evidence? What do you mean test it? Like she said, no, she took the swabs, but there was never any testing done in the swab. So they don't even know. They didn't do DNA

testing. They just did the tested it for the presence of blood. I yeah, maybe, but I it's to my understanding. Yeah. So it's blood, but whose blood is it? We, you know, once again, the defense trying to make the, I don't know why they didn't test it. I don't know why they wouldn't test it to say like confirmation. This is John's blood. Like, why wouldn't you do that? And why would they take six cups of these samples and heard to take swabs, two swabs only from one cup? Yeah, no, that part was confusing to me. I would assume that the cups and the blood that was put into each cup was taken from different droplets of blood at the crime scene. So you would want to test each individual cup,

not only to confirm that they're all drops of human blood, but also if you take it out further, you DNA test all those individual droplets of blood to not only confirm if it's John's blood, but if there's the presence of someone else's blood, let's say someone he got in an altercation with, that would cause some concern. So regardless of what you think, and I say someone he got in an altercation with, that would cause some concerns.

So regardless of what you think, and I say it all the time, as an investigator, you're not only trying to build your case, you're also trying to make sure that you minimize any potential dispute the defense could have. So even if you don't feel that those other cups would be of evidentiary value, you would do it just to rule it out, right? And by not doing that, you allow a defense attorney to ask you these questions and you not have the answers to them, which has the jury nodding over there going, yeah, that's a problem. So that's why at minimum, you would want to test that to confirm, yes, it's human blood. And yes, all the blood droplets came back to one person only, John O'Keefe. But they didn't do that. So you can't do it now. Can't. So that leaves an opening.

Leaves an opening. That's all you need. The defense attorney accomplished his goal. He doesn't need to know who the blood belongs to. Just that it's a possibility it belongs to someone else. That's all you need. So Jackson then began grilling Hartnett about the hair and the pieces of glass that she'd found on the car.

So the hair was on the quarter panel and the glass was on the bumper. And he specifically asked her, did they seem to be affixed to the vehicle in some way? Were they like frozen on? Were they glued on? Were they somehow kind of like you were saying earlier, were they found in the casing of the taillight? Inside the taillight, yeah.

And here's her response. And it's correct that none of these pieces of apparent glass were embedded in the bumper. They weren't dug in, stuck into that hard plastic, correct? No, I do not have that notation that they were embedded, just they were on the bumper. As a matter of fact, they were physically perched on top of that hard plastic horizontal bumper, correct? To my recollection, they were just sitting on the bumper, yes.

Okay. And do you know, just in your experience, and if we could leave this up for just a moment while I ask the next couple of questions, Your Honor. Okay. Do you know where Dighton, Massachusetts is? I know the general area. How far would you say that is from Canton? I don't know, maybe a half an hour. I'm not exactly sure. Do your notes indicate that the vehicle was recovered from Dighton and towed back to Canton and placed in the Sallyport before you started your examination? Yes. So if the and you also had been apprised before you began your examination that the incident in question took place in Canton, correct? Yes, that's correct. So you knew as you were looking at this vehicle and doing your examination, the vehicle had to have been driven by definition

from Canton to Dighton, and then towed back from Dighton back to Canton, correct? I was informed that the car was recovered in Dighton. And ultimately either driven back or towed back, one of the ways, some way it ended up back in Canton, correct? Yes. Okay, so if Dighton is, how far would you say Dighton is from Canton again I'm really guessing I would say maybe a half an hour 30 miles potentially and I don't

know exactly I was never in Dighton okay so according to your notes the glass pieces that we're looking at on the back of this bumper would have traveled, let's call it for round figures, about 60 miles in a blizzard before you saw it. I don't know when the glass pieces ended up on the bumper, so I couldn't say. And of course you knew that on February 1st you knew a few days earlier on the 29th there had been a pretty significant snowstorm here in Massachusetts correct? Yes I did have that information. And that blizzard included high winds, freezing rain, snow, all the all the good stuff with a blizzard correct? I don't recall the exact weather conditions of the blizzard. But irrespective after all of of that, whatever the that was, you saw these five pieces just sitting perched on the top of the bumper, not even not embedded in any way, correct? That's correct. And you recovered those with little bitty tweezers, correct? Yes. You testified on direct examination that you also found a hair on that rear panel,

the quarter panel of the car, correct? Yes. At the time of the scene, I noted it as an apparent hair, correct? And the apparent hair, and I'll try to use that same word i keep forgetting you'll correct me that apparent hair um was not sitting on the horizontal bumper but on a vertical portion of the quarter panel correct that's correct um did you find the hair or was that hair pointed out to you by somebody else? I believe I located the hair. How exactly was that hair secured to that vertical panel? If you can explain that. It didn't appear to be secured in any way. It was just on that quarter panel okay so it wasn't taped no it wasn't glued no wasn't stapled no it was not a fixed in any way whatsoever it's just perched on that vertical panel of the SUV correct that's correct and for

you to remove it and by the way this, you found this at the same time that you found the general time, that you found the glass pieces as well. That's correct. So that hair potentially would have had to make that same 60-mile round trip in the same blizzard. I don't know when that hair was deposited on the vehicle. Right. And it didn't take you much to remove that hair, correct? I picked it up with a pair of tweezers. It didn't give you any resistance?

Not that I recall. Okay. So when we first talked about this, you know, you said, yeah, if it's making a 60 miles round trip kind of thing, and it's like the glass or the hair is inside of something where it's protected from the wind and the snow, that makes sense. But the way that they're explaining it with the glass just sitting on that horizontal bumper and the hair just sitting on the vertical panel, how likely, in your opinion, is it? I mean, not likely, but it's also, but is it, but I, can I sit here and say it's completely impossible? And I think what she was alluding to, which, which does make sense is that the,

the hair and the glass could have still been intact and inside the taillight. And so the defense is painting the picture that, that hair and that in the taillight glass would have been deposited on that bumper and on that quarter panel before it was ever picked up from Dighton. And the reality of what she's trying to say, what she's trying to convey without, you know, and I find her reliable at this point. I don't have anything to dispute it. She seems like she's being pretty pragmatic. Is she saying, I don't know when that hair came onto the quarter panel or where it came

on the glass. Now the, the, the framing conspiracy group will say, yeah, it was put there afterwards. But what someone who believes that things were done according to how they should have been done, that hair and that glass could have been still within the taillight casing. And as that vehicle is traveling on the back of the tow truck, there could have been a bump or something. Or when it was driving into the sally port where the hair becomes dislodged and ends up on the quarter panel or the glass breaks off a little bit more and ends up on the bumper. This is another one of those cases where depending on what camp you're in, you can come up with an explanation as to why it's there.

Can I interject really quick? Yeah. I kind of disagree with you there because even if you're like, you're in the camp where you're trying to be unbiased, right? And you're trying to look at things. Yeah. I'm trying to be, yes. It's a logical fallacy to say, if you're a person who believes that everything was done above board, then you could say this. We know for a fact by now, everything was not done correctly and everything was not done above board. So to say, if everything was done above board, then this is possible, that's completely wiped out because it wasn't. No, but there's a spectrum,

but I'll let you finish. And I thought when she was saying, I don't know when that hair was deposited there, is her kind of trying to wash her hands of it. It's like, yo, I just collected this stuff, okay? Yeah. I don't know what happened before I got there. Correct.

Yeah, she's doing her job. She's just doing her job. This is what I'll say. And this isn't like anything against you or anybody else because I think there's a lot of validity to what you're saying and what everyone's saying. This isn't like anything against you or anybody else, because I think there's a lot of validity to what you're saying and what everyone's saying. This isn't like a revelation here. You're clearly in the camp that there was some type of corruption done here. And you're trying to remain unbiased, but you're already further in the story than I am.

And you're writing the script based on your opinions. And so I understand where you're coming from. And I think a lot of people share your sentiment. So I'm not disputing it or trying to diminish it. What I'm saying is I'm trying to come into it and look at it where there could be, there's a spectrum as far as how badly this was mishandled. And I've said it multiple times. On the lower end of that spectrum, there was just a lot of incompetence and negligence and just not doing a good job. On the other end of that spectrum is this is a full-out conspiracy frame job where Proctor said, I will do everything and anything I can, along with my colleagues, to make sure

that this woman is found guilty of this crime to the point where I'm going to grab evidence from John's body, his hair, whatever. I'm going to plant it on the car so that someone else will eventually find it. But there are some questions you have to ask yourself. I don't have all the video and we don't have the time to watch it here, but obviously there's video of that Sally Port where that vehicle was found the entire time. That video is constantly running. It never gets shut off. And so if Proctor had an encounter with John O'Keefe it would be after the day that he was found because from what you've told me Proctor didn't visit the crime scene that day so he

wouldn't have had direct contact with John O'Keefe he went to the hospital okay at the hospital so he goes to the hospital you would have to believe at that point and again I'm not saying it's not possible this is what you would have to believe you would have to believe that Proctor was able to obtain a piece of hair from John O'Keefe, which is completely possible. He could do that. And then at some point he would be back on camera at the Sally port, hovering around that taillight after visiting John O'Keefe in that timeline. So if you're, and then planting that hair there, so that would later be found. So my question to you to round out what I'm saying is the video

that we discussed earlier in this episode, where it shows Proctor around the taillight, was that after the time that Proctor visited John O'Keefe at the hospital? Yes. So it does create some issues. It creates some evidentiary issues where that hair could have been planted there after the fact. And so that's why the defense is bringing this up. And that's why it's causing problems. And it's ultimately why Karen Reed was found not guilty. But yeah, it's a spectrum. It depends on what you want to believe and I know there are people who believe both sides of it. And I'm not at the opposite end of the spectrum where I'm like, oh, this is a complete cover-up. Everybody here is lying. I'm not there yet. No, you're not there yet. But I think it's fair for me to say, Stephanie, that you don't believe

a single thing, that everything that can't be explained, the explanation for you. And I'm not I'm not demeaning you by any means like that. You're entitled to your opinion. You are in the camp that I don't believe anyone involved in the the evidence collection or investigation of this. And I believe that there was a collaborated and a calculated effort to frame this woman. So I'm not saying it's their responsibility to do this or that. It's their responsibility to the taxpayers to run an investigation that doesn't leave the people feeling like they can't be trusted.

I'm not saying I don't trust anything they say. I'm just saying they're making it hard to trust anything they say. That's all. And it's not like this girl here, this forensic person that I'm like, oh, you're lying. It's Proctor. I found her very believable. Yeah, it's Proctor for me. Anything that comes through him is something that I'm going to question.

Is it possible, just as lucky as criminals get some time with their head being behind a fence pole on camera, right? Right when you could have seen who they were. Is it possible? And I'm not as lucky as criminals get some time with their head being behind a fence pole on camera, right? Right when you could have seen who they were. Is it possible? And I'm not a physicist, but is it possible somehow that glass and that hair got there just organically? Yes, it's possible. But to your point, everything is in question when Proctor's name is mentioned in that same paragraph. All right.

So Maureen Hartnett also said she examined the hair. It was about seven-eighths of an inch long and based on its scales and the shape and size of the medulla, which apparently is a channel that runs through the center of the hair. I had no idea, but I learned that. She determined it was a human hair. Hartnett also performed tests on the clothing John O'Keefe was wearing on the night he died. She testified that his sweatshirt had numerous red-brown stains in several areas, as well as areas of damage, including the right arm and the back of the shirt. The defense questioned her as to whether or not there had been anything under Karen Reed's SUV that could have caused the damage to John's arm, which, remember, were those scratches and abrasions. And Hartnett said that although this was not her area of expertise, she'd made no conclusions of the sort at that time.

