Crime Weekly - S3 Ep261: John O'Keefe: Conflicts and Butt Dials (Part 5)

Episode Date: December 20, 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. SKIMS.com - Shop the SKIMS Holiday Shop! Select our podcast after checkout to let them know we sent you! 2. EatIQBAR.com - Text WEEKLY to 64000 for 20% off all IQBAR products and FREE shipping! 3. HelixSleep.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 20% off all mattresses and two FREE pillows! 4. SundaysForDogs.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY to get 40% off your first order!

Going to the gym can be discouraging, especially if you're putting in the work but barely seeing changes. But with Tonal, you can actually see your progress with every workout. Tonal provides the convenience of a full gym and the expertise of a personal trainer anytime at home with one sleek system. Designed to reduce your mental load, Tonal is the ultimate strength training system, helping you focus less on workout planning and more on getting results. No more second-gu second guessing your technique. Tonal gives you real-time coaching cues to dial in your form and help you lift safely and effectively. After a quick assessment, Tonal sets the optimal weight for every move and adjusts in

one pound increments as you get stronger, so you're always challenged. Tonal lets you choose from a variety of expert-led workouts, from strength to aero hit to yoga and mobility to keep you coming back for more. For a limited time, go to tonal.com to get $500 off your tonal purchase, plus a free four-year warranty. That's tonal.com for $500 off, plus a free four-year warranty. Tonal.com. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek LeBasser. So today we're diving into part five of the John O'Keefe series. And I know that we do want to address something really quickly

because, you know, we guys love you. We love how enthusiastic you get about these cases. I learn so much from the comment section. I mean, especially with a case like John O'Keefe and Karen Reed, it is very twisted, very complicated. It's one of those spider web cases that you can go in a million different directions and miss a million things. And I'm aware of that. So I love when you guys, you know, put little details in the comments. We do want to just address something. We have a lot of comments saying, you know, Karen Reed wasn't found not guilty. It was a mistrial. No, we know. And we did address this in the first episode of the series because Karen Reed new trial because during the first trial,

the jury had found Karen not guilty on two of those charges, one being murder in the second degree, which was the most serious charge, and they were hung on the third charge, which was the manslaughter charge. So that's why we keep saying, oh, Karen Reed, the jury found her not guilty of murder. Because technically during the trial, after sitting through this very painfully long and, you know, drawn out trial, the jury after all of that was not stuck on these two charges. They were stuck on the manslaughter charge, but not on the second degree murder charge. They found her not guilty. That is what, that's why we keep saying, oh, she was found not guilty by the jury in the first trial,

because technically she was. Yeah. And because of that technicality, she can be retried on all charges. Because they dismissed all the charges. Yeah. Yeah. Which is what they're trying to do. So that's the answer to the question. How do you feel about that, by the way? I don't know. I don't think they should be able to charge her on everything, if you're asking my opinion. I think they should be compartmentalized and individual, but that's just not how the judicial system works.

So for me to say that, they would have to change the entire structure of our legal process. It could technically work that way. If the prosecution was like, yeah, we see from the first- Yeah, the defense is trying to get them dismissed. Because the prosecution, we always talk about Casey Anthony, right? And how the prosecution in her case lost because they went for that first degree intentional murder and they just didn't have enough to convince the jury of that. So if the prosecution was smart, in my opinion, they would look at this and say, hey, we were not able to convince this first jury of second-degree murder. What are our chances of being able to convince a second jury of second-degree murder? Maybe we should just go with that manslaughter charge, which the first jury was hung on or which the first jury, you know,

couldn't make up their minds about, like they couldn't agree on this. Maybe that is our best bet instead of shooting for the stars here. I would agree. I think they're probably looking at it as this first trial was a practice round now and this case, and we'll talk about it again when we wrap this case up. But to me, this whole case is a battle of the experts. And what will happen is now prosecution will see the, we still believe we can, we can get, we can get her on those charges now with better experts. So, um, and it was something I said to you off, off record. And I guess because I'm saying it now, we can say it a little bit and talk about it more as we go on. But a lot of these cases, when there's no clear inculpatory or exculpatory evidence, and I know it's hard for people to say here, but there's no exculpatory evidence here for Karen Reid.

I understand there's a lot of evidence that suggests she's not guilty of any crime. I'm with you. But nobody's going to sit there in the comments or anywhere else and tell me that there's something that completely rules her out. For example, one of the things people will say is that the ARCA guy said the injuries to John O'Keefe's body could have been caused by a vehicle. That's their interpretation. And they came off very, very believable.

But that doesn't mean because that's their interpretation that it's right. Now, if there was a video that showed Karen Reed at Meadows and she's already home for the night and John O'Keefe walking around at Fairview, well, that would be exculpatory, right? He was still alive clearly after she left.

So you know how we could have gotten that is if the police had asked the neighbors for their ring doorbell cameras in the days after the investigation, which they didn't do. This case is a lot bigger than Karen Reed and John O'Keefe. It represents a lot more for a lot of people. And that being, there are people who can take away our freedom, and yet they have proven to be unprofessional, immoral, and unethical. And to think that those individuals can come in and build a case against someone and end up putting them in prison for the rest of their life, it's scary. And this isn't the first case or the first situation where someone, maybe someone you know, has been wronged by police. So I understand the passion behind it and it's warranted.

Let me just say that right now. I understand this case has a lot of significance and a lot of meaning for a lot of different people and for different reasons. Just to wrap this up, the one final thing that was brought to my attention afterward, and it's not even 100% clear, although I think it's leaning this way. We were going back and forth about John O'Keefe and whether or not he was wearing an Apple watch. It looks like he wasn't. And it looks like the Apple health data came from his phone, but I don't feel a hundred percent confident saying no, no doubt it's been proven. He didn't have a watch. Although that's what I'm seeing online. I didn't find anything definitive to say, no, no Apple watch, just the iPhone, but that's, that's a direction I'm leaning. So for those of you who have that question,

I had seen a couple articles where it said he had an Apple Watch. So that's why once again, and I told Derek, I was like, he's like, I'm going to say he didn't have an Apple Watch on. I'm like, you know, this is the part of the reason why it drove me crazy with this case, because you'll see different things in different publications, but you can never get really a straight answer unless you sit through every single second of ADA Lally's examination. And I'm telling you, man, I don't hate myself enough to do that again. He's rough. He's rough. I just wanted to put it out there for people being like,

he doesn't even have an Apple Watch on. You're probably right. I don't think he did. If I was a betting man, I don't think he had an Apple Watch. And if he did have an Apple Watch, this case would be a lot stronger for certain areas of it because an Apple Watch is more accurate than the phone being in your pocket or on the ground. And it creates a lot of opportunity for the phone to be separated from John O'Keefe, which I think is good for the camp of free Karen Reid. That's going to play to you extremely well. So I just wanted to point it is good for the camp of free Karen Reid. That's going to play to you extremely well. So I just wanted to point it out there for the sake of transparency. I'm not trying

to paint a picture of anything by supporting it with evidence or information that I know to be false. As I learn something new, if I find out that it's not correct, I'll be the first to tell you. And I did screenshot a couple comments because there are a few parts in even today's episode where I was like, I don't understand what's going on. And there were some comments that had preemptively, thank you, it's like you knew what we were going to cover today, had given their stance on it from what they got from the trial. So I'm going to read those when I'm in a place where I'm like, I don't know what's going on. But one comment did say something about the key cycles that you had talked about at the end of the last episode. Yes, this is a huge point of contention. So this person, Matthew Decker,

6064, he says, I know Derek says the timing matches up if we're looking at key cycle 1162, but the defense's whole point is that it's the wrong key cycle in the first place, so the SUV wasn't even being driven by Karen during key cycle 1162. She likely would have been in front of 34 Fairview during key cycle 1159, and the tech stream data says nothing weird happened during that key cycle. It could only be key cycle 1162 if the tech just wasn't recording multiple key cycles that happened in between Karen being in front of 34 Fairview and Trooper Paul having possession of the SUV. Also, we know that the tow truck driver was spinning out in the snow when backing the SUV

out of the parent's driveway, and that presumably would have been recorded on the tech stream for being weird, and this is actually would have likely been key cycle 1162, so this could have been when the maneuver happened, if you spin out the tires, you could technically be going zero miles per hour and traveling zero feet, but the tech could record it as 60 feet at 24 miles per hour because it's only based on how fast the back tires are spinning. If we believe the tech stream timing is right, then he, or Proctor himself, would have had to have made this maneuver about 19 minutes after first putting the key in the ignition while the SUV is in Karen's parents' driveway. Could the SUV have been sitting in the driveway for 19 minutes? Sure. Or the SUV was driven somewhere else and then made this maneuver.

It could have even made the maneuver at the police station for some reason. Keep in mind that there was a ton of snow by that afternoon, so it could have been spinning out in multiple places. Though I also still think it's possible that maybe Trooper Paul doesn't remember exactly when he had control of the SUV, and he easily could have had it during Key Cycle 1162, and he could have been trying to recreate the maneuvers that he thinks Karen would have made. We have no reason to trust him when he says that he got control of the SUV during key cycle 1164. Yeah, and that's always what it's going to go to. And I'm not saying it's wrong. Whenever there's any evidence that implicates Karen Reid,

it's always going to be who's the source of it. They're going to try to go after how that was obtained. And just to counter what you're saying, I have one here as well. The TechStream data, while undated, shows two events on its key cycle cycle 1162 one being a three-point turn one being the reversal event theorized to be when John was struck the three-point turn is about 11 minutes into the key cycle and the reversal event is about 19

minutes into the key cycle if we use a start time of 12 13 everything fits perfectly 11 minutes later would be a 12 24 3 point turn and 19 minutes later would be the 12 32 reversal event and we know that the start time fits as john and karen are last seen on security footage walking away from the waterfall at 12 11 toward where they were parked somewhere around cf mccarthy's even a minor deviation here would mean the data doesn't fit but all of those things do. So depending on who you want to believe, that's where you're going to fall. And I respect your opinion. When I looked at it, it did seem to make sense based on the other key data, but I'm not a psycho key expert. And that's just, we could go back and forth all day. And that's the whole

point here is again, as you said, could have, could have, could have, we can't trust anything Proctor said. And you're right in feeling that way. We started this series by talking about some disrespectful and disgusting text messages that were sent by him. And he's the, he's the guy overseeing this whole case. So right there, you're, you're screwed right there. You're, you're already starting it off on the wrong foot and he should have been taken off the case. If they would have known about that, he would, he would have there, you're screwed. Right there, you're already starting it off on the wrong foot. And he should have been taken off the case. If they would have known about that, he would have been gone if I was his supervisor. So everything that we have that potentially points to Karen Reed, potentially, maybe even accidentally striking him, it's going to be asked, how did you get it? The taillight,

the embedding of the taillight on John, the DNA on the taillight. What does it all come back to? The person who obtained it. And I'll say this, I don't have a, I don't have pushback on Proctor. So that's, you're justified. What do you want me to say? What do you want me to say? That's it. Could it still be accurate even though Proctor obtained it? Sure. Of course it could. I don't think anybody would dispute that. Maybe he did something right in the case, but yeah, to your point, and I think it's a good point to make, depending on what you believe, you can go through not only our comments, but you can go online and find something that will support that narrative. And that's why this case is so polarizing. Yeah, I agree. So that being said, let's continue it. Let's continue it. Yay! All right. So in Canton, Massachusetts, the Albert family was well known and held in high regard.

And because of their positions in law enforcement and politics, they obviously knew and were connected to a lot of people. So this leads us to a conversation about connections and conflicts that have haunted this case since day one. In their opening statements, Karen Reed's defense team made sure the jury understood that she was an outsider. She wasn't from Canton. She'd been living there with John to help him care for his niece and nephew, but she wasn't like of Canton.

She didn't live there full time. And once John O'Keefe was gone, Canton, along with the McCabes and the Elberts, had no use or care for Karen. And so she became the convenient fall person for this crime. Whether or not this is true, it cannot be disputed that the McCabes and the Elberts had close ties with many people who were responsible for investigating the truth about John O'Keefe's death. So we're going to start small. We've got Lieutenant Michael Lank of the Canton Police Department, who was one of the first law enforcement officers at the scene of John's death. Now remember, he's the one who thought it was a really great idea to collect blood samples in red

solo cups and then not mark any of them and et cetera, et cetera. So during the trial, Lank admitted to knowing all of the Albert brothers for most of his life, since childhood. On cross-examination, Lank was questioned about a 2002 incident where Chris Albert was accosted by a group of men outside a bar, and Lank intervened. Certainly with regard to Chris, you would consider him a close friend? Consider who a close friend? Chris. Yes.

First names only because they're all sure. Sure. Chris and I were pretty good friends when we were younger. Yes. I want to draw your attention to an incident in August of 2002., you were off duty, correct? Yes. You had been drinking alcohol, correct? Yes. You were approached by Chris Albert out in the parking lot, is that right? That's correct.

And Chris Albert told you some information about being in a fight, that he had been in a fight or an altercation of some sort, correct? He told me he had been in an altercation earlier in the night and some threats had been made to him and his family. And you got out of your car and discussed this with Mr. Albert, correct? No. You just talked to him while you were seated in your car? Yes. Okay. At some point, did some other individuals approach that same area? Yes. Was there a fight

that you believed was about to ensue? Yes. Did you get out of your car at that point? I did. Did you come to Chris's aid by, quote unquote, activating yourself as an officer? I got out of my car and I approached the group and I pleaded with them to not fight tonight. I said, there's not going to be a fight tonight. There's six of you guys. He's here with his girlfriend. There's not going to be a fight tonight. Did you come to Chris Albert's aid as best you could as a longtime friend of his? I came to the aid of a citizen who was in fear and of need. That citizen happened to be Chris Albert, whom you had known since you were 12 years old. Correct. Ultimately, a fight did break out,

did it not? Yes. And you engaged in that fight? Yes. And again, you had been drinking alcohol at that point, correct? Correct. And you were off duty in August of 2002 during this fight? Yes. Yeah, I can definitely understand the situation all too well. I grew up in a city called Central Falls, Rhode Island, 1.2 square miles, one of the most densely populated cities in the country. And then I eventually became a police officer there. And I ran into multiple occurrences where friends that I grew up with, I was either arresting or taking statements for because they were a victim of a crime. And so that's going to happen when you grow up in a town or a city where the people that you're now policing are the same people you hung out with as kids. Here's what I'll say reading

between the line on this one, which I don't think it takes a police officer with my background and my experiences to interpret this, but he was not protecting a citizen. He was protecting a friend, more than likely getting in a fight with his friend, Chris, for these other people. And maybe at one point throughout the, throughout the information that he was also a cop. So he, but he was using it to his own advantage. He got into a fight, uh, as Chris's, you know, counterpart, they fought these six dudes. He was drunk. Chris was drunk and in no way, shape or form was he acting in a police capacity. He's saying that now under oath because he knows what the defense is trying to show. And if I'm sitting back over here watching it for the first time,

completely agree with the defense. How are you going to fairly and impartially investigate Chris and his possible involvement in a major crime when clearly you're willing to put your own safety at risk as a young kid for the same person. It's very, it's very difficult to remain impartial at that point. Yeah, I agree. Even though Link was off duty, right? So he's not acting as police officer. He still made the decision to confront the group as a police officer telling them, you know, that's what you say now. Yeah. There's not going to be any fight that night. He ended up involved in a fist fight himself. That's what I'm saying. The tone in which he was relaying it, he was not acting as a police officer. If you wanted to do that, you pull out your badge, you let him know there's not gonna be a fight.

Even in that situation, as someone who's also intoxicated, the best thing he could have done was walk away. Or call the police. Call the police who are sober. Which he eventually did, yeah. But as far as what this is really about, because police officers all over the country have to encounter and deal with people that they grew up with. It's the nature of the beast.

But him trying to say that he was he was involving himself as an off duty police officer, not because he was defending a friend who was outnumbered is complete bullshit. I agree. And like I said, I'm starting small. This isn't a huge deal. But one of the responding officers responsible for collecting biological evidence at the scene being childhood friends with the homeowner of the house where John O'Keefe was found got outside of, probably not the most conducive situation for impartiality when you're thinking

about an investigation in a trial. That's all. Okay. So moving on to Julie Albert. Remember, Julie Albert's the wife of Chris Albert. And Julie Albert happened to be very, very close friends with Courtney Proctor. How do we know that name? Well, Courtney Proctor is the sister of lead investigator Michael Proctor. So Julie's sister, Jillian, had been

best friends with Courtney since they were kids. And Julie and Courtney were pretty tight. Now, in terms of the two investigators who did come, you know, you knew one of them quite well, did you not? I knew them. I wouldn't say quite well, but I knew them. Okay. And when you say you knew them. Him. I'm sorry, him. Okay. And who was it that you knew? Michael Proctor. Michael Proctor was the brother of one of your close friends, correct? Correct. You're close friends with Courtney Proctor, correct? I am.

And by the way, your maiden name is Daniels, correct? Yes, it is. And you have a sister, Jill Daniels, correct? Yes, I do. And you would agree that Jill Daniels is also lifelong best friends with Courtney Proctor, correct? Yes, I do. And you would agree that Jill Daniels is also lifelong best friends with Courtney Proctor, correct? Yes, she is. And in terms of your relationship with Courtney Proctor, you socialize with her, do you not? Objection. Do you? Occasionally, yes. Go out for drinks with her, correct? Yes. You've attended parties with her, correct?

Yes. You've also provided child care for her children, correct? Yes. Action. Don't strike. Before January of 2022, did you provide child care for Courtney Proctor's children? Yes. When?

2019. 2019. Just that one year? Yeah, it was pre-COVID. And then when COVID happened and everything shut down, I wasn't helping her any longer. And then occasionally after, I would help just on an as-needed basis after COVID. And during that year of 2019, how often did you watch her children? Two days a week. Proctor family entrusted you with the care of their children, correct? Jackson. It's sustained as asked. You were also aware that Courtney Proctor had recommended you to also watch Michael Proctor and Elizabeth Proctor's children, correct?

That objection sustained. But you go back a long way with Courtney Proctor, correct? Correct. In fact, you were certainly at her wedding, correct? Objection. Sustained. Your son was a ring bearer at that wedding. Objection. All right, so Your son was a ring bearer at that wedding. Objection.

All right, so we'll sustain that through this witness. You've spent time at Michael Proctor's childhood home, have you not? Yes. You've been to the pool at the Proctor's house, correct? Yes. How many times have you been to the Proctor's pool? I'd say maybe a dozen. And you've certainly taken your children there as well? Yes. Colin has been to the Proctor's pool? I'd say maybe a dozen. And you've certainly taken your children there as well? Yes.

Colin has been to the Proctor's pool? Yes. And you've seen Michael Proctor's mother and father at that pool, correct? Yes. You've seen Courtney Proctor and her husband at that pool, correct? Yes. You are very close with courtney proctor correct i don't how would you define very well i guess i'd ask you to define very close do you do you deny that you were very close with courtney park no objection your honor no go ahead next question you got your answer i didn't hear the answer. Go ahead. Repeat that. Do you deny that you were very close with Courtney Proctor? No.

Okay. Okay. So basically you heard Julie Proctor say, yeah, I've known Courtney Proctor forever. Actually, I have babysat for her children on multiple occasions. I've been to her house. I've been to her house when Michael Proctor was there. I've been to the Proctor family home. We've all had parties together, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Now I'm going to play you a clip where David Gennetti questions Julie about how often she talked to Courtney Proctor by phone. And she testified under oath that they spoke rarely. No, not rarely. Very rarely. And Gennetti is going to confront Julie Albert with some documented evidence that proves this was not true, at least after everything went down with Karen Reed and John O'Keefe. So maybe Julie and Courtney didn't

speak by phone that much before, but after, well, they became quite tight. You talk regularly, correct? Yes. Text each other, correct? Yes. You also talk by phone? Very rarely. Is it fair to, did you say very rarely?

Usually it's text. But do you stand by that testimony that you talked to Courtney Proctor very rarely by phone? Do we have a time frame? Do you mean now or do you mean then? Let me ask you this. Between February 1st of 2022 and September 6th of 2022, did you only speak rarely with Courtney Proctor? I don't recall. Were you using Courtney Proctor as an intermediary to communicate with Michael Proctor about this case? Objection. I'll allow it. No, I was not. Are you aware that between February 1st of 2022 and September 6th of 2022, you and Courtney Proctor spoke by phone 67 times. Objection. Were you aware of that? No, I don't know the exact count. Do you deny that you spoke 67 times? I don't deny it, but I don't recall the exact amount of times.

Okay, so you don't deny that you spoke 67 times. You still want to maintain your testimony that you only talked very rarely with Courtney Proctor during that time period. I just don't remember February 1st of 2022. Do you not? I do. You spoke to Courtney Proctor that date for 12 minutes by phone, correct? I don't recall exactly. I don't recall exactly. I don't remember exactly.

If you would take a look at that specific date and time and see if that refreshes your memory about whether and how long you spoke to Courtney Proctor on February 1st, 2022. Yes, I see it. I just, I don't, I don't recall this. Okay. It's a long time ago. Thank you. Did you speak to Courtney Proctor that day in any fashion? What day exactly? The day of my client's arrest on February 1st of 2022. That was on the sheet you just gave me? It was.

Well, I did, obviously, if it was on that sheet. Okay. And when you talked to her, did she tell you that she had discussed the case with her brother? Objection. Sustained. Were you notified that Karen was going to be arrested? Objection. Sustained. What did you discuss? I don't recall. The next day, February 2nd of 2022, was the day that my client was arraigned back in Stoughton District Court. Do you recall that? Yes, I do. You spoke to Courtney Proctor three times that day before my client's publicly televised arraignment at 9 a.m. Did you not? Again, I don't remember. After the arraignment, you spoke to her again for 27 minutes beginning at 10.58 a.m. Did you not? I don't recall. My client's arrest was pretty

big news in Massachusetts, wasn't it? Objection. Sustained. You were aware that my client had been arrested correct yes i had seen it on the news you were aware that she was being arraigned the very next day were you not yes this case involved your family did it not how do you mean well you knew that john o'keefe was found dead on your brother-in-law, Brian Albert's lawn, correct? Correct. So necessarily your family was involved in this case, correct? Somewhat, yes. And you knew that ultimately you'd probably be talked to by investigators from this case, correct?

I assume so, yes. Didn't happen for 13 days, but ultimately they this case, correct? I assume so, yes. It didn't happen for 13 days, but ultimately they did come, correct? Yes. All right. So this case had to have been pretty big news within the Albert family, was it not? Yes, yes. You were discussing it with your husband, correct? Yes. You were discussing it with your other relatives, correct? Yes. You were discussing it with your friends, correct? I don't know about my friends, but... Okay.