But once again, she added that the underside of the SUV, including the tire flaps, had tested negative for blood. Ashley Valer, a forensic scientist at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, had irregular edges and seeing if they fit together, sort of like a jigsaw puzzle, end quote. Belair testified that many of the smaller pieces of plastic fit together into a larger section that was a physical match for the taillight housing taken into evidence from Reed's SUV. A state police forensic scientist returned to the stand this morning. She testified about smashed pieces of clear and red plastic turned over to her as evidence in the case. Under questioning from the prosecution, she said she found the broken pieces fit together as larger units. Under cross-examination, the forensic scientist, Ashley Valer, testified the evidence she analyzed was turned over by state trooper Michael Proctor.

Your chain of custody at the lab for the two shirts plus the pieces of plastic in 7-18.18, that began on March 14th of 2022, correct? Correct. So between January 29th of 2022 and March 14th of 2022, you do not know what Michael Proctor did or didn't do with the orange t-shirt and gray long-sleeve shirt, correct? Jackson. I'll allow it. I don't know. The defense then pointed out several pieces of evidence turned in by Proctor weeks after O'Keefe was killed on January 29th. Proctor was the lead investigator on the case. He's now the subject of an internal affairs investigation for a potential violation of department policy. Okay, so once again, we don't have to belabor that. They're trying to

show chain of custody. Proctor had this evidence before Ashley Valair did, etc. So Ashley Valair also testified that what appeared to be red and clear plastic were present in debris found in John O'Keefe's clothing. And additionally, Nicholas Bradford, a forensic DNA analyst at Bow Technology, testified about DNA found on these taillight pieces. Expert witnesses in the Karen Reed murder trial said the victim's DNA was on her taillight. The Mansfield woman is accused of backing into her boyfriend with her SUV. Katie Benoit explains why the defense didn't cross-examine those experts. Nicholas Bradford, a DNA analyst, says the DNA from three people

was found during a test from Karen Reed's taillight. John O'Keefe's DNA profile was compared. So in this case, that would be very strong support for inclusion. The state crime lab also sharing its results for comparison. At least 510 non-million times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. Reed's attorneys allege evidence tampering and claim the Boston police officer was beaten up inside a Canton home and dumped outside during a 2022 snowstorm.

DNA swabs from state police investigators Proctor and Buchanek were also collected and compared but don't appear to match. Strong support for exclusion. The hair found on Reed's SUV also sent for testing. Experts testify it was consistent with O'Keefe's mitochondrial DNA. We're able to exclude at least 99.895 percent of the population from being a source of that evidence. Is there a specific reason that the defense didn't cross examine those witnesses? Well, yes, there is, which is we're not contesting the fact

that it was John O'Keefe's hair that was planted on the vehicle. I mean, it was. The question is, how did that magic hair survive a 30-mile drive through a blizzard and then a 30-mile drive back? The defense did cross-examine Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully about a Ford Edge a witness allegedly saw at the Canton house. He says that witness changed their story multiple times. Yeah, so this is the million-dollar question, right? And it could be one or the other, right? There's evidence

that implicates the defense, their client, right? And they're saying we're not disputing that. So they have to go after the collection of the evidence itself. And we've talked about this in other cases. This one, obviously, it's very strong. Anything tied to Proctor is tainted. So when you can't dispute the evidence itself, you have to go after how the evidence was obtained. That's a common tactic. That's what the defense is supposed to do. And they should. I will say after seeing that photo in the video of the hair, which is the first one that I've seen, that was pretty clear. I would love to have recreated that scene where what I would have done is a mixture of moisture and maybe salt and sand, thrown it on that car and threw a hair into it, and then made that exact drive to see if maybe

it would be encapsulated in the salt and sand to somehow cause it to stick to the car. And I would have done it 10 times. And it's obviously time consuming, but for a big case like this, you would do it 10 times, same panel of the car, sand and salt, and see how many times out of 10 it would survive that drive. I think that would have been very compelling information one way or the other. And you videotape it, you have it like that and see if that hair survives. But I did see a little bit more sand and salt on that quarter panel, which I was like, oh, could that have served as some type of adhesive for it? Or, you know, just coldness.

Coldness. Yeah, coldness, right? Because by the time she gets there on February 1st, to remove the glass and the hair, the car's been sitting in Sally Port, so the ice would melt, right? Yeah, the ice would melt. But that sand, you know, you've seen it. You're from New York. That sand and dirt will stay on there forever. It cakes on there kind of where that doesn't go away. But I love what that video, that wasn't Yannetti in that video. That was another one of the defense team members, right? That was Jackson.

Jackson, okay. What I loved what he said there is exactly what's going on. He was very transparent about it. We're not questioning the evidence. The DNA is on the taillight, right? John O'Keefe's DNA is on the taillight. His hair's on there as well. However, we're not questioning that.

We're saying the way that it got there is the problem and that's what that's the lens right yeah that i'm looking through the sound that's the lens we're all going to look at all this evidence through and that's why it's going to be such a cluster because the dna on the tail light is even more concerning than the hair the hair you could throw it on there hope it gets found but the dna what did he do swab swab a little bit of like you know because he would have to have done it in like kind of like a he would have to done it in like a surgical way almost because he wouldn't want his dna to be in there as well they excluded his dna so you have to use some type of buckle swab or something where he would swab john and then rub that swab on the taillight which is not impossible but

those there's a little bit of uh there's a little bit of work that has to go into to ensure that there's not your DNA as well. Because imagine if one of those other two detectives' DNA was mixed in with John's. Wow. That would have been huge. Well, I think it's interesting that the DNA is found in the taillight pieces but not on the taillight. Well, it makes sense if his head or his chest or his hand or whatever hit the parts that broke. That's the area that actually was impacted by it.

Yeah. Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on MyPlan. And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on Unlimited Welcome. With auto pay plus taxes and fees. Guaranteed for three years.

Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local DC Verizon store today. $20 monthly promo credits apply to over 36 months with a new line on Unlimited Welcome. In times of congestion, Unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions apply. Okay, so let's talk about the broken cocktail glass that was found at the scene

just within a few hours of John's body being discovered. Remember, it was the Canton police who had found that along with, what else? Oh, they took the blood samples and the red solo cups. Blood samples, taillight pieces. They didn't find the taillight pieces. Not initially. Yeah, the CERT team found those 12 hours later. In the morning.

Yeah. So in the morning, they found the cocktail glass. Now, the police had recovered the base and the jagged lower sides of the glass, and the prosecution claimed that this glass seemed to be the same one that John O'Keefe was holding when he exited the Waterfall Bar and Grill hours before his death. Christina Hanley, a forensic scientist at the State Crime Lab, testified that she had examined the broken cocktail glass along with five pieces of glass found on the bumper of Karen Reed's SUV. And under cross-examination, Hanley admitted that there was, quote, no physical match, end quote. See, the prosecution saying this glass on Karen Reed's bumper is from

John O'Keefe's broken cocktail glass that was found in his body. Right. Because it wasn't, and I think that's important to point out for people, there's a difference between the shot glass or the drinking glass. And we say taillight glass, but sometimes it's more of a PVC or a plastic. I don't know what's the case here, but it's going to be two different materials. Yeah. So the taillight pieces are not the glass found on the bumper. There's a distinction in that. Yes, exactly. So that's interesting. If not from John O'Keefe's cocktail glass, what were those pieces of glass from? Yeah. Great question. Now, Alan Jackson also made a point of telling the jury that some of the glass pieces were

submitted into evidence by Trooper Buchanick, while one single piece had been submitted by Trooper Proctor. We're now going to move on to the accident reconstruction, which is going to be another huge point of contention between the defense and the prosecution. Now, Trooper Joseph Paul of the Massachusetts State Police testified that he believed John O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a pedestrian motor vehicle accident. Now, this witness, Trooper Joseph Paul, absolute mess, to be completely honest with you. The prosecution has been hitting it out of the park with bad witnesses, but Paul was the worst.

And at some points during his cross-examination, I actually felt bad for him because, in my opinion, it was clear he had no idea what he was talking about. And with the accident reconstruction being something that was very, very important to the prosecution's case, I'm sure he felt that pressure, but also he was not prepared. Lauren, before you dig into the testimony, I think it's important to address sort of the almost nervous demeanor of this expert. Explain that. Well, I'm glad you highlighted that he's an expert because he is the one that they go to to reconstruct accidents, at least for this investigation. But I have to say, the testimony started with his voice

being very shaky. He had to stop and start quite a bit. The judge even asked him to slow down several times. Then he was reading directly from his report. That's something that's not allowed. Also, I can't hear you. Sorry. Okay. So just take your time. After a shaky start to testimony, trooper Joe Paul, a state police reconstructionist, testified the data collection system in Karen Reed's SUV showed she was speeding in reverse the night John O'Keefe was found dead in the snow. The vehicle accelerated at a high rate of speed before she struck the pedestrian John O'Keefe on the roadway and subsequently left him at the scene.

The prosecution says Reed hit O'Keefe in that process and left him to die, pointing to her taillight as evidence. But Reed's defense says that taillight was broken hours before when she backed into O'Keefe's SUV, frantically realizing he'd never come home from a night of drinking. Even if the camera systems were covered in snow, even the systems were defective anyway. And even the mirrors were blocked. An attentive and a reasonable operator would not travel in reverse, especially at a high rate of speed. That's Trooper Paul's explanation to the prosecution about whether any other roadway or environmental factors could have contributed to a vehicle hitting O'Keefe. But Reid's defense

has repeatedly blasted Paul's credibility as an expert saying he's misinterpreted tons of data during this investigation and then questioning his academic degrees. How about in engineering? No. How about in kinematics? No. What's the highest degree that you do hold, sir?

I have an associate's degree. Although his expert analysis concluded that Reed likely hit and killed her boyfriend, Reed's defense doubled down, pointing to inconsistencies in his testimony. I never said that was the area impact. I said it's after that. We were all here on Friday. So what you just heard was a little back and forth from testimony where Reid's defense was kind of questioning about something he said last week, saying, we were all here. We did not hear that. Again, Trooper Paul maintained that his

credibility is intact, that he is well prepared for this role and that, yes, he is qualified to reconstruct that accident. All right. So Trooper Joseph Paul could not seem to stop looking at his notes and reports, even though he's not allowed to do that. And even though he was asked multiple times by the judge and by the defense to stop. Did you come to through the courts of your investigation? So on Saturday, Saturday, January 29th, 2022, at approximately 1245. So you can look at your report, but you can't read your report. I have three of my conclusions based on what they asked me to do.

OK. Yeah. So I also I can't read your report. I have to read my conclusions based on what they asked me to do. Okay. Yeah. So, I, also, I can't hear you. Sorry. Okay. So, um, just take your time, read your report, and then answer Mr. Lally's question. And if you need to look at your report, we'll see about that again. All right.

Ask the question, Mr. Lally. Based on the totality of your investigation, what, if any, conclusions did you come to with regard to how this collision occurred? So this collision occurred on Saturday, January 29, 2022, at approximately 1245 hours. A 2021 Lexus LX570 was traveling southbound on fair on fairview road in area 34 fairview road yes it appears that so i'm trying to hold it you know what i don't mr lally break this down ask simple questions so that the witness can answer your questions we don't need a narrative. From your investigation, what, if any, conclusions did you come to as to where this collision occurred? All right, so on the night of Saturday, January 22, at approximately 1245 hours,

at 2021 Lexus LX570. Can you slow down, sir? Yes. So forget all that part, Trooper. Just answer the question. Where did it occur? It occurred in the area of 34 Fairview Road. And who, if anyone, were the participants in this collision scene?