So is it your testimony that with all of this going on, you confined your discussions about this case just to your specific family members? Not necessarily. No. I mean, clearly, you would have talked to Court and Proctor about it, correct? Objection. Okay, so we just played that clip. We're going to come back after the break and discuss it really quick. Okay, so just so everybody knows, obviously you hear the prosecution objecting consistently throughout this testimony.

And it really, it doesn't need to be happening. The questions are valid, and Beverly Canone, the judge, she continues to sustain. So after this last objection was sustained and Yannetti was on a roll, Judge Beverly Canone ended court for that day, but the cross-examination would pick up the very next morning. And Yannetti would ask Julie if she remembered her testimony from the prior day and if she recalled how often she described speaking to Courtney Proctor. When I asked you how often you talked to Courtney Proctor, you could have chosen any word in the English language to answer that question, correct? Correct. What was the word that you chose?

Not often. I don't remember, honestly. Rarely. Rarely, yes. That was your word, correct? It could have been. I don't really recall. I was, I don't recall. You don't recall telling this jury yesterday that when I asked you about how often you spoke to Courtney Proctor by phone, you said, well, rarely. I don't remember. What is your definition of rarely? Not daily. Not daily. Not. Yes. of rarely not daily i not daily not yes once in a blue moon no rarely doesn't mean to you 67 phone conversations within a seven month period does it a 67 time period in how many, eight months?

In about seven months, 67 times. It's not a lot. I wouldn't think it's a lot in seven months. Three times in one day? Is that rarely? No, but I'm not, that wasn't every day. Regarding all of those 67 phone calls from February 1st until September 6th, do you maintain that during none of those calls or any portion of those calls did you and Courtney Proctor discuss the investigation into the death of John O'Keefe?

I do not remember. Do you deny discussing that investigation? I don't deny, but I do not remember. OK, so in regards to the February 2nd calls in the morning, they took place before Karen Reid's arraignment. And Julie Ebert claims she doesn't remember what they talked about. The 27-minute call with Courtney Proctor after the arraignment, Julie also doesn't remember if they discussed Karen or the case.

And Julie Albert and Chris Albert would not be interviewed by any law enforcement official until February 10th, which is 13 days after John O'Keefe died. And you told Courtney Proctor that you were nervous to speak to her brother, Trooper Proctor, about this case. Do you remember that? I do not remember those exact words, no. All right. But you were nervous to speak to him, correct? Of course, I was nervous in general for a police interview. I mean, I don't know someone who wouldn't be. Were you worried that one of Trooper Proctor's colleagues might ask to speak to your son, Colin, about what had happened on the 28th and the 29th?

Objection. Was I nervous they would ask my son? Yeah, were you nervous that one of the investigators in this case might approach your son to ask him about his whereabouts? No. Who was present for that interview? Me, my husband, Trooper Proctor, and Trooper Bukaki. Michael Proctor agreed to interview you and your husband together, correct? Jackson.

Sustained. You and your husband were husband together, correct? Jackson. Just take. You and your husband were interviewed together, correct? Correct. Did either of these troopers, including Michael Proctor, suggest that maybe the two of you should be separately interviewed? I don't recall. I don't remember. At 6.17 p.m. that same night, shortly after you had been interviewed,

you called Michael Proctor's personal cell phone number, correct? I don't remember. Did that reflect your memory about those two phone calls on February 10th? I mean, I just read them, but I don't remember. Do you recall that Trooper Proctor called you back that same day at 6.21 p.m. and that you spoke for about four minutes? Do you deny speaking to Trooper Proctor for four minutes when he called you from his personal cell phone on February 10th of 2022 after you had been interviewed that day? No, I don't deny it, but I don't remember it. When did you get his personal cell phone number? I don't remember. Years ago?

I'm sure, yes. Because you've known that family for a long time. Yes, I have. And as you testify here today, you can't remember what that phone call would have been about, correct? No, I do not remember. All right. So basically what we have here is Julie Albert doesn't remember shit. She doesn't remember what she talked about with Courtney Proctor on the day that Karen Reed was arrested.

She doesn't remember what she talked with Courtney Proctor about on the day that Karen Reed was arraigned. And she talked to her more than once that day. She doesn't remember what she talked about with Michael Proctor when she called his personal cell phone number the day that he interviewed her and her husband at their home. And she has his personal cell phone number, right? So that's another thing. She's not calling his work phone. She's calling his personal cell phone, which remember, until the FBI got involved, Michael Proctor never thought that any of his personal communications were ever going to be a part of this case, which is why he took part in a group chat with people where he said horrendous things that he would never have wanted anybody to lay eyes on.

Julie Albert doesn't even remember what she testified to the prior day at court when she said she spoke to Courtney Proctor very rarely. She couldn't remember. And this, I think, and I think you'll agree with me, is just a tactic for her to keep saying she doesn't remember anything because there's not a chance she did not talk to Courtney Proctor about the case, right? She would, you know, babysit Courtney Proctor's kids. They would do family functions together and things like that. But mostly their communications before that time had been via text. Now they've got all these phone calls happening around Karen Reed's arrest, her arraignment, the investigation, her being interviewed by Michael Proctor, who's Courtney's

brother. Now they're talking on the phone a lot, definitely discussing the Karen Reed case. And what the defense here is saying is you are getting inside information about the investigation, where it was going, what was happening, what Trooper Proctor was finding out during the investigation through Courtney Proctor as a proxy, right? And Julie's going to say, no, absolutely not. But how do you know absolutely not? Because you don't even remember what you all talked about. Yeah, that's why sometimes just telling the truth is the easiest route. And what she should have done here, because everybody was talking about the Karen Reed case and what she should have done here because everybody was talking about the karen reid case is she should have just been transparent and said yeah of course i you know like everybody else we were talking about it plus we had people that we knew directly who were

involved with it we were everybody was talking about the case and then the inference can be made by the defense that she was getting inside information the truth is they can never prove that but by lying about it and saying you don't remember anything, it does create the, at least the optics that you're hiding something. So by her saying, I don't recall, and I don't remember, it just makes her look guilty of something. And that's not good, especially if that's not what happened, but perspective is everything. And her just having a case of amnesia about anything regarding any type of phone call that could look shady makes her look shady. Yeah. So that's it. And what happened on that phone call, who knows? There's a world where they were just saying like, oh,

did you hear what happened today? Whatever. Doesn't matter though. You don't remember anything. Yeah. But if that was the case, you know, she would remember and she could say, absolutely. We did not discuss any inside investigation information, but if that was the case, you know she would remember. And she could say, absolutely, we did not discuss any inside investigation information. But the fact that she will not say that. That's the problem. Means that you're dead. Listen, I'm not going to sit here and say that they discussed inside information. There's no proof of that.

But by her lying about it and saying that she doesn't remember anything, it makes her look guilty of something. And that's what I'm trying to convey. I don't know what's on the phone call. The defense doesn't know what's on the phone call. Nobody knows except those two parties. But what I am saying is by going up there and just, I do not recalling everything. It makes you look like you're hiding something. That's anybody who watches that video is going to think the same thing. So regardless of what was said, the optics is that you were doing something you shouldn't be doing. And now you've buried yourself. You can't dig

yourself out. Well, we're obviously going to get to Michael Proctor, who at this point is the elephant in the room. But first, let's talk about Judge Beverly Canone and her conflict of interest in this case that has to do with Julie Albert's husband and Brian Albert's brother, Chris Albert. So on July 2nd, 1994, a 22-year-old Chris Albert was involved in a hit-and-run accident, and at that time he was living in Canton with his parents and working at Saki's Pizza in Cumberland, Rhode Island. It was 3 a.m. on a Saturday. Chris was driving his white Chevy Lumina and switching lanes when he rear-ended a Chevy Blazer. The Blazer careened onto a stone ledge along the highway, and the driver, 24-year-old Peter Massaro's Berger, died at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence later that day.

He and his passenger, 24-year-old Peggy Lau, who suffered minor injuries, were both honors students in Johnson and Wales University's International Business MBA program in Providence. They were both set to graduate at the end of the summer. students in Johnson and Wales University's International Business MBA program in Providence. They were both set to graduate at the end of the summer. So not only did Chris Albert flee the scene of the crime, but he did not call the police. However, his lawyer, John Prescott, called the Foxborough State Police barracks at 10.30 p.m. Saturday night, so several, several hours later, and he told them he was bringing his client in the following morning to surrender, and the two arrived to the barracks at 9.30 a.m. the following morning. So at that point, Chris Albert did not want to make a statement about the incident, but did direct law enforcement to the location where he had left his Chevy Lumina. After the interview, he was arrested by virtue of the John Doe warrant,

and he was booked pending bail. Now, according to the police report and the transcript of his police interview, Chris Albert was never asked about his alcohol consumption at the time of the collision, and he turned himself in 30 hours later, which is obviously more than enough time for any alcohol to have left his system. But what we know about these people, okay, what we know about these people, I think unequivocally, is they ain't got no problem drinking and driving. Okay? That we agree on.

Yes. So his lawyer, Chris Albert's lawyer, John Prescott, not only worked for a private law firm at the time that was known for representing clients who had money, but Prescott was also the brother of Judge Beverly Canone. John Prescott would be instrumental in getting Chris Albert off with a slap on the wrist. He received a suspended sentence of two years in jail with six months to serve a year later after negotiating a plea deal. So he kills somebody, leaves the scene, turns himself in 30 hours later, is not questioned

about alcohol consumption, and then he gets off with a slap on the wrist. Yeah, happens a lot in this country, and it's not right. Nepotism, favoritism, you know, knowing certain people in certain communities, there's preferential treatment. I got no rebuttal. Happens all over the country, doesn't make it right. So to discuss the next possible conflict associated with Judge Canone, we first have to talk about Aiden Kearney, better known as Turtle Boy. So Kearney is a Massachusetts blogger who runs the website TB Daily News, and he's been covering the John O'Keefe case since before it

became a national spectacle. Kearney has used his platform to raise awareness about what he believes is a miscarriage of justice, and in doing so, he has aligned himself with Karen Reid and her defense team. His coverage has attracted attention to the case, though it has also been controversial, as his blog is known for its aggressive tone and willingness to confront those he perceives as wrongdoers. Now, Aiden's involvement in the Karen Reed case is part of his broader pattern of taking on high-profile legal cases and presenting them through his distinctive, if not combative, lens. Aiden Kearney has also recorded himself publicly confronting witnesses such as Jen McCabe at

her daughter's lacrosse game. In October of 2023, Kearney was arrested and charged with witness intimidation, and the same day he was arrested, he was arraigned in the Stoughton District Court. Prosecutors gave several alleged examples of witness intimidation in court, many of which appeared previously on Kearney's blog or social media channels, and he was accused of working with an Avon police dispatcher to illegally access motor vehicle data. The judge ordered that Kearney be held on a $1,000 cash bail with conditions. Specifically, he was ordered to stay away from all witnesses listed by the prosecution.

Aiden Kearney pleaded not guilty to all charges, and his attorney, Timothy Brattle, announced that he vehemently denied these charges. After his arraignment, Kearney held a press conference saying he would not be silenced and that his right to freedom of speech was being compromised. Aiden, what effect does this prosecution have on freedom of the press? This should scare everyone. Like we said, we've pulled up hundreds. You could find probably thousands of videos of reporters aggressively pursuing and asking questions of people that make them uncomfortable. Those people did not, those reporters were not charged with witness intimidation as a result of that. So this has an extreme chilling effect on free speech and free press in this country. And perhaps some journalists are OK with it because I'm uncouth or I say words that make some people feel uncomfortable. But today it's me. Tomorrow it's them. So they should probably be a lot more concerned about it.

Aiden Kearney stated, quote, They will never shut me up. They will never, ever stop me from reporting the truth about what happened to John O'Keefe. Reporting the news is not harassment. Asking questions is not harassment. End quote. In December, a Norfolk County grand jury indicted Aiden Kearney on 16 new charges, including eight counts of witness intimidation, three counts of conspiracy to intimidate witnesses,

and five counts of picketing a witness. Special Prosecutor Kenneth Mello claimed that Kearney was continuing to violate the conditions of his bail, stating, quote, it is clear that Mr. Kearney is encouraging his minions, his followers, in the context of his blogs and YouTubes, etc., to continue to harass witnesses, end quote. Additionally, according to an unsealed affidavit, Aiden Kearney and Karen Reed had 189 phone calls totaling in excess of 40 hours in 2023. Prosecutors also claim that the two communicated using the Signal app and through an intermediary. The state contends that Karen was sharing information about the case, not yet public, with Kearney. So, Aiden Kearney has obviously gotten into it with many individuals involved in the case, not yet public, with Kearney. So Aiden Kearney has obviously

gotten into it with many individuals involved in this case, and that includes a man named Sean McCabe, who is Matt McCabe's brother and Jen McCabe's brother-in-law. According to Aiden Kearney, Sean McCabe had been making Facebook posts speaking disparagingly about Karen Reed, referring to her as a psycho bitch and making insulting jokes about Aiden Kearney's investigation into the case and his support for Karen. Aiden Kearney sent a private message to Sean McCabe in May of 2023, and Sean responded, quote, You drew bullseye targets around the faces of my very young teenage nieces and posted that horseshit all over your pathetically ridiculous social media accounts. You've been slinging shit out of your cum hole nonstop for weeks now. So if you want to talk to me, you're going to hear what I have to say first.

Cut and paste this shit all you want, Sally, but you don't have the stones to look me in the eye. So let me sweeten the deal for you. Bring six friends with you. That is if you can find any. Maybe those douchebag lawyers will buy you some, end quote. So this back and forth continued for a while with insults and veiled threats of violence and some slurs and some, you know, kind of horrible things being said. But while the exchange was happening, Sean posted on Aiden Kearney's Facebook page,

and it said, quote, I just called in an order asking Judge Bev to institute a trial by combat order against you. They'll be coming to bring you to me any minute now. Tick tock, baby fucker. End quote. Kearney sent the screenshot to Sean in a private message. And he asked, quote, do you really have a line to Judge Canone? And Sean's response was surprising, to say the least. He said, quote, Auntie Bev, whose seaside cottage

do you think we're going to bury your corpse under? End quote. Sean McCabe made a claim to a reporter in public claiming to have a personal relationship with this court. And he tried to prove it by citing to the fact that Sean McCabe knows personal information about the judge. It's extremely troubling about a beach home, not just the fact that the court may own one, but exactly where it is. His words were, after receiving his, Sean McCabe's words were, after receiving a question from the reporter, do you really have a line to Judge Canone? His answer was, Hansi Bev, and I need no disrespect, I'm quoting, Hansi Bev, whose seaside cottage do you think you're going to bury your corpse under?

Extremely troublesome dialogue, but it's not just the threat that's inherent in the dialogue. That's on one level. It's the fact that this person claimed to know that this court may own a beachside cottage somewhere. Your Honor, I will say I've appeared before hundreds. At this point, I'm getting old. I may have appeared before thousands of judges in my nearly 30-year career. I've never, ever known where a single one of them has ever lived or property that they may or may not have owned.

But Sean McCabe appears to know and he appears to intimate that he knows the details of this court's personal life. So as it turns out, Judge Canone does own a house in Barnstable, Massachusetts. I guess it's on the water. And the defense asked her to recuse herself. She left the courtroom for 15 minutes to review the request and then returned saying the request was not credible and she would not be stepping down from the trial. She claimed, quote, I can tell both parties I don't know Sean McCabe. As far as I know,

I've never spoken to him or had any contact with him. I've never interacted with him and certainly I've never socialized with him or any family members or any witnesses who have been said here in court, end quote. So does Judge Canone have a relationship with Sean McCabe? Probably not. It's probably easy if you know, but you know all the same people. You can find out where she's got a cottage, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. Yeah, they obviously knew she had a cottage down there. So do you think, because I would feel the more main conflict of interest is that her brother represented Chris Albert in this hit and run. Do you think that's a conflict of interest? And considering that there's a lot of judges in this area that could have taken this case, maybe they could have found somebody who did not have this specific conflict of interest.

Yeah, it'd be better. It'd be ideal. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not a judge. I don't know if she should step down because of it. I'm in Rhode Island. Everybody knows everyone. And a lot of family members of families are all attorneys and they represent people on the defense, represent people in prosecution. And some of them become judges.

And it's almost like, what is that? Like Kevin Bacon effect where like, yeah, separation, whatever it is. So I, you know, like. Yeah, five separation. Yeah, whatever it is. So I don't know. I think she had the legal right to stay on, but to make things easier, I just don't know why you wouldn't just say, all right, I'll step back. I don't want this headache anyways. For me personally, still getting paid, you know.

So let me ask you another question. Going forward to the new trial, Judge Canone has insisted that she's going to be overseeing that one as well. Do you not think that given all of this and given that she's been considered to be biased towards the prosecution with her sustaining every freaking objection they have, maybe for this one, she should step back, right? My little pushback is anytime the trial is not going one way for the prosecution or the defense, they're going to accuse the judge of not being fair to them. That's just like life, right? Well, this was a pretrial thing, asking her to accuse herself. Right. That was a pretrial thing. But what I'm saying is they're going to

say that. So that doesn't hold weight with me. But to answer your question more directly, like the defense saying, oh, she's biased towards the prosecution. I hear that all the time. But what I would say with this other information, why not just step back? Why not just step back and let someone else take it? To make it easy for yourself. You're probably getting a shitload of harassment right now. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the courts, but like I just said, you're getting paid either way. Why not just remove yourself from it? I thought it was funny when Alan Jackson was like, Auntie Bev, he's like, I mean, no disrespect. I'm just reading it.

Yeah. And as far as that exchange, it's all just. Oh, yeah. What do you think about that? Jen McCabe's brother in law threatening to bury Aiden Kearney under under a beach house. So obviously this is a threat of violence. But what Aiden Kearney and his supporters are saying is like, listen, this is how these families handle conflicts with violence. Yeah. I mean, this I get it. I mean, it, listen, it's a tough thing, especially when kids are involved. I didn't pick up on all of it, but I think you said that they, they, they might've been in going to kids games or whatever or whatever. Oh yeah. You get it's going to be bad and it's, it's all ugly. It's all bad. I don't, I don't condone any of it. And it's just, uh, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that everyone, people even

residually are affected by it. And, uh, it sounds like when I was reading that text message on the screen, it's anti-Bev. This guy saying he knows this woman because he knows she has a cottage when in reality probably never met with her in his life. But it's a lot of just, it's a pissing match, you know, and it's unfortunate. So I am going to be honest with you. I don't think there's a relationship between Sean McCabe and Beverly Canome. No, no, yeah, I don't either. I don't think he would acknowledge it if there was, you know. Is there a chance that they have met or maybe run in the same circles? But are they like tight and Sean McCabe is hanging out at Auntie Bev's Seaside Cottage? No, I don't believe that. No. If I had a dollar every time, especially here where someone said to me,

oh, I met your cousin the other day. And they said their name. And I'm like, I have no clue who that is. Oh yeah. Wait, you have no clue who the, your cousin is or who the, no, yeah, no clue. Like they'll say, I met your cousin. And I'm like, I have no clue who that person is, but that's not your cousin. No, it's not my cousin. Oh, like when I, when you win a little bit of money, everyone's your family member. You know, I won big brother and I, my, brother and my family tree got expanded exponentially. But yeah, no, I think... You've got lots of cousins now. No, yeah, exactly.

Sean is threatening Aiden here and he's trying to make it seem like he has more pull than he really does. I agree, yeah. And then, you know, by doing that, defense is going to use it.

And they made a big, nice little, you know, board to look at there. And looking at this and seeing how smart Alan Jackson and Yannetti are, I think they probably already did their research and figured out that there was no connection there, but that doesn't matter. It's, you know, you're going to put on the show and you're going to show that, you know, these types of things, the family are capable of these types of things.

And it only, and the jury's sitting there eating it all up. And I will say like, anytime you see anti-Bev in the comments, this is where it comes from. And from, from now on, henceforth forever into perpetuity, Beverly Canone will be known as anti-Bev. By the way, there's so many things I see. I, you know, I get tagged in Twitter stuff and it's like all these different nicknames and I can't follow any of it. And I think. Yeah. You'd have to be deep into this, this this you this universe the multiverse the the Karen Reid and John O'Keefe multiverse you have to be deep in it to understand what all the I saw something the other day where they were referring to someone they're like oh Derek has to wait till he gets to the crash daddies I'm like

what the is the crash daddies I think I think I've I think I've deduced that it's ARCA. Um, and I'm here to tell you guys, I will not ever be referring to them, uh, as crash daddies. I never heard that, but that's funny. But there's definitely some people who are to say the least very connected to this case. I think that's the nice way of putting it. All right, let's take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about the elephant in the room himself, Trooper Michael Proctor. So we're back. So on January 29th, 2022, so this is the same day that John O'Keefe is found

dead on the front yard of Brian Albert's home. So this is 10.52 p.m. It's that evening. Proctor began communicating via group text messages with eight of his friends from high school about the case. And in this thread, he was texting under the name Chip. They kind of all use nicknames, which you'll hear Alan Jackson and Yannetti refer to. You also inform these same folks, these same high school buddies, that, quote, all the powers that be want answers ASAP, correct? Yes.

You knew, Trooper Proctor, that there was brass that wanted this case wrapped up quickly and efficiently. Isn't that right? No. People wanted answers, sir. They didn't just want answers. They wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean? That's as soon as possible. Right. And you were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right? Correct. And you knew at that time, you knew at that time, Trooper Proctor, that this was not going to implicate in any way, shape, form or fashion, another cop, correct?

Correct. In this text exchange at 10 56 PM, your buddy Bird writes, I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some shit. Correct? Correct. How did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble?

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what my friend was getting at. Well, you had some idea. Yeah. You said the owners of the house isn't going to get any shit for this, right? That's how I interpreted it. Yeah, you interpreted it like he's not going to get in any trouble. He's not going to be a suspect, correct? Correct. And he's not going to be implicated in any way. Is that right? Correct. And your answer was one word, correct? Yes. What was that word? Nope. And then you followed that up with an explanation as to why you said no, didn't you? That wasn't the explanation why I said nope.

I simply said, homeowner's a Boston cop too, meaning Mr. O'Keefe was a Boston cop, the homeowner was a Boston cop as well. No, that's just saying he's a Boston cop as well. Mr. O'Keefe is a Boston cop. And that's why he's not going to get any shit, correct, Trooper Proctor? Well, he's not going to receive any shit, sir, because he had, Mr. Albert, the homeowner, had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death. And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation? Yes.

More than a day? Yes. To your satisfaction? To my satisfaction and to the members of my unit. And you haven't been to the crime scene. So let him finish. We didn't get the finish your answer. To my satisfaction and to all the members of my unit who investigated that day.