The operator appeared to be Karen Reed, and the pedestrian was John O'Keefe. And where was the vehicle located in reference to the residence of 34th February? It was located along the southbound travel lane and to the left side of the house as you look at it from the front. And as far as the vehicle, what if any directionality did it head in and what if any interaction did it have with Mr. O'Keefe? So the vehicle was traveling in reverse along the southbound travel lane, traveling north. And how fast was the vehicle traveling and over what distance? The vehicle traveled up to 24 miles per hour and approximately 62 feet. And at the time that the vehicle was traveling approximately 24 miles per hour over approximately 62 feet, what, if anything, occurred then?

The right rear of the Lexus struck the pedestrian, John O'Keefe. And post-collision, what, if anything, occurred with regard to Mr. O'Keefe? Mr. O'Keefe was projected forward and to the left along the front yard of 34 February Road. And post-collision with Mr. O'Keefe, what, if anything, did the defendant's vehicle do? The Lexus continued traveling in reverse before they left the area. Yeah, so I'm not going to beat this guy up too bad. I mean, listen, I'm not going to say he's not intelligent. I don't know him. And I would also push back a little bit on the defense. There are very good officers and there's even people good in the true crime space that don't necessarily have degrees in certain areas, but are very

capable of analyzing something because of their own research. So I don't necessarily equate capability with the degree you have. There's some, I have multiple degrees. Doesn't make me better than anybody else at accident reconstruction. There are schools you go to when you become a law enforcement officer that make you an expert in that area. But looking at this case particularly and looking at this interaction, you can tell that this trooper is very nervous. The question as to why he's nervous is the question we all have.

I would also say, and I understood what you were saying, but you are allowed to have your report with you. I know in narc, and I understood what you were saying, but you are allowed to have your report with you. I know in narcotics cases, I would have to have it a lot. You're allowed to reference it. You're allowed to look at it and say, pause, I need to check something. But as you said, you're not allowed to read off of it. And this just goes to show the level of nervousness that this trooper has. He's told three times that you can't read your narrative. And even when he's asked about his conclusions, he starts with the beginning of the narrative. As far as the information that he relayed at the end of that clip, I'm wondering if the tech stream data from the vehicle backs it up, if that's

where he's getting it from. But it is compelling when you look at that, just that piece and not his behavior. The fact that he's saying her vehicle was in the southbound lane and yet it traveled northbound for approximately 62 feet for 24 miles per hour. If you're in the southbound lane and yet it traveled northbound for approximately 62 feet for 24 miles per hour. If you're in the camp that she struck John O'Keefe while going in reverse, causing the damage to that taillight, this little piece of evidence in and of itself would support that. But then you obviously have to look at the outside circumstances of his behavior and

how nervous he is and how uncertain he is about certain things. And it does make you question his opinion. I mean, his lack of education doesn't really make me question his opinion. Of course not. I've told you before, I think you write better reports than some of the guys that I supervised and you don't have a criminal justice background. And I often dislike when defense attorneys go after expert witnesses. I just, you know, like, oh, you don't have a bachelor's degree, so you're dumb. However, I watched this guy's whole testimony. He has no idea what he's talking about. He's clearly a bad witness.

I mean, no doubt about it. He has no idea. Listen, for all we know, he may be like a nerd. He may be like a good, smart guy. And that's why they sent him to accident reconstruction. But part of being an expert

is you got to be able to articulate your findings. And he doesn't have that. He doesn't have that. So. But part of being an expert is you got to be able to articulate your findings. And he doesn't have that. He doesn't have that. So, but yeah, but I agree with you. And I think we have to point that out. Like, I understand what the attorney's doing here, but most of us don't have education in kinetics.

We don't have that. We are- Well, you would need that actually as a crash reconstructionist though. That's the point. You wouldn't have to have, we have accident reconstructionists on our job that do not have degrees in kinetics. No, not a degree. You would have to have knowledge of it.

An understanding of it, yes. But he's asked him if he had a degree in kinetics. Oh, but when he, it's not kinetics. It's some other word that sounds like kinetics. Okay. When he asks him later, he's like, what does this mean? What does this word mean?

The dude doesn't even know how to answer it. Yeah, I mean, listen, I'm not an accident reconstructionist. I hated the idea of going to that school. It's a lot of math and a lot of different things. It's a very difficult school too. We had some of our smarter guys go to it, but I don't know what it entails to become an accident reconstructionist experts.

We did have them on our department. I was not one of them. He took a handful of classes. So it's not a handful of classes. There's a training you have to go to. And I know the training that what it is, I can't think of the name of it right now, but it's not, I don't want to downplay it. It's not like, what are some classes that, okay, there are some classes you can take

as a detective where it's almost like an elective, like photography. That is a couple of classes that I took. But with accident reconstruction, It's like a multiple week School you actually are at least from rhode island departments you go to this school You're not even you don't work the streets anymore. You go to this school There's a test every week that you have to take And I know a lot of guys failed it and weren't able to get their certification Because it's a very strenuous school

So I don't want to diminish how hard it's to become an accident reconstructionist, but it doesn't mean that this guy was cut out for it. That's all I'm saying. And it also, by the way, it goes back to my original point at the beginning of this episode. There's a lot of belief out there that state troopers are more qualified than local law enforcement. That's a common belief. And this is just one example where it's not about the badge you're wearing or the uniform. It's about the belief. And this is just one example where it's not about the badge you're wearing or the uniform. It's about the person. You could be a local officer and be really good at your job. You can also be an FBI agent and not be good. It's a case-by-case basis.

Well, on cross-examination, obviously, Alan Jackson absolutely ripped Trooper Paul apart. Started with his lack of education, talking about knowledge when it came to, you know, math, physics, formulas that you would use for accident reconstruction. Yeah, that is fair. If there's certain formulas that you're trained on,

like DUI is another one. If you, there's certain things you have to know, certain terminology you have to know. So the attorney will get up there and ask you those terms. And if you don't know them, they're going to eat you up.

Define kinematics. It deals with the aspect of motion. It's a subfield of what broader field? Kinematics. Kinematics is a subfield of what broader discipline of science? I'm not sure. Big physics, correct? Yes. And it describes how points and objects, systems of objects, how they move, and the rate they move and the rate of their velocity, correct? Yeah, it deals with the motions. What's that called, the rate of velocity? What's another word for that?

The rate of velocity? Correct. I mean, it deals with motion. It deals with forward and also deals with speed. It deals with travel and speed. If something's moving, it also has a speed to it. Right. The word you're looking for is acceleration, correct? Sure.

What role does acceleration play in the field of kinematics? What role does acceleration play in kinematics? Correct. It talks about, like you just said, it talks about the speed and talks about motion. Is kinematics also known as the geometry of motion? Is that correct? I have not heard that. Never heard that.

What's the difference between constrained and unconstrained motion? Constrained and unconstrained motion? That's what I asked. Constrained motion. I can't recollect at the moment. Constrained motion is motion on a predetermined path, isn't it? Yes. Unconstrained motion is what? When it doesn't have a predetermined path. Pre-movement, correct? Correct. Could you remember that from your class? For the most part, we don't go that dead of constrained

and unconstrained. Constrained and unconstrained, not restrained. That's what I said. Sorry, unconstrained. Okay. So what is established here? I'm going to summarize it for you. Basically, Yannetti has brought into question the expertise of the expert, and I think he's displayed that this person is not an expert, and so therefore their testimony should be discredited, and he's done that. This guy's not familiar with it, what he has shown by using terms like kinematics, not kinetics. These are terms that I'm sure what Yannetti did using terms like kinematics, not kinetics. These are terms that I'm sure what Yannetti did, just like in a DUI case, they will pull up the policy and

procedure and also go get the textbooks and the plans, the actual education plans for these certifications. They will read it, they will review it, and then they'll throw some terminology at you that you should have learned during your time during the crime scene reconstruction certification class. And so he's doing that here. And this guy just doesn't have the answers. Trooper Paul doesn't have the answers. So it brings into question his expertise. He's established that he's not a credible expert.

Perfect. What I would say, and I've said, I've mentioned the word a couple of times. I don't know if you're going to hit on it. This goes back to where you, what you want to focus on in trying to grind down to the facts and try to remove personal opinions and assumptions. What I would focus on here, not the accident reconstructionist, I would focus on the tech stream data from the Lexus Karen Reeds vehicle. Basically, tech stream data is going to tell you the movements of the vehicle, its speed, its direction, et cetera. You're not going to be able to determine from that data if she struck someone, but you would

be able to confirm or dispute the idea that she went in reverse at a certain speed for what distance. So you would be able to confirm that data that for some reason, while her GPS shows her in the southbound lane, her vehicle went northbound in reverse for an extended period of time. You would be able to emphatically confirm that. What you would not be able to do is determine if it was a sideswipe or if she struck a person at all. So it's not as good as this, but it's better than this expert. That's what I would say. You have to discredit him. He has proven just in these clips that we

have that he's not someone we should rely on. Yeah, we're going to talk about that. I think, so kinematics is an actual thing. Oh yeah, I just, I don't know it. That's why, you know, I'm not an accident reconstructionist. I'm calling it kinetics. He was just showing that, that trooper Paul knows the word kinematics, but doesn't know what kinematics means or what it is. He passed the school, but he's, you know, they're saying like, you know what someone who passes doc, you know what they call someone who passes medical school with a C, what they call them? They call them a doctor. Yeah, because it goes the same way.

Exactly. And so he's your C student. He barely passed. And we could play this, but it goes on forever. There's so many things to talk about from his testimony. This is a beating. Like, Yannetti could get charged with assault here. But what Yannetti gets Trooper Paul to say is that he believes that when Karen Reid backed up, she hit John's arm. She didn't hit his body. She didn't hit his torso. She hit his arm. He spun

around and that's when he landed. That's important to know going forward. So we're going to talk about that. So Alan Jackson then showed Trooper Paul a diagram. And this was a diagram that Trooper Paul had already looked at and testified during his direct examination. And this diagram showed the debris field and where Paul claimed the area of impact was. And so using a photo taken at the crime scene, Alan Jackson showed Trooper Paul a piece of plastic that was found by the fire hydrant. But in the diagram, the fire hydrant really isn't a part of the debris field. And as it turns out, Paul didn't even know that piece of taillight existed. And he had not factored it in when he did his analysis of the scene, which at the end of the day doesn't really matter because Trooper Proctor got like 30 pieces of plastic from that scene and never marked where he found them. So this diagram is basically toilet paper at this point. Now, during his initial testimony with ADA Adam Lally, Trooper Paul had talked about a vehicle striking a pedestrian and how smaller and loose objects would be separated from

the victim pretty quickly at the time of impact. And he said that when John O'Keefe had been struck, he'd flown 30 to 40 feet. Now, once again, how can you determine how far John O'Keefe flew when you just said you didn't know his weight, you didn't know the weight of the car, and there was no formula that you could come up with to determine that. Yeah, no clue. Like I said, I'm not going to push back on anything. We've already established that he's not a credible expert. So on cross, Alan Jackson asked Paul, how is it possible that John's phone was found underneath him and his drinking glass was found right beside him if smaller loose objects are separated from the body early on in the impact, but John's body had traveled 30 to 40 feet.