Objection. Call some speculation. Again, this is before 11 o'clock at night on January 29th, 2022, some 16 hours into your investigation. Is that right yes so before you ever went to the crime scene before you ever went into the house only having interviewed three folks you had this case nice and wrapped up didn't you yes based on the evidence my office uncovered that day, the one shoot discovered at the scene, the one shoot at the hospital, Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, the broken taillight pieces underneath the snow.

Super Proctor, I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked, did you in your mind have this case wrapped up? Was it cut and dry in your mind? Yes. The defense brings up the fact that during his texting exchange, Proctor had no issues using the name of the victim, John O'Keefe, or telling his friends the name of the suspect, Karen Reed, but he never once mentioned the name Brian Albert. One of the members of the chat wrote that he assumed since it involved cops, they were going to make it pretty cut and dry. One of Proctor's friends said something didn't seem right.

Or more accurately, he said something stinks. And Proctor responded by saying, yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. And then for some reason, even though they were discussing a very serious subject, you know, the death of a person, a Boston police officer, the folks in the chat began discussing Karen's physical appearance. In 50-5151 changes gears. And he writes, she hot at least.

Correct? Yes. And what was your response to that? From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job cunt. From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong she's a whack job cunt from all accounts he didn't do a thing wrong she's a whack job cunt that's what you wrote correct correct 16 hours into this investigation yes into your objective and unbiased thorough thorough investigation. Correct?

Correct. And from all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. That was your decision 16 hours into the investigation. Correct? Yes. And the other decision that you made and the other determination you came to was my client, Karen Reed, was a whack job cunt.

Right? Yes. What else did you say in response to, she's hot at least? Or she hot at least, question mark? So following that text, I responded, yeah, she's a babe. Weird Fall River accent though. No ass.

Yeah, she's a babe. Who's the she? Miss Reed. Weird Fall River accent though. You talking about the way she talks? The accent. And no ass. Now you're talking about her body. What's a Z, correct? Yes. You think that's appropriate?

Absolutely not. Then Bird chimes in with a little comedy. Ah, not newsworthy then. Correct? Correct. In other words, well, she didn't have an ass. Nothing to see here. Correct? Objection. And then 5051 says, oh, she's skating. Right? Correct. 51 says oh she's skating right correct and what did you write after that my response was zero chance she skated and then what did you write she's fucked zero chance she skates she's fucked right correct decided on the 29th of January, 17 hours into this investigation, you decided individually, Trooper Proctor, you're not only going to put it on the girl, you decided you're going to make sure this is cut and dried. And the way you're going to do it is to make sure that she's fucked. That's what you were saying. Objection. And then Bird decides to chime in

good, no ass bitch. Right? Yes, that's what he wrote. And how did you respond to Bird saying good, no ass bitch? I laughed. Thought that was funny, did you?

Trooper Proctor? Thought that was funny? It was unprofoper Proctor? Thought that was funny? It was unprofessional of me. That's something I shouldn't have done. Well, I think we all know it was unprofessional. It was a lot of things. I'm asking you, did you think it was funny? According to my response at the time, apparently.

The date is now February 2nd, 2022. A person by the name of Doc writes, is that chick a smoke? Correct? Correct. Who's the chick? Misread. And you write eh, E-H, right? Yes. And then you write nutbag, as Chief would say, correct? Correct. Who's Chief? A friend of mine. And then you write what? She's got a leaky balloon knot. Dr. Proctor, explain to the jurors what a balloon knot is.

You're essentially, I guess, your rectum area. Your anus? Yes. That's what you were referring to about miss reed yes and you were making fun of her because you believed at that time that it leaked that's how you were treating miss reed yes or no yes you followed that up with the phrase leaks poo, didn't you? I did. Again, another reference to Ms. Reed's medical issues and medical conditions, correct? Correct. Specifically focused on her anus, correct? In reference, yes. At this point, Trooper Proctor, Ms. Reed was just reduced to a punchline to you, wasn't she? Objection. Sustained.

Well, you weren't done yet. This chat doesn't end yet, does it? On the same day, February 2nd, 2022, about 4.15 p.m., a person by the name of Whitey wrote, what are you guzzling on, correct? Yes. And you wrote nothing, writing a warrant. Is that right?

Correct. Why do you then share some sort of a video? Correct? Yes. Do you remember that video being of the 1980s band Warrant? I don't recall the video he sent. 0095 laughed and then wrote, Wait, why does your asshole leak?

Correct? Yes, that's what he wrote. And then what did Doc write in response to that? It's action, Your Honor. The objection is sustained. I'll see you at sidebar. Take that down, please. Trooper Proctor, without getting into the specifics of the words used

in the following, in the next exchange that you're looking at, it's fair to say that your high school buddies of the words used in the following, in the next exchange that you're looking at, it's fair to say that your high school buddies then continue to discuss Ms. Reed's medical issues, correct? Jackson. That's sustained. Come on, Mr. Jackson, that isn't what you said you'd ask. Go ahead and ask the question you said you'd ask.

Was there a continued discussion that finished on this subject matter? Yes. All right. So there was more. Trooper Proctor also ended up discussing that he hoped Karen Reed would die, that she would take her own life. And obviously, you know, he's asked by Alan Jackson, do you have animosity towards her? And why is this being asked?

It's because you're investigating this person for a crime. If you hate this person so much, if you're talking about her so disparagingly in this way, if you're seeing in this text chat that you never thought anyone would see, you hope she dies. You obviously hate this person, right? And Trooper Proctor was like, well, I didn't hate her, but obviously I had followed the evidence and I believed she was the one who had killed John O'Keefe. So yeah, I had some emotions about it. So what do you think about, what do you make of all this? The number one thing for the lead investigator in any case is to be unbiased, impartial and objective. And this and you started off with these text messages in episode one, which I alluded to earlier.

Can't do that. You can't do that. You're seeing in black and white right here that he's not objective. He's not impartial. He's not unbiased. He has a strong opinion about Karen Reed. And there may have been some things that indicated something maybe she was involved in initially, but he decided very early on, this is what happened. Now I just got to find the pieces that fit that puzzle. And it clouded his judgment. It created tunnel vision for him and his unit. And they didn't thoroughly investigate this case for no

other reason than just, just rule out other possibilities, even if they felt the way they did, go out there and make sure that you explore all avenues so that you don't find yourself in a situation like we are now, where questions are being asked about what you didn't do. And as far as Proctor's concerned and his professionalism or lack thereof, I should say, I've said it before on other episodes. I don't think in this series. I'm not a police officer anymore. I haven't been one since 2017, but I do respect law enforcement. I know there are a lot of good men and women that serve this country every day. They put their lives online. But there's a lot of trooper Proctors out there. There were trooper Proctors in my own department. Now, what do I mean by that? Because I really got to be specific because some people believe trooper proctor framed Karen Reed and planted all this evidence.

I am sitting here, regardless of what you believe, I'm sitting here telling you that I never witnessed an officer plant any evidence or frame anybody while working with me. You can choose to believe that or not, but anybody who knows me, knows my character, knows I would not let that go down. But that's beside the point. That's just me saying what I'm saying. What I say when I know trooper proctors and they've been on jobs with me is that sometimes through attrition and through nepotism and favoritism, people are promoted into positions that they have no business being in. When you look at some of the top homicide investigators in the country that I've had the privilege of working with, not in my own department, they are just cut from a different cloth. They are by the book. They don't associate with many other people. They're not discussing cases. They're not discussing victims. They're not discussing suspects. They're not discussing persons of interest. They're very going to. They're not discussing persons of interest.

They're very going to quickly shut down any conversation that could come back to jeopardize them or the case. That's not Trooper Proctor. And I don't know Trooper Proctor as a person, but I've seen a lot of people like him. And I can tell you, I had people in my own department that I wouldn't let investigate the death of my dog. And some of them are going to hear that.

Some of them are going to hear this episode. And this is not the first time I've said this. There was, there was guys on my job. We called cold case because they couldn't solve a case if their life depended on it. And, and that's just the truth. And that was one of the biggest frustrations I had with being a police officer. I'm just going to put it bluntly. I was better than most of them, but because of certain relationships and who they were drinking with on the weekend and who was the Lieutenant and the Sergeant, they were getting the good cases and they were getting to do the more advanced stuff when an investigation came up. One quick example, I had multiple certification, advanced certifications in interviews and

interrogations. I went all over the country for it. There was me and one other guy who had these certifications, but when a big case would come in because the Lieutenant didn't like me, he would put his drinking buddy in the room and his drinking buddy could barely speak. Um, but he's the one who got drunk or stupid. A little bit of both, not drunk on the job, but they were drinking after hours. They were friends. Yeah. So when the big homicide case came in and they had a suspect instead of sending me or the A little bit of both. Not drunk on the job, but they were drinking after hours. They were friends. Yeah, fries your brain. So when the big homicide case came in and they had a suspect, instead of sending me or the other guy who was trained in this specific action, this guy would get the quote unquote shine. So I see it all the time. And when I hear Proctor talk and I look at him, he just reminds me of those guys. Again, I don't know him personally, but this text exchange, as juvenile as it sounds when you read it, it set the tone for this entire

trial. And that's a big major reason why Proctor, amongst other things, is on administrative leave right now and more than likely he's going to lose his job because this in and of itself, with nothing else, shows that he's not qualified lose his job because this in and of itself with nothing else shows that he's not qualified to be in that position i i agree and and like we're saying this is he's saying these things the evening of so according to him he already wrapped up he's already figured out what happened even though he he didn't go to the scene he didn't talk to anybody but he already knows what happened and he's developed this negative opinion of her so for him to say like, oh yeah, like I had followed the evidence and that's why I was so emotional about it.

You couldn't have followed the evidence by 10 o'clock that night. It's ridiculous, right? Part of following the evidence is also following the non-evidence, following things that could potentially lead somewhere, but more than likely won't. It's daunting. It's painstaking. You have to go through it. But to do a proper thorough investigation,

you have to look into every possible scenario, regardless of how unlikely it may be. He saw what he saw. He came to his conclusion. And as I said, last episode, it was a matter of him finding the additional evidence to support the conclusion that he had already came up with 16 hours into it. Probably that would, the text messages happened 16 hours later doesn't mean that he came to that conclusion 16 hours later is probably much sooner yeah he didn't just get in the group text and be like suddenly i know how i feel about this case and remember we would not see these text messages had the fbi not get involved to investigate the investigators yeah i mean listen it's it's terrible it's terrible there's no other way around it and i can see why people are so pissed off about this case specifically. But again, in general, because you have individuals who have a badge and a gun who are part of the mass state police, which, you know, by most accounts is a respected agency amongst the country. Well, it was. Not so much in Massachusetts from the responses and the DMs that I've been getting,

but overall they were, you know, I've worked with a lot of them and, you know, they're good guys, but it's something where you see this guy on the stand and you realize

that he's the one that's responsible for arresting people for murder. This is the guy who's talking like this as unprofessional as he's being.

This is the guy who can take away someone's freedom. Makes you super uncomfortable. It's scary. Yeah. That's coming as a citizen myself. Yeah. You don't like to see it. That's for sure.

You don't like to see it. And now we can extrapolate this out. We won't do it here, but what does this all mean? Does this just mean that Proctor was tainted and his judgment was skewed and he just didn't explore other avenues, which may have led nowhere, but he didn't do it. And he just was a bad detective. Or is this the start of something much bigger where he was so disgusted and so angry with Karen Reed that he would do whatever he had to do to make sure these

charges stick, including planting evidence. That's the spectrum. That's the question that people have. Some have already come to their conclusions and some have not, but that's where we're at. When you have a foundation like this with these text messages, all possibilities are on the table. Absolutely. So the defense then questioned Michael Proctor about his conflicts of interest in the case, which Proctor had denied the existence of. Proctor had testified under oath on February 1st, 2024, I believe first assistant DA Beeland that you did not know and had no relationship with the Albert and McCabe families? And you answered, quote, I, to the best of my recollection, the same conversation took place with everyone I talked to about this because it's the same answer.

It's the facts that I shared with everyone. Question, meaning you told first assistant b bieland that you didn't know didn't have a relationships with jackson members of the albert and mccabe families answer correct yes that's correct so your question is whether he said this correct whether that's his testimony do you recall that yes And that's your testimony that you, in fact, told members of the DA's office that you did not know and did not have a relationship with the Alberts or McCabe's. Is that right? I did not know the McCabe's. I don't know most of the Alberts, and I have little to no relationship with Chris and Julie. So that's what i meant by that answer well the question wasn't did you know most of the alberts the question was did you have a relationship with or did you know the alberts and your answer was no no i don't have a relationship with the alberts or know them i don't know the mccabe's i don't have a relationship with the alberts so you do correct

i know some of them julie and chris and you and colin correct correct and colin and you knew the alberts when you gave this testimony in february of 2024 is that right yeah that asked if there was any relationships and let's try this again meaning you told first assistant Beeland that you didn't know didn't have relationships with members of the Alberts and sorry members of the Albert and McCabe families answer correct was that ambiguous in your mind the way I interpreted relationships was basically being like friends or um you know, communications, freaking communications. That's how I interpret it. Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin, correct?

Objection. Sustained. That might have been a good time to answer the question, I know these three individuals from the Albert family, right? Objection. Sustained. But your answer was one word, correct, right? Yes. You further testify that you never have gone to any supervisor at Massachusetts State Police

to disclose even a potential conflict of interest in this case that you might have, correct? Correct. And you indicated the needs never come up. Is that right? Correct. You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, did not have relationships with, I'm sorry, did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families, correct? Correct. And that's just not true, is it? You did know, you do know members of the Albert family, isn't that right? It's different from having a relationship with people. But what about part of the question, did not have relationships or know members of the

Albert or McCabe families? How about that part of the question? Well, that's lumped in with the McCabes. I don't know the McCabe family, sir. I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence, and where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts, because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes, because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did? No. So it's sustained. You can ask it. You can break it down, Mr. Jackson. How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it? No, absolutely not. You stand by that testimony? Yes. That you don't

know the McCabe's? At the time that you testified, that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family? They don't have relationships with them. My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn relationships with them. Right. My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them? Objection. All right, we're back. We're going to talk about this.

But before we do, let's take a quick break. So what do you make of that? What do you make of that exchange? Should have said he knew him. Even on the stand, he's like, you said you didn't know them and had no relationships.

And he just ignores that first part. And he's like, well, I don't have relationships, right? I'm not saying, and I think even you'll agree with me here, which will be a change of pace for us in this episode series. I'm not saying it's right, but you and I both know what all of these witnesses are doing, whether it's on the prosecution or defense side. As you're sitting there in the box, I don't want to assume, have you ever testified for anything?

I have not. Okay. And this may be some of you out there who are familiar with this, but you know where the attorney has taken you. And so you're trying to get in front of that because whether you're telling the truth or not, they may try to paint you in a certain light. So you're automatically, human instinct, very defensive. And you're trying to break down everything they're saying, because you know that if it's a defense attorney talking to you, they're not asking you a question to help your case. So I'll be the first to admit that when I was up on a stand, I was trying to read between the lines and see where the defense attorney was going. So although I understand how it looks, and I don't agree with the fact that Proctor didn't admit that he knew the Alberts he should

have, but what he's doing here is something you will find every single witness doing on both sides of the argument because they know that if they're being cross-examined, it's not good, right? So I'm not saying it's okay. I'm not saying it's something we should do. What I'm saying is it's not good, right? So I'm not saying it's okay. I'm not saying it's something we should do. What I'm saying is it's not specific to Trooper Proctor. That's all I'm saying. But to make it really clear, he should have just said that he knew the Alberts when he was initially asked, which is the point that Jackson is trying to make. That's what he's trying to say here. And now, obviously, Proctor realizes he put himself into a bind here, and he's trying to say here and now obviously proctor realizes he put himself into a bind here and he's not going to say yeah i lied because he knows what that's going to lead to i

mean he could be giggly old his whole testimony could be thrown out where basically they show that he's lied under oath and so he's not going to admit to that i don't think anybody expects him to so he's trying to soften the landing, although he knows as he's answering Jackson's questions, how bad it makes him look. He knows. He knows. So he should have just told the truth initially. They're playing chess right there. They're going back and forth. But I mean, he did lie, right? So it was a lie. Yeah, I think that's fair. As the defense went on to show, Trooper Proctor... If he's having to dissect it that much, you're lying. Trooper Proctor was asked if he had indicated that his sister Courtney was one of his best

friends. He's like, yes, she is. She is my best friend. The defense pointed out how close Courtney and Julie Albert were and that Proctor was very aware that members of the Albert family had been over to his parents' house and Michael Proctor himself had been there on occasions when members of the Albert family, specifically Julie, Chris, and Colin, had been there. He pointed out that Julie Albert had Michael Proctor's personal cell number. Michael Proctor also had Julie Albert's number stored in his phone. In fact, 10 days before John O'Keefe's death, Michael Proctor

had texted his sister about Julie Albert babysitting his own children. And less than a month after John O'Keefe's death, Michael Proctor and Julie Albert were texting each other. Based off the content of the message, yeah, I recognize this text message from Julie. And she texts, this is the weekend I've been waiting for. Michael, please send ski videos if CP doesn't share with me with a laughing face, correct? Correct. That text was sent on February 24th, 2022, wasn't it? Yes. That was less than a month after Mr. O'Keefe's death. Isn't that right?

Correct. And less than a month after you'd been assigned to the investigation in which Julie Albert was a witness, correct? Correct. And her husband, Chris Albert was a witness, correct? Correct. And her son, you knewbert was a witness correct correct and her son you knew colin was involved as well correct yes

who is cp in that text message uh it's a nickname i have my sister courtney proctor correct right you interviewed julie and chris albert at about 5 30 p.m. on the 10th of February, isn't that right? Yes. Did either of them, Julie or Chris Albert, mention that their son Colin Albert had been at 34 Fairview Road on the night in question, January 29th? I'd have to reread the report to refresh my memory on their statements. Do you recall Trooper Proctor ever mentioning that whether or not Julie and Chris mentioned to you that their son had been at 34 Fairview on January 29th? Do you recall that as you sit here? To the best of my recollection, no. It was a very short interview with Julie and Chris, was it not?

It was typical length for the information they had to offer. So you started the interview about 5.30 p.m. It must have been relatively short because you received a phone call by 6.17 from Julie Albert herself, correct? I don't have the call detail right in front of me, but okay, yes. At 6.21, you called her back and you spoke for three minutes and 58 seconds. Is that right? Yes. Did you discuss the interview?

I don't recall the content of that conversation. And, of course, you never memorialized that in any report, did you? The fact that you had a subsequent phone call with Julie Albert on your personal cell phone. I did not trooper Proctor after your interview with Julie Albert your sister Courtney texted you how did it go at Julie's she was so nervous you recall that yes in fact you responded to that with a ha ha ha ha ha four ha's right and then why question mark correct correct then you responded it was fine just a quick convo correct yes you're literally reporting back to your sister about the progress of your investigation in a homicide investigation weren't

you objection sustained you can ask it differently. Were you reporting your progress to your sister about your investigation? Objection. Sustained. Your Honor, may we approach? May I? Yes. Thank you. Were you reporting your progress of your investigation back to your sister, Courtney Proctor? No, absolutely not. But you did say that the conversation, the formal interview went fine. It was just a quick convo, correct? In response to my sister indicating Julie was nervous. That's why I told her it was fine. Trooper Proctor, Julie and Chris Albert were not actually treated like witnesses in a murder investigation.

They were treated more like friends. Wouldn't you agree? Objection. Is that true? Absolutely not. We've established that you're very close with your sister, Courtney, correct? Correct. You provided your sister with updates on important advancements during the course of your investigation into this case. Did you not periodically? I made her aware of newsworthy stuff. That started as early as January 29th, 2022. Isn't that right?

Don't have the exact date or content. Well, the day of the incident, you began letting her know that you were involved, that you had been assigned, what the status was. Yes. The nature of the case. Correct. It was a homicide, correct? Yes. Matter of fact, you discussed who the players were, who the people were that were involved. Isn't that right? I just mentioned Julie and Chris were out earlier in the evening. So you mentioned the Alberts, correct? Julie and Chris, yes. You also mentioned the McCabes, too, didn't you, at some point?

Yes. Yeah. You wrote the word homicide. Is that right? Yes. You were describing to your sister the nature of the case that you are now assigned is that right correct she wrote the canton thing is a homicide and you wrote don't say a word to anyone correct correct and then she wrote of course not is that right yes and then you wrote what in the very least it's suspicious in the very least it's suspicious correct correct so at that time at least at the time that you wrote that text on the 29th at 305 in the afternoon you believed that the case was suspicious right it was before

we found significant pieces of evidence so you believe that it was suspicious that it may involve the Alvarez, right? Absolutely not. She then writes, this is your livelihood, didn't she? She did. Meaning, this kind of case could make or it could break your career, right?

Objection. Sistine. She then wrote, I would never mess with that. Is that right? Objection. Sistine. She then wrote, I would never mess with that. Is that right? Yes. Your sister, Trooper Proctor, was warning you that you shouldn't be investigating a case in which close friends or family members were involved.

Objection. On January 30th, 2022, at 9.13 in the morning, your sister texted you again, quote, Jesus Christ. The party was at one of the Alberts, correct? Yes. And you two were discussing the fact that, to put it in her words, Jesus Christ, these are our friends, right? Jackson. You see the text from you what's up yes and what's Courtney Proctor's response nothing I just saw Julie and she said when this is

all over she wants to get you a thank-you gift and I respond with get Elizabeth one hang on just a second let's take them one at a time you were asked about this on direct examination by Mr. Lally, right? Correct. And you looked at the jurors, paused, and said, I never asked for a gift. I never received a gift. Elizabeth never asked for a gift.

She never received a gift. Do you remember that? Correct. You said you never asked for a gift, correct? Correct. What's your next text get Elizabeth one get Elizabeth one what referring to a gift right so you did in fact ask for a gift didn't for my wife who had been home with my children for

the last ten nights from Julie Albert yes for your participation on this I don't know if that's yes. Well, Courtney Proctor answers that question by saying, because I guess her and Chris were friends and John, and she's so proud of you for leading this investigation. Correct? Correct. So what do you make of Courtney Proctor texting her brother and saying, hey, Julie Albert wants to get you a gift. She's so proud of the way you led this investigation. He's like, get my wife, Elizabeth, when she's been home with the kids, blah, blah, blah, blah.

This is awkward. Yeah, it's awkward. He should have just said no gifts, no gifts, especially with what's going on. No gifts whatsoever. I can't do it. Tell him I appreciate it. I thank them very much, but can't do it. I mean, even as patrolmen, we have policy and procedure where if we're at Dunkin' Donuts, shout out Dunkin' Donuts. Not, Dunkin's not better than

criminal coffee, but you know what I mean? When you're in a rush, we don't have, we don't have a drive-through yet, but no. When I go to, when you go to Dunkin', they'll sometimes say like, hey, here's a free coffee. Don't worry about it. And we're, we're supposed to be adamant about it and say, listen, no, I got to pay you. Derek's like, we're supposed to. But I mean, getting a cup of coffee from a guy, Dunkin' Donuts, who's like, hey, thanks for your service. Yeah, there's been a couple of times I've definitely taken a cup of coffee. You got me. Yeah. You got me. You got me.