And Trooper Joseph Paul, surprise, surprise, had no explanation for this. He was really struggling. Not only that, but under oath, Trooper Paul testified that the glass found at the scene was the same glass found on Karen Reed's bumper. So then he's faced with the question of how his colleagues at the Mass State Crime Lab had concluded these were not a match. And remember, Paul works for that same entity. And he's like, I don't know. I didn't know that they came to that conclusion. I had no idea that that's the conclusion they reached, which means he didn't even talk to them before doing his accident reconstruction. You did your reconstruction and your analysis. Were you informed that none of the glass pieces, not one of them, could be matched to the cup?

I don't know anything about that. I don't know that. So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, would that change your opinion? Objection. About that glass? Can you answer that question? I cannot.

You can't answer the question? It's what was told to me as evidence. Got it. By whom? By the crime scene. Who told you? It's the crime scene. Who told you? That's the crime scene that was there. It says it's glass from the cup. When I was there, my initial inspection, that's what it was on from.

That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me. Yeah, by crime scene. By while I was at my inspection. Wait, what? It was told to me by the crime scene when I was at my inspection, at the initial inspection. So what you meant by that's what was told to me is the crime scene talked to you? Yes. Crime scene say anything else? I don't know what else you want me to say.

Okay, so I don't want to talk about this right now because it's kind of ludicrous. Yeah, it's a lot of the same thing. We're beating a dead horse here. I mean, we're going to talk about the way, because this is Trooper Paul saying that John's arm broke the taillight and then the broken taillight scratched John's arm. Yeah, no, I mean, Trooper Paul is discredited. Trooper Paul, and I don't blame Yannie. He's got someone on the stand who sucks. So he's going to basically make Paul the icon of the Mass State Police because that's the guy who you can he's eating him up. So he's just he's just smarter than he is. And he's more prepared than he is. And he's just he's making him look like a fool. And he's not going to let him off the stand he just, this guy's at the point now where he's like, okay, yeah. I think he's also cornering him into giving a narrative of how John O'Keefe received his wounds. Right. And that's the problem here is because he's trying to say that, oh, you represent, and he does to a certain degree, you represent the

opinion of the mass state police. You represented the opinion of the prosecution, which how would you come to these conclusions when you didn't do any of the formulas to support it? So. Well, it also just doesn't make sense. No, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. But anyways. An accident reconstruction is the process of using scientific methodology to determine the circumstances, mechanics, and contributing factors associated with the collision. And it requires a working knowledge of many things, including physics, vehicle dynamics, math, photogrammetry, and computer applications. They use simulation and modeling tools. And usually, a vehicle is going to have something called the crash data retrieval system, or the CDR. And that's basically the black box of a car. They've been mandated in the car and

light-duty truck market in North America since 2013. So Karen Reed's car had this. And this is why, if the vehicle senses a change in velocity, the airbags will be alerted and the airbag system decides, hey, do I need to deploy and protect my passengers? Now, while making these decisions, sensing a change in velocity, the CDR is going to record data. The mandatory data points collected by the CDR system are as follows. Impact severity, which is measured by the change in velocity, vehicle speed up to five seconds prior, steering or accelerating input, brake input, ignition cycle, seatbelt status, and airbag deployment. We're going to focus on the ignition cycles here, and Alan Jackson is going to refer to these as triggering events, cycles, things like this. And my friend who doesn't

know that we're friends, but we are over at LegalBytes broke this down beautifully. She does. She shouted us. She said, thank you in the comments. And I responded to her. We're friends now. Shout out LegalBytes. Yeah. And so she's explained this in a much more intelligent way that I could with my limited crash reconstruction knowledge. I mean, me and Trooper Paul are probably on par with what we understand about this, but I'm going to let her explain this portion of Trooper Joseph Paul's cross-examination. For closing it out, Jackson asked Trooper Paul about the triggering events that were labeled

12-629-A and 12-629-B. One of the things he did was he went over whether 12629A was a U-turn or a three-point turn. And like I said in the day 25 recap, turns out Jackson read it the same way that I did. But other than that, Jackson didn't really need to get into the nitty gritty details of each event. Rather, he focused on the definition of key cycles and then turned to the main chart where you can see the listing of all of these triggering events. So on direct examination, Trooper Paul said that there was a listing of key cycles that started with key cycle number 1164. Key cycles that followed 1164 were apparently all Trooper Paul's testing. Basically he could confirm that and that was settled with everyone across the board. Jackson really works to make that super clear to the jury before he proceeded. And then Jackson pointed to the two entries that showed the 12-629A event and the 12-629B event.

And he pointed to the key cycles that were listed for each of those. As it turns out, they're both listed as key cycle 1162, meaning that they took place during one key cycle where the car was off, it was turned on, and then it was off again. And so Jackson got the witness to agree that his conclusion relies on the idea that there were two key cycles in between the one where Trooper Paul said that

Karen hit John at 34 Fairview Road and the one where Trooper Paul started his testing on the car. The problem with this is that there's been a ton of evidence showing Karen or someone else driving that car in between those events. And so there had to be more than two key cycles in those trips. Counting back, here's what Jackson tallied. Starting off, key cycle 1164 was Trooper Paul's testing. And before that, the SUV was driven into Canton PD Sallyport. So that's key cycle 1163. Before that, it was turned on to get the SUV onto the tow truck.

That was key cycle 1162. Then key cycle 1161 was when Karen drove from Meadows Ave to her parents' house in Dighton. Then key cycle 1160 would have been Karen driving from John O'Keefe's garage to Gemma Cabe's house. Then key cycle 1159 would have been Karen driving from the waterfall to 34 Ferry Road back to Meadows Ave. And as Jackson pointed out, key cycle 1159 was not documented in this chart as having any triggering events. So that is really, really bad for the prosecution's case in chief. Yeah. So what do you make of what she's talking about key cycles and things like that? Because I know you're more familiar. This is something, and I'm not an accident reconstructionist,

but I did look at the tech stream data, which is the same data that you're referring to. And I really focused on cycle 1162. And I want to reiterate something before I go forward. I've told you guys at the beginning of the episode, which is the premise for me going forward. I'm not trying to determine Karen's guilt or innocence. I'm trying to figure out what actually happened. And I'm trying to use that with data that can't be altered as opposed to assumptions and opinions made by experts and interpretations made by attorneys on both sides of it. So this is just what I came up with. And this is what I'm looking at. And some of you weighed down in the comments, some of you emailed me, but this is where, this is what I took from

it. And I could be completely wrong, but trying to figure out whether Karen struck John or not, this is what I interpreted from a cycle data of 1162. Okay. So there's a couple, there's two events, as they mentioned, this is just my interpretation. One being the reversal event, which would be theorized to be when John was struck, the other being the three-point turn. So first off, we have to go back to the timeline. And if we're to go off the video footage at 12, 11 AM, John and Karen are seen leaving the area of waterfall, heading toward the area where they were parked somewhere around CF McCarthy's, right? And just, so let's go with the 12-11 timeline, okay? In that cycle, cycle 11-62, 11 minutes after that cycle began, there was this reversal. I'm sorry, there was this three-point turn, alleged three-point turn. Okay. So that would put you at 1224. Well, if you go 19 minutes from that point, from that 1213 timeline, so we're saying they left the bar at 1211, they get in their car at 1213. Well, 19 minutes from 1213 AM would put you exactly

at 1232 PM for the reversal taking place and looking at some of the other things I've seen and also comparing it to the other things I've seen and also comparing it to the Apple health data, which you asked me to look into last episode, John O'Keefe steps stop at 1232. Exactly. His movement and GPS stops at that time as well. It puts him around the flagpole. So my takeaway from cycle 1162 would be the first event, 11 minutes after they get in the car at 1213 being the reversal, I'm sorry, the three-point turn, and at 1232 being the reversal, and that timeline, that cycle data, if accurate, would line up exactly with the timeline of John O'Keefe's movements stopping at 123232 a.m. So it would line up.

That's just my interpretation of it, though. I like what Legal Bytes had to say there. I mean, she brings up 11.64. She might have more information on it that she's maybe even given a more accurate opinion, but I really focused on cycle 11.62. And again, just to reiterate, if you're going off the timeline

that Karen and John got into the car around 12.13, 11 minutes after they get into the car, you would have that first event, which would be the three point turn. And then 19 minutes after the first, the 12, 13 timeline, you would have the reversal, which would be at 12, 32. And when you just don't take that data, see, I'm not just taking that data. But when I compare it to the Apple health data of John's Apple health phone or his watch, I don't believe he had a watch. I think it was just the phone. I think it was both. Yeah. He had, he had the watch as well.

Yeah. Because I think they were comparing and how they were slightly different, but yeah. And there was slightly deviances in that. And sometimes you can have Apple health data on your phone alone, but it's not as accurate. It uses like an accelerometer or altimeter or whatever it is, whatever it is. Yeah. And so, so those things can be a little bit off, but as far as his movement, there were, you know, and I know whether it's your phone or your watch, it's very sensitive as far as accounting for steps. If you even move just a little bit, it'll, it'll track a step. The steps for John's Apple health stopped at 1232, which means that phone would have been had to have thrown on the ground and not

moved or John himself would not have moved because he still would have had the watch on even if his phone got separated from him. So I really think as a detective, his phone was underneath him, which I find to be weird given the fact that they say she hit him and then he flew 30 to 40 feet. He would have dropped. Yeah. I don't, I don't believe that he, he flew in whatever that direction. I mean, I don't know that, but for me as a detective, I'm looking at when did his movement stop? And that's probably your critical time, whether it's an assault or him being struck by a car. It looks like it comes back to 1232 and I don't have any skin in the game. I just compared it to the tech stream data and it does line up. Now there could be something that's off with the data, but that's what I looked at. So we are going to talk about Trooper Paul's

testimony a little bit more simply because- You love Trooper Paul, man. Well, because of the way that he said John got his wounds is the prosecution's statement of how John got his wounds. So if they're going to put this dude on this task- Yeah, you got to revert yourself. They're going to put him on the stand. And that's the narrative you're going with based on him. Yep. All right.

Before we talk about that, though, before we come back to Trooper Paul, we're going to give everybody a break from him. And we're going to take a quick break. Not me, though. No, we don't get an actual break. We'll be right back. Mayfer Paul was clumsily trying to explain his theory of how the SUV had hit John O'Keefe in a way that would cause him to sort of spin around as he flew through the air. And Paul also claimed that John had received the injuries to his forearm because his arm was what broke the taillight. And then that broken taillight proceeded to cause the scratches and abrasions to

John's arm. Remember also that Paul indicated the place on John's body where he was hit was his upper arm, not his torso, but his upper arm. Now, it doesn't take a scientist or a medical expert to understand basic facts, such as an SUV is harder and heavier than a human body. And it would seem far more likely that the taillight of the SUV, especially going at the speed the prosecution claims it was going when John was hit, would break John's arm, not the other way around. John O'Keefe was a strong man, but he wasn't Iron Man or Superman. He's made of flesh and bones, and there was no bruises or broken bones on John's body. Also, as you heard Jackson alluding to, the human arm is on a hinge.