It's different than Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, taking a gift from Julie Albert because she's so proud of how he's leading. And I'll even take it a step further. I'll even take it a step further. And this is some, you know, just assumption on my part, but I think even Julie Albert reaching out and saying, hey, we want to get him a gift is like preemptively getting in front of this by indirectly getting to the lead investigator. They know the Alberts, you know, it's happened on their property and they're going to be in question. And hey, listen, when this is, you know, we just want to get him a gift for the great job he's doing. They're kind of like buttering him up a little bit. And so it's just, it's, I don't like

it all the way around. And his simple answer should have been, no, thank you. Let them know. I appreciate it, but I have to stay in the, I have to stay objective and I can't, I can't accept any gifts and neither can my family. That's the correct answer. It shouldn't be that complicated. And in fact, we know that the Proctors and the Alberts were quite close. There's photos from social media showing Michael Proctor with the children of Jen McCabe, the Albert children at Proctor family events, such as weddings and parties and at the Proctor home.

In fact, Colin Albert was the ring bearer at Courtney Proctor's wedding where Michael, her brother, was the groomsman. In a Facebook post from October of 2019, Michael Proctor's mother referred to the Alberts as the Proctor's second family. And on that same mother's Facebook page, there was also a picture of Michael Proctor's nephew with Colin and Dylan Albert,

who are the sons of Chris and Julie Albert, right? Can I interject quickly? I just want, before I forget, Michael Proctor's on administrative leave for probably a lot of things, maybe more severe things, what I'm about to say. But I will tell you, it's my best guess that at least part of it, just part of it, is that he didn't disclose this information as soon as he showed up and he was assigned this case. He should have said to a supervisor, hey, I'll assist, but someone else has to take the lead. I'm too close to this one. So just for that alone, all these headaches that they have now, just that piece of it was enough to put him out administratively because that's the number one thing that should have happened. As soon as he saw who was involved, where John O'Keefe was found, he should have said, hey, as much as I'd love to be the lead on this, I got to step back.

I just wanted to put that out there. Yes. So on Colin Albert's 14th birthday, Courtney Proctor, Michael Proctor's sister, sent money to his Venmo account with the message, quote, happy birthday to one of my favorite all time kids. End quote. And in May of 2022, Courtney posted a picture of Colin on her Facebook page, which said, happy 18th to our favorite football star, Colin Albert. So when you're sitting there and you're asked, hey, do you have a relationship or know these people?

And he's like, no, I don't, right? And then he's in trial and Jackson is like, but you said you didn't have a relationship or know them. He's like, well, I don't have a relationship with them, but I know them. You have a relationship with them, my dude. It's semantics. It's all the same.

Either way, you know them or have a relationship with them. Both of these things are true. So to say no to either of them, even if you break it down or try to pirouette around it, you have a relationship with them and you know them. Yeah, I agree. There's a big difference between an acquaintance and a relationship. And based on just a little bit of information you told me, you had a relationship with them. You don't have to hang out with them every day. We're not talking about your best friends. We're talking about,

could you go grab a beer with them? Could you have dinner with them? Yeah, your families are tight, man, which is even more than a friend and more than a relationship. The Alberts are the Proctor's second family. And by the way, nothing wrong with this if you disclose it initially, because they would have removed him from the case or at least had him take a secondary role and we wouldn't be having this discussion. He shouldn't have been anywhere near that case with as close as he was to these people. Well, you could, when I mean secondary, it could be something where it's along the lines of,

hey, take the affidavit down to the judge, get it signed, you know, something along that lines. But no, he didn't do that. He didn't do that. And probably for a lot of reasons, I'll never know truly why Proctor didn't do that. But I will say that part of it might have been, oh, this is a good case. I want to be involved with it. But he should have separated himself immediately. He should have been nowhere near it. Okay. We are not done with Michael Proctor yet because his unprofessionalism knows no bounds. Trooper Proctor, Trooper DiCicco had sent you a photograph of my colleague, Mr. Yannetti, correct? Yes. You see that, gentlemen? I do, sir.

Is that the photograph that you received? Yes. And your response was what? I hate that man. I truly hate that man. Actually, your response was, I'm going through his retarded client's phone right now, correct? Yes, after the picture, sir, yes. Who's the retarded client? I was referring to Ms. Reed, again, unprofessional language.

I'm asking who you're referring to. Ms. Reed. I know you've got an explanation. Who was it you were referring to as retarded? Ms. Reed. Karen Reed, the woman sitting to my left. Yes, sir. The subject of your investigation as a professional, correct?

Yes, sir. As an un your investigation as a professional, correct? Yes, sir. As an unbiased, objective investigator, the person that you're investigating, you referred to to your bosses as retarded, correct? Again, poor language on my part. Poor language is one way to put it. Completely offensive is another way to put it, right? Object Jackson. I've got to sustain that mr. Jackson after you referred to my client as retarded then You decided to make a comment about mr. Yannetti her lawyer correct correct And what did you say about mr. Yannetti again? I hate that man. I truly hate that man. I hate that man I truly hate him correct correct. You that man. I truly hate him. Mm-hmm, correct

Correct. You didn't say I dislike him disagree with him. You said I hate it Right, correct, sir. That's a visceral response to someone who's just doing a job, correct? objection Sustained you can ask it differently. Sure. Let me ask it this way. Were you upset or annoyed or pissed off that Karen Reid had gotten representation, legal representation, to represent her? No, not at all. That's her right. Well, let me ask you this.

In August of 2022, you said you absolutely hate it, correct? I don't know if I used absolutely. I didn't use absolutely, sir. You used truly, correct? Truly, yes. How do you feel about him now? He's sitting right there.

I still don't care for him now. I'll let it stand. What did you tell your colleagues that you were looking for as you sat at almost 10 p.m. at night on a Wednesday night, August 17th, 2022, looking through Karen Reid's phone. I didn't tell them I was looking through anything. They knew I was going through Ms. Reid's phone.

I provided a inappropriate joke as an update. They knew I was going through location data, text messages, Google searches, but like I mentioned earlier, I had a stop. Except, Trevor Proctor, none of that really professional sounding stuff ended up in your comments to your bosses, did it? TREVOR PROTECTER 1.: Again, it was a poor joke.

Is that yes or no? TREVOR PROTECTER 1.: It did not, no. It did not. TREVOR PROTECTER 1.: No, sir. As a matter of fact, what did you write after you talked about going through the, quote, retarded client's phone? TREVOR PROT's phone? Rejection.

I'll allow it. No nudes so far. No nudes so far, correct? Correct. And you said that to your bosses. Yes, sir. You were looking for naked photographs of Ms. Reed on a Wednesday night as you sat in your office at 9.44 p.m., correct? No, not correct.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked for naked photos of a male suspect that you were investigating? I don't look for naked photos on anyone's phones. But you said you were looking for nudes of Ms. Reed, correct? Like I said, Mr. Jackson, it was an inappropriate joke. Sir, this is a citizen. She's a woman. You were supposed to be objectively investigating. Does your text message to your colleagues and Massachusetts State Police reflect an objective investigation of a citizen objection

i believe poor jokes have in unprofessional language have no bearing on the integrity and the facts and physical evidence of this case well let me ask you a question did you did you find any news again i didn't go through the photo sir did you find any news of karen reed i didn't go through the photo so i came up successful in your quest i came across uh text messages from miss free to another attorney on january 29th so i stopped looking through her phone so you got sidetracked before you could get to the naked pictures of mystery is that what you're saying sustained to be clear when you sent those text messages on that group chat, those text messages included, as we said, or as you said,

not one but two of your supervisors, correct? Correct. Were you ever reprimanded for your conduct in sending that text message? Objection. So that's sustained. Do we need to go to sidebar based on what you told me earlier? We do not. I'll ask it a different way.

Did either Trooper Fanning or Trooper Buchanek dress you down in a responsive text message in that text thread for doing something so abhorrent as looking for nudes or referring to nudes of a female

suspect or subject of your investigation did that ever happen not that i can recall okay so i think we get the picture yeah this this dude sucks yeah he's he's unprofessional i mean he keeps saying it and that's all that jackson is trying to establish like hey forget the noise forget forget everything else and and listen this is what he's supposed to do. You know, this guy's going to present, this investigator is going to present evidence that he uncovered in his case. Some of it I may be able to dispute, some I may not. But what I want you to remember every time you look at a piece of evidence or a report with his name on it, this is who you're talking about.

This is who you're thinking about. And just by doing that, that's exactly what Jackson should be doing because it's the truth. If this guy can't even be serious in a text message while he's doing his job, youed. And yet he's still doing it. So again, it just makes me wonder, what is he saying that wasn't recorded, that wasn't in a text message? It's concerning. It goes a little bit deeper here, though, because this isn't a chat message with his high school friends. He's got other law enforcement in this chat and two of his supervisors who are also taking part in it. So this is what the defense and I think a lot of the people who are rallying behind Karen Reid are trying to point out.

It's not just Michael Proctor, who's a bad apple. It looks like the whole department, or at least the people who are in charge of the department, they kind of suck. And are they doing this in other cases? Is this how they're running investigations? It seems like it because nobody was like, oh, this is a weird way to talk about this or why are we doing this? It seems like this

is just par for the course for them. It is very easy and right to say that this is unprofessional and this includes the supervisors that are seeing this and not addressing it immediately, whether it's a sidebar text or in person where there's some type of punishment being administered, right? That's unprofessional. It should not happen. There's a lot that can be taken from Proctor's statements and the way he conducts himself. The fact that the supervisors did not correct him or pull him aside and at least give him a verbal warning, something that would have been documented, that is a problem. But as far as how those officers, those supervisors conduct themselves in their investigations, if you show me something and it shows that they do, I will gladly be right here condemning that as well. All right, let's take our

last break and we will be right back. So before we wrap up, I want to talk about some cell phones because we have two Bryans in this case that did some weird things with their cell phones after John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of the Alberts' home. Brian Albert was given a preservation order for his cell phone use from January 28th to February 28th, 2022. And Brian Albert testified that he was due for a new phone, so he had upgraded before learning about that order. Now, in cross-examination, Alan Jackson got Brian Albert

to admit that the preservation order was given to him on September 23rd, 2022, and Albert had gone and gotten a new phone on September 22nd, 2022. And Jackson wanted to know if Brian Albert was aware that when he upgraded his phone, the old phone gets factory reset, which would have destroyed the very data

that he was ordered to preserve. Brian Albert responded, quote, September 4th was my birthday. My phone was broken and failing. I had planned on getting a new phone and that just happened to be the day I got it, end quote. And Alan Jackson responded, quote, happy birthday, was that a coincidence, end quote. So he's trying to basically say, hey, you know, you have friends

in law enforcement, including Michael Proctor, and maybe you got the heads up of when that preservation order was coming. And maybe the day before, that wasn't a coincidence that you got a new phone and had your old phone factory reset, right? That's what he's trying to say. Yep, I see what you're saying. So Jackson reminded Brian Albert that he'd been asked at another hearing in June of 2023 if this timing had been a coincidence, and Brian had replied, yes, it was a coincidence. Then Jackson started talking about Brian Higgins, the ATF agent, who had also gotten rid of his phone. I don't think I talked to Brian Higgins about the ATF agent who had also gotten rid of his phone. I don't think I talked to Brian Higgins about getting rid of my phones.