It's not one whole piece attached to the main body, so getting hit by a large SUV in the arm would have at least dislocated or broken John's arm and at the most ripped it off his body, not caused him to spin around or rotate or pirouette or whatever you want to call it. I think it's very clear to everyone that Trooper Joseph Paul was not qualified to perform this reconstruction and its results honestly can't be trusted and you'd be hard pressed to find someone, even the most staunch Karen Reid haters, who could disagree with me at least on this point. Now, the defense, however, brought in two crash reconstructionists from a company called

ARCA. This is a company that was founded in 1987 by an engineer who specialized in protecting people during crash events. This engineer's name is Alan Cantor. He was also credited with developing new life-saving occupant seating and restraint systems that are still used today and have resulted in significant reduction in fatalities and major injuries. Now, one of the first projects that ARCA actually worked on was with NASA, evaluating the Challenger disaster, and as a result,

new survival items became mandatory in all future U.S. space shuttle missions. They've been experts in crash reconstruction for over 30 years, and one of the ARCA experts that took the stand for the defense was Daniel Wolfe, who does have a PhD and a background in electrical engineering as well as physics. Although he was called as a defense witness, Wolfe had actually been retained by the FBI for their investigation into the state police, which the judge felt the jury didn't need to know, but the rest of us did. Dr. Wolf told the jury about extensive testing, including the use of a pneumatic cannon that he and his colleagues at a firm called ARCA did in this case. Defense attorney Alan Jackson asked him for his conclusion. Essentially, is the damage on Karen Reed's SUV consistent with a pedestrian

strike? In this case, the victim, John O'Keefe. In your expert opinion, based on all your testing, is the damage to the taillight that you saw consistent with striking a human head? No. In your expert opinion, is the damage to the taillight consistent with striking a human arm? No. Well, I think one thing that comes to mind is it was a little bit difficult to follow the evidence, so to speak. So typically, when I go out and do an inspection, especially of a fresh incident, let's say I've got a debris field or I've got tire marks, what I like to do is kind of step into the scene, if you will, where you take global perspective shots and then you step into a specific piece of evidence so that you can, at a later point in time,

identify where that evidence is. I noted that in a lot of these photographs, I didn't see a whole lot of that stepping in. It was essentially just zoomed right into where that evidence is, but not really having a great understanding of where was it relative to all of the other evidence. Or when it got there. Correct. So the primary damage was to the right taillight. It appeared to be fractured with the majority of the lens cover, so that clear and red plastic covering missing from it.

In addition to that, if you're looking at the back of the vehicle to the left of that, in the area above, there's also another at the back of the vehicle to the left of that in the area above the, there's also another tail lamp assembly on the lift gate. So above that assembly, there was a small dent along with some paint chips on the bumper, more so on the wraparound section as it kind of curves around to the right side of the vehicle. There appeared to be some superficial scratches as well in that area. Was there any other damage or deformation that you were able to glean from your review, the photogrammetry, damage to the Lexus, the bumpers, the panels, the quarter panel, the sheet metal, anything like that? No, the rest was remarkably intact.

Is it common in vehicle pedestrian collisions that there's some sort of bumper displacement and or sheet metal deformation that's concomitant to that? Absolutely. Assuming a pedestrian is positioned in a normal upright position, you certainly would expect to see damage to the bumper. In a lot of cases, what happens is the bumper is just clipped on. So again, the force of that impact will oftentimes cause the bumper to kind of become unmounted or unclipped. You certainly could see deformation to body paneling, such as the lift gate or the quarter panel as well. Is that especially true at higher speeds, meaning above 15 miles per hour or so? Oh, absolutely. Yes. Was there any apparent damage to the Lexus that appeared consistent with any kind of pedestrian interaction that you saw? No, it was, again, it was really confined to just the taillight, a very isolated portion of the

vehicle. With Dr. Renshler and I working together on this, again, we performed projectile testing to the tail lamp with a drinking glass as well as a hybrid. How would you describe the drinking glass test? Certainly. So again, from our review of the evidence, we knew that we had an isolated portion of damaged Selexis confined to the taillight. So we know that we're dealing with potentially a small object that could have created that. Looking at, again, the evidence in terms of the scene photographs, we know that we have a damaged drinking glass at the scene in the vicinity of the fragments of the taillight. So the theory that Dr. Rentschler and I put forward is potentially an individual through this drinking glass at the back of the Lexus causing the taillight to fracture. I'm going to interrupt you right there.

You and Dr. Rentschler formed that theory and wanted to test that theory, correct? Yes. You were not told that theory by the defense because you've never met us? Correct. You were not told that theory by the Commonwealth. You've never met them, correct? Correct. Your theory was the product of simply having some facts extant in the data, got a broken drinking glass, a broken taillight, let's put them together and figure out if the drinking glass could be responsible for the taillight and vice versa. Absolutely. Yes. And that was your determination of, well, we were given instructions to reconstruct this. Let's look at every single angle, correct? Absolutely. And I will note is as part of the engagement with the

entity that retained us, we were asked not to do any outside research or investigation of the case. It was to be based solely on the evidence that we were provided. Okay. As a matter of fact, and importantly, while you were doing your testing, had you interrupted your flow, you were looking at whether or not the glass could have produced the damage to the rear taillight that you saw, correct? Correct. And what did you do in furtherance of making a determination about whether or not that was possible? Certainly. So myself and one of our lab technicians at ARCA, we designed and developed a pressurized air cannon.

So it was capable of firing a projectile such such as a drinking glass, at the taillight. You can think of it as a giant cannon. It had a barrel, and then there was a valve that would open rapidly. Directly behind that was a pressurized vessel. Depending on the pressure, the PSI of that vessel, would determine the speed at which that glass would be projected into the taillight. So you literally built a cannon? Yeah, it's pretty awesome. Pretty cool job. Tell me what the results of your testing was with this pneumatic cannon that would fire the drinking glass. Certainly. So we performed two different

tests in terms of speeds. The target speeds were 30 and 40 miles per hour. Why was that? Well, so with consultation with Dr. Rentschler, he indicated that that is a reasonable speed at which an adult male or an individual, for that matter, could throw a drinking glass at the taillight. Had anybody indicated that there was any evidence whatsoever that John O'Keefe had thrown a drinking glass at the taillight? No. Was this another example of you and Dr. Richler and your team just exploring sort of every possibility and working a little bit in the blind?

Objection. Sustained. What was the reason that you decided, or you and your team decided, that you wanted to approximate how a grown man could throw a glass at a taillight? Well, I think we wanted to have an understanding is when a projectile, such as a drinking glass, interacted with the taillight, would we get damage on the test taillight that was consistent with that of the subject taillight? Understood. So based on your theory, were you able to approximate the damage on the taillight? Yes. Describe that for us.

So as I mentioned, we ran two tests. The target speeds were at 30 and 40 miles per hour. There was a little bit of variability in terms of what our target was and what we actually achieved. The achieved speeds were at 31 miles per hour and 37 miles per hour. Just depending on how the glass leaves the barrel and some of the rotation can affect some of the speed, or ultimately the end result speed to that. So what I will say, though, is that with the 37 mile per hour projectile into the taillight, we noted and observed that there was damage that was consistent with that of the subject tail lamp and that the test tail lamp had the majority of the outer lens fractured and missing, broken into pieces,

as well as some underlying damage to some of the internal components as well. Wow. There's a lot there. There's a lot to unpack. Well, first of all, I mentioned Superman and how John O'Keefe wasn't Superman. Well, Dr. Wolfe looks like Superman, and he definitely behaved with more professionalism and confidence on the stand, just like Superman would have. Okay. He clearly knows his shit. And look at them. They're performing tests.

They're trying to figure out every possible way that taillight could have broken. They're not just like, how could John's body have broken the taillight and focusing on that tunnel vision theory? So I thought it was interesting because I'm not sure if they're saying that the drinking glass broke the taillight because we know that. Well, that's what I kind of took from it. Right. What I was wondering is if it wasn't John's cocktail glass, the one found by his body broken that that hit Karen's car, could it have been the cocktail glass that she left

the bar with? Because remember, they both left the bar. That's right. With a cocktail glass. So maybe John gets both left the bar with a cocktail glass. So maybe John gets out of the car. They're fighting. He's got both cocktail glasses in his hands. And he's holding one.

He's holding hers. And then he's like, well, screw you. She starts to drive away. She's like, I'm leaving your ass here, bitch. And he's like, oh, really? And he throws the cocktail glass at her car as she drives away. Now, interestingly enough, you would wonder, well, if the glass on the bumper doesn't match the cocktail glass

found by John O'Keefe's car, would they go into the Elbert home and see if there was any glasses in there that matched the glass on Karen Reed's bumper? Of course, we know they didn't do that. They didn't do that, correct. So we have some mystery glass on Karen's bumper, but we also know that she left the bar with cocktail glass. He left the bar with cocktail glass. He left the bar

with cocktail glass. His cocktail glass is found near him. Where is hers? Yeah. So I'm writing down notes. First off, I agree with you on the testimony of Dr. Wolf. Is it Dr. Wolf? Dr. Wolf, yeah. This is what most experts do look like when they go on this thing. They don't look like Trooper Paul. And in many cases, you will find Dr. Wolfs on both the prosecution and the defense side, and they will both present an argument that sounds reasonably believable. But to get into what he said here, which I found fascinating, was that it potentially was a glass and they were able to replicate it and create similar damage to a glass. So everything that you said, you said it. There's an argument, there's a discrepancy between them and there's something

going on. He grabs both glasses. She's driving away. He throws the glass at her car. Now, if you believe that he was assaulted by someone else, he could have thrown the glass and Karen Reed breaks her taillight because he threw the glass and hit it and she drives off. There's also an angle where he throws the glass and hits her car, and that's when she reverses into him and then drives off. Or there's a possibility that he throws the glass, hits her taillight, breaks it, that infuriates her, and she backs up into him and then takes off. But this is what I want to go back to with the stuff that we do know. We know that Karen Reed's vehicle reconnected to John O'Keefe's Wi-Fi at 1236 AM and his movement stopped on his Apple health data at 1232. So is it possible that she struck him and then drove off?

I wanted to dive into that too, because I looked up on Google Maps and Dr., not doctor, but Mr. Yannetti brought up the fact that it's a six minute drive on a good day to get from 34 Fairview to Meadows where John lived. And he's not wrong. If you put it in Google Maps right now, it literally pulls up six minutes on the dot. In that Canton area, the speed limit universally is 30 miles per hour. So at that speed limit, which is what Google Maps is calculating off of, it would take approximately six minutes. However, I pose this theory to all of you. When have we sometimes not driven the speed limit? Late at night or if there's a sense of urgency or we're just trying to get home.

Or you're drunk. Or you're drunk. You know, could you make that drive in four minutes? You absolutely could. And so if you believe that, this whole theory of the glass hitting the back of the taillight, breaking it, her striking him, his movement stopping at 1232, her pulling off and getting home by 1236, it would line up with the Wi-Fi. But you were going to say something and you let me finish.

So thank you. What was the third theory that you were going to bring up? I was thinking like they get in a fight. He's like, I'm going in. She's like, I'm not waiting for you. She drives off. He throws the glass and then he falls because he's drunk. He hits his head and maybe he cuts his arm on his broken cocktail glass. You know, there could be a million things that happen. I just thought it was interesting that they were going down this glass being the reason for the tailgate breaking, because if we're to believe that John O'Keefe was assaulted inside, then the taillight would have been broken during the fender bender in her own driveway. And this recreation,

this examination done by Dr. Wolf would dispute that because he's saying that the object would have been having to travel between 34 and 37 miles per hour. We can see from that video, she was not traveling that fast when she's reversing into that car. I think he said that that's how fast John would have thrown it. Yeah, thrown it to break the taillight and break it in that fashion. I'd be interested to know if he could replicate that damage backing into another vehicle, because I was sitting there going,

I get what he's saying, but isn't he also kind of discrediting the idea that the damage was caused by another vehicle that was stationary stationary. So I think that's why the defense was like, but you have no reason to think that's what happened. You were just doing tests to try every possible scenario. I also liked what Yannetti said there where he's like, oh, because he mentioned the overview photo. Remember he said, I'd like to go into the scene. What did I say earlier? You got to take an

overview photo. You want to scale everything. You want to draw it out. So you can not only reference the placard, the number six placard, but see where it was relative to all the other evidence and relative to the flagpole and the house. And they didn't do that. They just took these close-up shots. So by not doing that, it does limit the ability to review the evidence later and to identify where each item was located in reference to the overall crime scene. But yeah, I thought it was fascinating what he had to say. And I think he did a great job.

And, you know, I mean, it was. He's a great expert witness. There's nothing else to say. Could his interpretation be wrong? mean, it was, he's a great, he's a great expert witness. There's nothing else to say. He could, his interpretation be wrong. Of course it could be. It's his opinion, but it's based on a lot of experience, a lot of knowledge, a lot of education. And he presents, he presents himself in a way that he's very sure about it. And he's explaining it in a way that's not hard for us to understand. But that's what it's about with the jury. If you're a jury member and you're sitting there listening to Trooper Paul, and then you're listening to Dr. Wolf, who's more

convincing? I mean, Wolf. Right. You know what I mean? So it's like, you know, that's just common sense. It's human nature. Well, Dr. Wolf's colleague, who he referred to during his testimony, Dr. Andrew Wenschler, who's a biomechanical engineer for ARCA, Dr. Wenschler testified that John's injuries were not consistent with being hit by a vehicle going 24 or 26 miles per hour or whatever. He said that John's injuries would have been much more significant to include broken bones and or torn ligaments. Notably, Dr. Wenschler said, quote, if there's enough force to cause a skull fracture, there's enough force to cause injuries to the other part of the body, end quote. Now, these injuries he's speaking about, we know that John O'Keefe didn't have. On cross-examination by A.D.A. Lally, Rensselaer was asked about how John's arm

was positioned at the time of impact, you know, because what's his name over there, Trooper Paul, he's saying that he's holding it up, kind of like he's waving at somebody, right? Like extended like an L. And so ADA Lally was like, well, was it tucked in? Was it hanging out? And Dr. Rentschler responded, quote, there's no indication in any of the evidence of what he may or may not have been doing, how he may or may not have been positioned. That's the whole issue. There's no evidence to indicate what may have allegedly occurred in this case, end quote. And I have a lot of respect for that because over here, Trooper Paul's like, oh, his arm was like this and he got hit like this and then he spun. Where are you getting this from? Because the crime scene's talking to you, my dude?

Exactly. That's where he really effed himself and effed this case up because he's making, he's extrapolating out something that he doesn't even fully understand. Yeah, and this guy, this biomechanical engineer is like, none of the evidence gives us any indication of how he was standing, where he was standing, how he flew, nothing. That's a biomechanical engineer and a trooper's playing biomechanical engineer.

Exactly. You've exceeded your expertise. Far, far exceeded. You made some leaps that you probably shouldn't have. And I'm sure when he was sitting in that box testifying, he was thoroughly regretting those decisions. Dude, you left the kiddie pool. You went right into the deep end and you cannot swim. Yep.

So additionally, Dr. Frank Sheridan, who's a retired forensic pathologist who had formerly been chief medical examiner for San Bernardino, California, he testified for the defense as well. Can you describe the injuries that you see in this photograph? These injuries that you're looking at here on the arm are abrasions, which are friction injuries, basically. We classify them under the general category of blunt force injury, but these particular ones are abrasions. Abrasions being where the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis as it's called, has been scraped off. These are friction injuries essentially. Based on your review of the information discussed earlier, can you tell, as well as your review of these photographs, can you tell whether these injuries were sustained before or after death? These injuries were sustained before death.

We call them anti-mortem, A-N-T-E, mortem meaning before death. And that's based primarily on their color. And you have to take other things into consideration, but that's the basics of it. If these had been post-mortem, they would have a more yellowish orange color, usually yellow. In your professional opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, are those injuries consistent with being struck by a vehicle while holding a drinking glass? Objection. Sustained.

I would say in general, no. So that objection was sustained. I think Ms. Little is going to put it to you in a different way. I'm sorry. If you mean struck in that part of the body on the arm directly, I would say no, it doesn't look like that at all. But then I've also had cases where an animal or a dog particularly was involved but wasn't the actual cause of death, so to speak,

but they were involved in something that was happening and left some traces of their activity in the form of bite marks or scratch marks. In your professional opinion, are those injuries consistent with an animal attack? Are they consistent with what? An animal attack. I would say they are, yes. I'm not 100% sure about this, but my initial reaction when I saw this photograph was that it was probably an animal mark, and most likely I would say a dog. Scrape

marks with the paws, and possibly also a bite mark from the teeth as well, possibly. I'm not 100% sure. I didn't get a chance to analyze it right there on the spot so to speak but my basic impression is that these were consistent with marks caused by say a dog using his paws or claws if you want to put it that way and possibly the teeth as well yeah so i get what he's saying here and we couldn't show the photo it's blurred out in here you can go look up the photo. I've seen the photo I've done. Obviously we're, we're deep into this now. I seen the arm photo on it's unblurred online. It, and I, I will say, I mean, I'm not an expert in it, but it doesn't look like road rash or banging from a,

from a truck or a SUV. It does kind of look like claw marks or bite marks from a dog. And, you know, with some canine training that I would be doing, a lot of the times the dogs will bite on the arm or the leg, um, creating similar abrasions. Could it be something else? Of course it could be. We don't know for certain that's his interpretation. I will say his breathing would be enough to drive me insane. But other than that, I, you know, I get where he's coming from. We couldn't show the video, the photo here for purposes. Anytime you show any dead body, you get demonetized immediately. So you can look it up. It's readily available. It's not anything graphic, but to me, I've seen road rash a lot in my professional career. I feel like we've actually

shown the picture, but this, I think it's Court TV. They blurred it out. But if we showed it, if we showed it, we would get demonetized. I got demonetized for a video I just did where it was a dead body. It was just the jacket of the person and they demonetized me. Yeah, you never know what they're going to grab onto. Yeah, they're pretty selective. But I get where he's going with this. I will say again, you know, I was, to be transparent with you guys, I was working under the assumption that he was holding the glass when he was struck. And Dr. Wolf really opened up my eyes to a potential motive.

If we were to believe Karen Reed struck him, like, why would she go in reverse after getting ready to leave? Well, he could have pissed her off, like you said, where he throws the glass as she's driving away. And that could have enraged her, especially if they're going back and forth. I didn't even think about that possibility. She might've even just backed up really fast to like be like, you know, show like, ah, I'm mad and not knowing she hit him. I also was like, could it be a situation where she's going in reverse to like spook him or whatever, or like just to go back and talk to him. And as she's backing up, he throws the glass at her taillight, you know, like get out of here or whatever. Like there's so many, as you said, so many possibilities. But I will say just with that experiment that Dr.

Wolfe conducted to be able to replicate it, it does seem more likely based on the forensics of it that he wasn't holding the glass in his hand if he was struck by the vehicle and the damage to the taillight could have still occurred by the glass by being thrown. Really interesting stuff. Derek, if he's holding the glass when he's hit, the glass is not- The shatter's all over him. It's not, and it's also not flying with his body. He's going to drop it.

Yeah, yeah. Then his body's going to fly. But like you said, if it's Karen Reed's glass, maybe that's how some of the fragments end up on. What you said, I was like, light bulb, that makes sense. If it's a second glass and he throws it, it shatters and fragments end up on the, that would, what you said, I was like, light bulb, that makes sense. If it's a second glass and he throws it, it shatters and fragments end up on the bumper. I'm like, wow. Okay. That makes more sense.

Yep. Absolutely. And you know what they could have done, what they could have done is gone to, um, what is it? PF McCarthy's. Yeah. Where, where they believe she took the glass from and grabbed those glasses and grabbed glasses from the Waterfall Bar and Grill and compared those glasses. Yeah, I don't think it's PF, I think

it's CF. I think it's CF McCarthy's. Whatever. They grabbed those glasses from each bar and compared it to the glass. Well, of course. Well, compare it to the glass on Karen's bumper. Of course. Absolutely. But they did not. That's the problem. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. So on cross-examination, Dr. Sheridan was asked by ADA Lally if frozen ground could have cracked the back of John O'Keefe's head. And Sheridan said, yes, it could have. Sheridan also said that John did not have broken orbital bones or other injuries that you would expect to see if someone had been in a fight. Injuries to his eyes, right? There's obviously injuries he has, but he doesn't have orbital injuries or injuries to his eyes he would expect to see if someone had been in a fight. But even the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on John O'Keefe had a hard time saying for sure if his injuries were

consistent with being struck by an SUV going 24 miles per hour. She said, quote, I would say it's likely and unlikely at the same time, depending on the position of the body and the vehicle in question. Yeah, she's covering herself both ways. She also testified that any blunt object could have caused John's skull fractures and they could be consistent with a fall to the ground. She also said that she saw no signs of a significant altercation, but admitted that it was possible some of John's injuries could have been caused by a punch. Another defense witness, Dr. Marie Russell, testified that the injuries on John's arm were consistent with an animal bite.

Prosecution and defense are questioning a series of witnesses who the defense wants to call as part of its case. The prosecution claims these witnesses were all late additions and it didn't have a chance to prepare for them. The first witness is a retired ER doctor and forensic pathologist. She says she's reviewed photos of John O'Keefe's wounds and she does not believe he was hit by a car. Those injuries appear to be consistent with an animal attack. Well, they are consistent with a large dog attack. Um, there, the, there's combination of both what I consider bite wounds and scratch wounds on the arm. Yeah. This is something, this is something

that I was seeing a lot of. Cause obviously when you're doing your own research, you run into other things and you hadn't even mentioned the dog bite at the time when I was doing my research. Well, we did talk about Chloe, the German shepherd. Yeah. The dog, the German shepherd in the house. The problem for me guys. And if someone has a, a way to dispute it, I'm open to it. The problem for me with all of this,

whatever happened after Karen left, because if this is what happened, if this happened in Karen's presence, she obviously would have said it, but we know that she left the property around 1232 and got home at 1236. But his Apple health data, his movement stopped at 1232. So if you're to believe that he went into the house, by the way, the GPS shows him outside the house all the time too.

But if you're to assume that something happened after Karen Reed left and there was a dog bite and it was an altercation, whatever angle you want to go with, why wasn't any of it recorded? Why were there no steps taken? Why did he land in that spot near the flagpole? And immediately after she pulls away, there's zero steps. If he was bitten by a dog, there'd be movement. Even if he's just standing in place, there's going to be activity recorded. There's nothing. So I agree with the observation of the wounds, even though I'm not a pathologist. I agree. It does look like, you know, like a dog bite, but I wonder if those injuries could have been before his death. So maybe earlier in the day or a day or two before that,

we don't know about, maybe he got into, I don't know, but I have a hard time getting there when the activity on his own watch and phone stops at 1232. But anyways, that's just my holdup. His activity stops at 1232 and her car connects to the Wi-Fi at his house at 1236. Correct. I have a hard time believing that she could hit him and get back to his house within four minutes. I really do.

That's a very tight time. We could do it. If you want to come up here, we'll make the drive. It's a very tight time frame though. They're saying six minutes. You couldn't take two minutes off your timeline? I'm asking you, we could do it. If you want to come up here, we'll make the drive. It's a very tight timeframe though. They're saying six minutes. You couldn't take two minutes off your timeline? I'm asking you personally. It's a six minute drive if you're going the speed limit. If I said to you, you have to get home two minutes earlier at that time of night, you couldn't do it? Have you seen the path? It's a very direct route.

Let me, before we close out the episode, I want to bring up just two more things. Do it. Do it. I want to talk about a plow driver named Brian Loughran. There's too many Bryans in this case, so he's also known as Lucky Loughran. That's what we're going to call him, Lucky. Lucky. Yeah.

Now, an initial statement from the Canton DPW superintendent, Mike Trotta, told trooper Michael Proctor that no town workers had plowed Fairview on the morning that John O'Keefe was found. And this is what Proctor puts in his report. Nobody plowed Fairview on the morning that John O'Keefe was found. And this is what Proctor puts in his report. Nobody plowed Fairview. That was the evidence presented. But then the defense called Lucky to the stand as their first witness, and Lucky testified

that he did, in fact, run his normal route the morning of the 29th, which included Fairview. And he not only told this to Michael Proctor, but to the FBI and to a private investigator. He testified that he passed the Albert home around 2.45 a.m., and he said he could see a very large portion of the lawn, almost to the front steps, and he saw nothing. He didn't see a dead body. Lucky also said he drove by about 30 minutes later, and he again said he saw nothing on the lawn, but he did see a light-colored Ford Edge parked on the road in front of the house. Since he knew the Elbert family well, he'd gone to school with Chris Elbert, he testified that he was being courteous

and he decided not to report the car for violating snowstorm parking restrictions, which is basically they tell you, hey, snowstorm's coming, make sure your car's not on the street because the plow drivers have to come through. They'll take it and tell you, yeah. But he didn't do that. He said he didn't turn them in. When Lucky came back that way around 530 a.m., he claimed at that point the street was blocked and first responders were there. Now, according to the FBI, every plow truck in Canton is equipped with a functioning GPS. And the GPS data established that Lucky actually did pass by 34 Fairview at 230 a.m. on January 29th, 2022. And by that time, it had just started sort of snowing, you know, lightly around the 1230 time. Two hours later, is there going to be enough snow coverage so that Lucky, driving a plow with nothing to do but look around him, is not going to see a dead body laying on a white lawn? I don't know. I don't know either. I don't know Lucky. I don't know if he's the sharpest tool

in the shed. I think there's people who would miss that, obviously, and I think there's people who would pick up on it. So he goes by at 2.30 and then again 30 minutes later, does not see a body at any point, but he sees a Ford Edge, right? Yeah, he could easily not have been. If you're not looking for it, it's easy. You could miss it. But in order to see the Ford Edge on the street, he would have had to have been looking at the yard. it. But in order to see the Ford Edge on the street, he would have had to have been looking at the yard. Well, I mean, to see the Ford Edge on the street, you're looking for other cars. Maybe. I don't know.

You don't want to hit the car. I think you're discounting a pretty important eyewitness. Really? You think he's that important? The fact that he didn't see a body in the middle of the night in dark clothing. You think that that's that important? I don't know. When everything's white from snow, I think I would see.

People can't have it both ways. Either it was a dusting at that point or it was a blizzard. But it's too, so it starts snowing around 12, 1230 time. Is there going to be enough snow falling where you wouldn't be able to see on a white lawn that there's like a lump? Like, you know, what's her name? Said she saw a dark spot when they left around like, I think, what did she say? One forty five or something.

I'm saying I don't know. Lucky. I don't know how observative he is. What I will say just is it possible that this witness missed a body that was on the lawn in the middle of the night that could have potentially been covered by a dusting of snow as well as the ground around it and not notice the discrepancy in the height of the ground and this small bump that was there? Is that possible that he wasn't paying attention for that? I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that's possible. So I'm not discrediting you. I think it's important.

You got to bring it in. It definitely helps the defense case. But I also think I would go more off the Apple health data and the GPS coordinates of John O'Keefe as opposed to a plow truck driver at two 30 in the morning. But that's just me. Many people will agree with you. I have no doubt about it. I'm going to get a lot of shit for this because I know there's a lot of people that hinge this case on that Apple health data. And it's like, okay, it's a small point for me, but overall it's not the end all be all because it's literally not accurate at all. I agree. It's not accurate, especially as far as height. I want to point out some other research I

was doing with the Apple Health as far as stairs, because you mentioned that. I'm going to try to summarize this, but ultimately the GPS coordinates, it's kind of a dead area over there at 34 Fairview and what they were able to replicate is, and many of you have probably seen this, when John O'Keefe's data, his GPS data is at that location, it basically keeps pinging at the flagpole. And then there's a moment where it kind of becomes a bigger circle where it encompasses the 34 Fairview address. But it only happens for about, I believe, six seconds.

So they estimated that he would have had to have been traveling 30 miles per hour into the house and then back out of the house because within that six second period, the circle expanded to include 34 VR view. And then it shrunk back down to the flagpole and stayed there for the rest of it. That's the GPS. So not possible. There is a point where it computes that John O'Keefe was going up and down stairs. And it's not, again, not disputed by anyone that he was in a car going up and down a hill at that point. And there is a thing, and I could be wrong about this, it's called a barometric altimeter that's inside the iPhone. And it can throw off the amount of stairs you're going up and down based on elevation changes and temperature changes. So I'm not really focusing on the staircase element of it. I'm focusing on the lack of steps because what I do know,

I do agree with you that it's not a hundred percent accurate, but what I have found with my Apple health is it's more likely to count steps that I didn't take than not account for steps. So the fact that there were zero steps after 1232, that is something that I do take a lot of, I put a lot of stock into, I put a lot of weight into. And then you include the GPS coordinates of Karen Reed, now Dr. Wolf's testimony about the shot glass. And I round out this episode, again, feeling very strongly about the fact that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been absolutely met. And they made the right decision by finding Karen Reid not guilty. And now I'm still going through this episode and going through the series trying to figure out what actually happened to John O'Keefe.

And I do, at this point, feel like the possibility of Karen Reid striking John O'Keefe, maybe not even knowing it, is very much in play here, is very much in play. And the reason I say that she may not have known about it, I'm not necessarily going off the forensics at the crime scene, not necessarily going off the digital data. I'm going off her behavior after the fact, where she seems very pissed off at John and wanting to know where he is. And I don't think that's a person that if they knew they did something wrong, would be making those phone calls like that, because that would actually demonstrate motive. So that's why I'm leaning that direction of she did potentially hit him,

but whether she knew it or not is a completely different question. And personally, I don't think we'll ever truly know if that is what happened. Yeah, I agree. I agree. That's where I am. I we'll ever truly know if that is what happened. Yeah, I agree. I agree. That's where I am. I'm not putting my whole thing on it. That's what I'm leaning towards. And again, if you don't like the Apple health data, like you said, that's going to completely discredit what I'm saying. But if you're, if you believe that the steps should have been recorded, if he was still wearing the watch, which from what I understand, he was still wearing the watch when

he was found, there should have been some recorded steps. And the fact that there weren't is concerning to me as far as potential theories involving anyone else. Even if they came out to him at the flagpole, if there was a small altercation, it would have recorded some steps. And it didn't. So that's something that I'm puzzled by. Well, along with there being a lot of Bryans involved in this case, there also appears to be several Ford Edges involved in this case. Because remember, Lucky, the plow driver, said he saw a Ford Edge. And we heard about this in a previous clip where it says the prosecution was like, oh, forget about that Ford Edge. This person's changed their story multiple times. He never changed his story about the Ford Edge.

Who? Lucky changed his story? Yeah. Okay, got it. That's what the prosecution... He never changed his story about the Ford Edge. And a lot of people own a Ford Edge. Brian Albert himself drove a Ford Edge provided to him by the city of Boston. His brother, Kevin Albert, also drove a Ford Edge. And his nephew, Colin Albert, was the owner of a Ford Edge. Just going to put that out there. Now, I want to also quickly touch on some surveillance videos, specifically the video of Karen leaving John's house when the defense claims she actually broke her taillight, and also a bunch of surveillance footage that has

suddenly gone missing in this case, footage that shows crucial moments in the timeline. First, let's look at the surveillance footage of Karen leaving John's house after 5 a.m. on the 29th. None of those defenders is more convinced than that of my next guest. Sean McDonough is a retired DEA supervisory special agent who's investigated this case on his own pretty much full time for a year now. He says he can prove that Karen Reed's taillight was completely intact after the alleged hit and run happened. Take a look at this video from a doorbell cam. It was taken at 5.03 a.m. And 5.03 a.m. is hours after Reed and O'Keefe parted ways.

And you can see right there in the circle that Reed's taillight is right where it's supposed to be, on her Lexus SUV. I want to welcome to the program Sean McDonough. Sean, that video is sort of jaw-dropping. It's kind of like the Perry Mason moment, and I wonder if the prosecutors have it, and if they do, how do they explain it? Actually, I'm so happy to be here, and thank you. Thank you for covering this. I'm so happy you led with the first picture the first picture is what the prosecution wants the jurors to believe look that that taillight looked like at 12 32 a.m after john was allegedly hit by karen reed in this video which is four and a half hours after karen uh allegedly hit John. See, that light right there has absolutely no wires, no LEDs. All the red is completely gone, which means no red would be reflective, right?

There would be nothing illuminating. At 5.03 to 5.08. You see her back in. She cracks the backup light onto Officer John O'Keefe's traverse, which is behind there. See those tire tracks? She goes in at an angle, which means she definitely made contact with that side light that comes out five inches. We documented this. And see right there, that tire on John's car moves forward. It didn't go backwards. So the angle directs the motion of the vehicle when it got struck. So when that, as that video continues on, if you keep going with that video a little bit more, it's completely intact. And this is how it all came about. The lead detective, Michael Proctor from the Mass State Police, this is how I found it.

In his affidavit, he said the taillight, the right rear taillight, right side was shattered and a large piece missing. And I said, wait a minute. The two witnesses told him that there was a crack. And we analyzed this back and forth, and we let the video play all the way through. I went to Lexus dealerships. They told me not only do they have, it's a polycarbonate plastic, one of the hardest plastics you can have. The law of physics, but there you go, right there. See all that red? In the final picture where the prosecutors are saying this is how it ends up, it's no way. So polycarbonate plastic, very hard. 6,500 pounds going into a 220 pound male human will topple him over. It will not crack up the taillight in 37 plus pieces.

Absolutely impossible. Mistake number one, they did not know this video existed when they did this crime scene later in the night. This video came about two days later. So when they made the decision- So again, I've got only 30 seconds left, but I've got to ask you, you've been in this business a long time.

How are the prosecutors going to explain this away? Because I guarantee you what you have, defense attorneys will use. Oh, they have it all. They have that and more. I don't know how they intend to convince a jury of 12 that that car hit John O'Keefe. There is no way. So this is a compelling video. I would ask the same question. How did the prosecution explain this? Because the video, the taillight to me looks like it's intact at that point. I will say I, it's very obvious the taillight's still intact in that

location. Is it already cracked? It's potentially possible it's cracked. I don't know. It could be already fractured and the pieces came out as after the car was retrieved or went over some bumps. But what I would be more curious to see, and again, I love recreations, right? Cause they don't lie. You can trade, take that traverse, put it right in that driveway. You take her Lexus, you put it or a similar Lexus, you put it in that driveway and you back into her and you back into the traverse. I would be interested to see what part of her car, cause it's clearly, you can see her

car, his car. I would love to see what part of her car strikes the back of the front of, or the back of his traverse, because as I was watching that video, two things I took from it was that the taillight appears to be intact or most of it appears to be there, right? But also her bumper protrudes further than the taillight itself based on the way that Lexus kind of curves inward. So I would think just as a layman, that it'd be more likely her bumper would strike his car. But I don't know without a recreation, but I would love to see if they could replicate a scenario in that driveway where her taillight could have came in contact with his vehicle. That's something

I would love to know. Well, the way that the prosecution explained this away was by claiming that state troopers, including Michael Proctor, had gone to John's house and they had not found any pieces of Karen's taillight there and they had seen no damage to John's vehicle. And that was- Yeah, but the taillight's intact at that point. Yeah, I agree. I mean, the taillight's at that point. Yeah, I agree. The taillights there. I mean, I got to call it how I see it. The taillights there. Now, it could be a fractured taillight that broke out as they were driving around and as she's leaving, of course. But to this DEA agent's credit in that video, there's no disputing the fact that it doesn't look the same

as the photograph taken by investigators later when they seize the vehicle. So that is that is something that I'm sure the defense hopped all over and as they should. Yes, I agree. The taillight looks like it's intact. It's not missing big chunks. Correct. Yeah. I think we can both, it could be cracked. We don't know. You can't tell from that video, but it doesn't look like that photo. That's for damn sure. No. So let's talk next about random missing surveillance video. Buchanek testified that he requested motion-activated ring camera footage of John's driveway from that night, yet never saw Karen. The prosecution insinuated that Karen deleted it. But the defense quickly pointed out.

Who received the actual ring video or videos from the Ring Corporation? It was Trooper Mike Proctor who received it. And an audio recording was played for jurors, a Buchanix conversation with Karen on June 6, 2022, where she accuses other people who were there that night and who have already testified in this trial as being the real killers of John O'Keefe. You're aware that you just beat him up at a random comic opera.

We're all in on the same joke, right? My tail ends correct and John was pulverized. we've got footage of karen leaving john's house yeah after 5 a.m but the footage of her arriving back to the house after allegedly hitting him it's just missing it's gone and they say oh karen got rid of it but how could she have done that i I don't think you can. I think Ring keeps it up in their cloud. I don't think they do necessarily. I think you have to pay for that plan, actually. You might be right. But the way to access it would have been through John's cell phone. So the only other person who could have removed it before it went into evidence is Trooper Michael Proctor, unless for some

reason at that exact moment when she got back, the video just glitched. The ring camera just glitched. And I would also say, I'm assuming the account's in John's name. It is, yes. So how would Karen be able to get it removed? I don't know if she'd have access to that. She would not have been able to. Yeah, I agree. So additionally, now there is surveillance footage from one of John's neighbors that show headlights arriving at the house around that 1236 time. And we assume, because that's when her car connected to his Wi-Fi, that that's her coming in. The reasonable assumption, yeah. Yeah. So we have some footage. It just doesn't show her vehicle. It just shows headlights pulling into John's. But I mean, her phone connects to the Wi-Fi. We know that's impossible to do unless your phone's there. I have trouble connecting

to my Wi-Fi when I am at home. For real. So, I mean, I don't, I don't think you need the tail, the headlights, but okay. So it's just more missing evidence. Yeah. That terrible case. Yeah. So there's a reason why Proctor is on administrative leave and there's probably some other people that should be as well.

Yeah. Well, both houses across the street from Brian Albert's house also had ring cameras, which would have been pointing directly at 34 Fairview, including the home of Deputy Chief Tom Helleher. It looks like the police never asked these neighbors for their ring camera footage, even though they have done this before in multiple other cases. And we know that after a certain amount of time, your phone doesn't store those things anymore. You'd have to get them within like first few days, and then it's like rewriting over. Now, we know that Canton Police and Massachusetts State Police have, in other cases, put out Twitter alerts and things and said, hey, anybody in this neighborhood, if you have surveillance video, please send it to us. They did not do that in this case.

Why? When this would have exactly shown every single thing that happened. Yeah, I agree. I agree. I don't know why you wouldn't dot your I's, cross your T's. You're never going to get me to disagree with you in this case as far as the police misconduct and the inaccuracies and the lack of investigation that took place into certain areas. The question is why? And that's the million dollar question for a lot of people. Where is it? Is it because they were covering up for another police officer or they had already zeroed in on Karen Reed and they were only interested in evidence that supported their initial narrative, which was that she struck him and she took off anything

outside of that, that they just considered it a red herring. And that's wrong. That's not what you're supposed to do. Well, additionally, during the grand jury, Brian Albert testified that he'd gotten what he thought was a nest camera for Christmas, but he said he hadn't installed it yet. And I find this very suspicious, not because he didn't install it yet, but because he's a Boston police officer. He's pretty well known in the area. Most times, police officers have some sort of home surveillance. Amen. You should. To protect their families, right? Because they're putting bad guys, taking them off the street, putting them in jail.

Or even just your vehicles. Somebody knows you live there. They could throw a brick through your window, something like that. And Brian Albert's been involved in a lot of high-profile cases, as we discussed previous. So you'd think he'd have some sort of security system installed. Everybody should. Shout out SimpliSafe. According to him, nothing, right? So there's also a video of Karen Reed's SUV passing by the Canton library on her way to the Elberts home that night with John O'Keefe in the car with her. But stunningly, when she would have driven past the library again on her way to John's house after the prosecution claims she hit

him, which would have given us an indication of how long it took for her to get home. There was a glitch in the system, and there's a two-minute gap at the time exactly that Karen Reed would have been driving by the Canton Library, and it would have showed what time she did that, and it would have showed whether or not her taillight was intact. Humble's evidence, we know that my client drove by the Canton library at 1216 AM on January 29th because that was recorded. There was video of her driving by at that time heading to 34 Fairview, which is where John O'Keefe died with her tail light intact.

We know that my client arrived back at John O'Keefe's residence at One Meadows Ave. in Canton at 1241 AM because the Commonwealth produced a voicemail that she left for John where you can hear the garage door closing, the car door closing, the house door closing while she walked in her high heels on the garage floor. One Meadows is about a mile from the Canton Library. We know the video equipment was working because they have that footage from 12.16 a.m. But in the video that the prosecution turned over to us, there is a gap in that video from 12.37 a.m. to 12.39 a.m., which would have been the precise time my client would have been driving back past the library. We know that that footage would show that my client's

taill light was still intact at that point because she never struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle. Yet the prosecution has produced a video from the library with that crucial time period missing. Now as far as the video was provided to Trooper Matthew Dunn of the CPAC unit with the District Attorney's Office, that was then shared with Ms. Crawford. It was a person in our office who specifically deals with forensic and surveillance video and type evidence. It was then archived on our system. Recently, we reached out and spoke to the IT director with the town of Canyon.

Again, that share link I tried to send to council email essentially wouldn't go through we tried to open it essentially it won't open so the link expired within 30 days of within 60 days if not 30 days of being shared with our office but the exact information that was provided by the Town of Canton was archived by Ms. Crawford, was then provided to Council at her arraignment in Superior Court, as well as I was able to download it onto a Citrix file, which I then shared with Council earlier this week. So what we have as a video, what exists as a video, what we were given as a video for those relevant time frames was placed onto the archive within our system, was then placed onto a disc.

And what's on the disc, what's been provided to counsel, is what we received. Yeah, it's like the epitome of you have a lot of explaining to do. And it's just constant, constantly. I was a little confused. Jackson said 1237 to 1239, but she would have already been home. So 1241 was when she entered the house and she called John and you could hear her heels clicking on his floor. But he said that there was a gap missing from 1237 to 1239 on the camera, but she would have already been home at that point.

Maybe he just misspoke or is he trying to push? I am not sure. Or you know what I'm talking about? But that would have pushed her time even later to get home. So maybe at that point he was going with that timeline where she would have passed at 1237 to 1239, which is why you hear the garage at 1241. But again, it's semantics. The bottom line is you don't have the video footage. Would we be able to see the taillight? I don't know. I don't know how good the camera system for the library was, but I know that footage that was shown a couple minutes ago to our audience where she's in the driveway at 503 in the morning, it's pretty clear that the taillight from what you can see is still intact. Could it be damaged?

Maybe. But it does not look like the photo that we've been showed. That is, you cannot dispute that. It doesn't look the same. Yeah, it's a mess. This case is a mess. It's an absolute cluster. And I think it's just kind of, I feel like we're belaboring the point now, which is any piece of evidence that is presented to us cannot be trusted because there's 17 people

who can give you 17 different interpretations of it. And the integrity of that evidence is going to constantly be under question because of where it came from. Completely agree. Completely agree. Which is why this case is so hard and which is why people are so divided on it. Crazy why they're bringing her back to trial. What are they going to do? I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that either. And that's why I'm trying as best as I can. And it's not a foolproof plan to rely on. To rely on evidence that's not

controlled by anybody, any party or has not been interpreted by any party. I'm not going off interpretations because we know, you guys know, experts, they're for hire. That's for both sides. I'm not saying it one way or the other. And I have some friends who are experts in these fields and they will be the first to tell you that. So I'm trying to go forward with an open mind and rely on evidence that I don't think was altered to fit a narrative like the Celebrite report, not the interpretation of it, but the actual report, like the Apple health data, even though that has its flaws, the GPS data, things of that nature. It's not a lot that hasn't been controlled by one party or the other. And I'm also trying to

focus on evidence that hasn't been in the hands of Detective Proctor or trooper Proctor. So it's limited because his hands were on everything. So that's where I'm at on it. I think there's things that could make you go either direction. I think we all agree that Karen should be found not guilty anytime and that she should not be tried again. And that may be because of just the terrible case that was put on by the prosecution and the investigation done by the Mass State Police. But now I'm just trying for the sake of my own mental health and for everybody else out here just to really find out what happened to John O'Keefe, even though there will be no prosecution at this point of anybody else. That's never going to happen. John will never get justice. So that's already out there, but we'll see where it goes. It's a fascinating case. I'm

glad we're covering it. And I just want to point something out. Although this case, I've heard so many bad things about it as far as how negative and how harassing people can be to anybody who decides to cover this. Overall, knock on wood, I think everyone has been pretty respectful in the comments. They've voiced their opinions and gave their reasons behind it, but I haven't gotten any nasty emails or DMs, and we've gotten that on other cases. So kudos to everybody who's looking at it, making your points known in the comments. Like I said, I've gotten a couple emails. They've always been respectful.

So as much negativity as I've seen around this case, as far as the anybody who's decided to cover it, I think it's been going pretty well, knock on wood. And I hope it continues that way because we're just trying to find out what happened to John. That's what's ultimately important. And also if Karen Reed is innocent to make sure that, you know, that's also out there as well. Yeah, it's I mean, I think going forward, like when we cover the next episode and we talk about all of the clear conflicts in this case,

how everybody's very connected, it's gonna add another layer. But at the end of the day, I think you're right. John O'Keefe does not get justice for this. And whose fault ultimately? Mass State Police. Yeah. Yeah, Mass State Police, 100%. They're the ones that were in charge of solving his crime. justice for this and and whose fault ultimately mass state police yeah yeah mass state police

100 they're the ones that were in charge of solving his crime or at least proving it hey listen they could have come out and said hey listen it was an accident karen's not going to be charged it was an accident but ultimately that's what happened they didn't do any of that they went she gets charged with like the hickory manslaughter or something you know yeah exactly and and you know so we'll see where it goes. Well, how many more parts are you thinking? This was our, this was old school crime weekly. This is by far the longest episode we've done in a few years. I think we can wrap this up in two more parts. Love it. Guys, we appreciate you being here as always like comment, subscribe, let us know what you think. We love the, you know, the opinions that are being put

out there. We know this is a polarizing case. Everyone has been respectful so far. And on a final note, take a second, go order some criminal coffee, peppermint bark. Get it before it runs out because I might keep it all. Get it while it's hot. Absolutely. Everyone stay safe out there. We will see you next week. Have a good night.

Bye.