Well, you just said you can't rule out the fact that you had conversations with Brian Higgins about your phones and possibly getting rid of your phones. Right? No, I don't think that's what I said. You two discussed the fact that you both wanted to get rid of your phones. I don't remember having that conversation with Brian Higgins at all. Your testimony was, quote, I know there were conversations about the phones, sir. Correct?

Correct that that's what you're reading. So if you're having conversations with Brian Higgins about the phones. What the heck were you talking about? I don't know the timing of when they asked when those conversations were. Mr. Albert, I'm leaving it open to you. I don't care when it was. I'm asking you, have you ever had a conversation with Brian Higgins about your phones, respectively? We may have. I just don't, I can't remember that conversation specifically.

Then why in June of 2023, did you testify? I know there were conversations about the phones with Brian Higgins, end quote. I'm not sure of the context of that. So now you just can't remember. No, I don't think I could remember during that testimony either. I think if you read the whole thing, I think I said, I'm not sure. I don't remember. No, I don't think I could remember during that testimony either. I think if you read the whole thing, I think I said I'm not sure. I don't remember. Your quote was, I know there were conversations about the phones.

I just can't say if he said he was going to get rid of his phone or not. Right. Does that help refresh your recollection? Yes. So now as you sit here and you answer my question, did you and Brian Higgins have a conversation about your phones? I don't remember having that conversation with Brian Higgins. You're aware that Brian Higgins has also gotten rid of his phone, correct?

I am not aware of that until after the time you're talking about. So without qualifying your answer, answer my question. As you sit here, you're aware that Brian Higgins has also gotten rid of his phone. I know at some point Brian Higgins. Yes or no, Mr. Albert? Did he? Yes or no. Can you answer that yes or no, sir?

Yes. So, in fact, Brian Higgins went to some great lengths to get rid of his phone. On September 29, 2022, coincidentally, one day before he would receive a court order to preserve his phone, Higgins changed his cell phone number. Then he drove to a military base in Cape Cod and threw his destroyed SIM card and phone into a dumpster there. Unfortunately, Higgins failed to transfer anything from his old phone to his new phone. So where's your phone? I do not have that phone anymore. You've destroyed that phone, haven't you?

No, I threw the phone away. Well, that's destroying the phone, isn't it? I had every right to do that I didn't ask you about your rights I asked you what you did Jackson sustained destroyed the phone by removing the SIM card Jackson sustained Jackson did you pull this in card out of your phone? Your Honor, to the best of my recollection, if I did take the SIM card out,

I would have, when I threw it away, if I was going to take it out, I would break it or cut it. But I did not wipe the phone. I did not take anything else off it. But if I was going to throw the phone away That's what I would have done Okay

Electronic data experience when you pull the SIM card out and break it and then throw this Objection sustained Jackson that's it One more question. Mr. Higgins, very simply, and then we're done. Did you remove the SIM card for that phone, drive onto a military base, throw the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in a different dumpster?

That is not correct. Did you testify that... That was your one question, Mr. Jackson. All right, folks, that's it for today. I don't know why the judge cut him off. She really wanted to get out of there. I actually wanted to hear them expand on that because Higgins was adamant he didn't do that.

So I would have liked to see Jackson follow up on it. It turns out, he's like, no, I threw them in the same dumpster. Threw them in the same dumpster. Oh, I mean, that's better than the way Jackson explained it where you deliberately threw the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in the other. I. Oh, I mean, that's better than when the way Jackson explained it, where they're like, you, you deliberately threw one SIM, the SIM card in one dumpster and the phone in the other. I was like, wow. He had previously testified to doing that, to doing that, throwing his SIM card, to taking his SIM card out of it. That's why this line of questioning is happening because he's already testified. I think the judge had to go to the bathroom or something. No, the

judge wants, doesn't want, the judge doesn't want him to answer that and incriminate himself. In my opinion, allegedly don't come for me. But he had previously testified that he's taken the sim card out broken it and then driven onto this military base in cape cod right which is not canton where he lives he drove to a different place and he threw the sim card in one dumpster and then threw the phone into another on a military base. Why? Why? Right? But you're saying he didn't, he's saying he didn't do that. Now he's saying he didn't, but in a previous testimony, he did say that he did. Yes. Okay. That's why he's being questioned about this. And obviously we know it looks shady when someone connected to an ongoing

crime investigation gets rid of their phone in a timely fashion, such as right before they're about to get a preservation order for said phone. And it's not crazy to think that because Brian Albert and Brian Higgins are law enforcement and because they both know and are close to officers with both the Canton Police and the Massachusetts State Police that they might've had a heads up

of when that preservation order was expected to arrive because the timing, once again, is very convenient. But why would it have been illuminating to see what was in Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' phones, to see what kind of communications they were having with each other and others? Well, in this case, the defense claims there are nine calls unaccounted for. We already discussed a few of these specifically. Jen McCabe's multiple phone calls to John O'Keefe, which she claims were butt dials, even though none of them went to voicemail. But we also have Brian Albert making a call to Brian Higgins at 2.20 a.m. on January 29th, 2022, just a few hours before John O'Keefe's body was discovered in his

front yard. This call lasted one second. And then when asked to explain why the call was made on the stand, Brian Albert said, quote, I butt dial people often and make inadvertent calls. I could have hit a last call from him by accident, end quote. Now, of course, we would, once again, there's a lot of butt dials happening here. Higgins would also testify that he never answered this call from Brian Albert. But once again, he would have had to have either answered it or Brian Albert would have had to have called and then ended the call, or it would have gone to voicemail, which it did not. So 17 seconds after that call took place, another call was placed from Higgins' phone to Albert's phone, and this call lasted 22 seconds. Once again, when questioned about why that phone call was placed, Brian Higgins said,

just like Brian Albert said, must have been a butt dial. Now in a prior hearing, both men had answered these same questions slightly differently. Brian Albert had said when the one-second call was placed, he was in bed with his wife having some intimate time. And when asked about the 22-second call in a prior hearing, Brian Higgins had testified that he'd called Brian Albert back after the call that Brian Albert made to him at 2.28 a.m. But he said they did not have a conversation. So the fact is you were speaking to Brian Albert in the middle of the night, approximately three hours before Mr. O'Keefe's body was found in his yard, correct? No, that's not correct. And then, of course, you lied about that under oath in that prior proceeding by saying, I don't remember this phone call.

Objection. Sustained. Did you, in fact, tell the truth at the prior proceeding when you said, I don't remember that phone call? I always tell the truth. Did you lie under oath, sir? No, I did not. Would you tell us if you did? Objection, Your Honor.

Sustained. You acknowledge that there's a 22-second phone call in your phone records, correct? That's what's reflected by the record. And 22 seconds is quite an amount of time. Would you agree? It's 22 seconds. As a matter of fact, it's about this long with the court's permission. The court does not get permission. That's argument, Mr. Jackson. If we were to count off 22 seconds, that's an uncomfortably long time, is it not? No. It's long enough to have a conversation, isn't it?

I didn't have a conversation. Is 22 seconds long enough to have a conversation? No. You can't, a human being can't have a conversation in 22 seconds? Sure they could. I don't think it's anything of substance. Okay, so that's my question. Is it 22 seconds long enough to have a conversation? I don't agree with it, no.

Now, when you were asked about this and you were shown these records, that prior hearing, you had an explanation for what that 22-second call may have been and what the prior call may have been, correct? Yes. What was your explanation? Well, I used a phrase that people commonly used as a butt dial. So you think it's possible that you may have butt dialed Brian Albert for a 22 second call that you're not aware of?

I think it's possible that he could have been inadvertently called back, but I have no recollection of that, nor did I have any conversation with anybody. But you admitted that you lived alone, correct Mr. Higgins? That's correct. You had an iPhone at the time? Yes. Matter of fact, that number, reflecting those records, is in fact, or was was in fact an iPhone, is that right? Yes.

You already indicated under oath that you don't sleep with your iPhone. You keep it on your bedside table, is that right? Most often, yes. There's nobody else in your room, is that right? That's correct. And you had your ringer on because you were awakened the next morning by a call from Chief Berkowitz, right? Yes, the ringer was on. When somebody calls you and you missed the call,

there's a notification that shows up on that iPhone. Is that right? I don't know how mine set up at the time. I don't know. If you open up your phone app and you go to Recents, it shows all the missed calls, correct? I think you can get to them, yes. And you know that the iPhone does not automatically call

people back. That is not a thing, right? If I'm just a call from someone it's not just gonna automatically re-ring them yes I think we both know that yes so to call somebody back you have to go on your iPhone open it up from a locked position navigate to a phone application then navigate to a contact, and then make a call. Correct? Objection. Sustained. You can break it down.

So how'd you butt dial? I didn't make any calls. I have no recollection of any calls, nor did I speak with anybody. After you were shown these phone records at that prior hearing, in that hearing at least, you finally admitted that you did, in fact, call Brian Albert back, but this time you claimed the two of you just sort of sat in silence.

Isn't that right? Objection. So I'm going to sustain it in that form. You can ask it appropriately, Mr. Jackson. Did you ever previously testify that you did, in fact, make the call, but you did not have a conversation during the course of the call? What I think I testified was something must have happened, but I didn't have any phone call.

Do you remember being asked, quote, did you call him back, end quote, and you answered yes, and then there was a question. There was a series of questions there that's that's that's only a fragment of what i said i'm i'm not done yet mr higgins can you answer my question yes to the question did you call him back your answer was yes correct i think it was kind of i must have then you were asked well the answer was yes and then there was a call of me back and forth where you spoke over each other's words right it was dialogue back and forth about this whole thing yes you then said a little bit further in that same

conversation I did not have a conversation correct I did not have a conversation with anybody and the question following that was you just listen to the phone what someone was telling you? Answer, it's possible that the phone picked up on the other end and nobody said anything. And then I terminated the call, end quote. That's what you said at the other hearing under oath, correct? Yes or no? Can I see it?

Sure. Okay, so it is weird that all these people claim they'd parted ways before these calls happened. Brian Albert was in bed with his wife having some intimate time, but now they're calling each other. And it kind of reminds me, remember the Crystal Rogers case where her boyfriend, Brooks Houck, had a brother, Nick, who was a Bardstown police officer? And then that night that Crystal went missing, there was a bunch of random phone calls and texts going back between Brooks and a few others. And a lot of those calls were short seconds, but then the calls would be returned. And in that case that we had decided, it seemed like maybe the short calls that lasted only a second or two were basically signals to the other party to call back or communicate back in some way, you know. And so for Brian Albert to call

Brian Higgins at 2.22 and it's a a one-second call. I mean, you got to hang up. You got to call and then hang up. And then Brian Higgins calls him back, and then there's like a 22-second call. And he's like, I have no recollection of making this call. But before he had testified, yeah, I did make the call, but we didn't talk about anything. We just sat there. So clearly something doesn't add up. They cannot be butt dials if they do not go to voicemail because you have to end the call. We discussed this with John McCabe. So it's super sketchy. It's super sketchy. My takeaway is I don't really take too much into it. 22 seconds. I don't know what could have been conveyed. I get why he's doing it. The defense is doing their job.

They're creating reasonable doubt. They're showing these connections. They're showing these anomalies. They may mean something something they may mean nothing but for them it doesn't matter they're just showing it which they should be doing but i wasn't listening to this like i was listening to the last clip as far as his physical action of destroying of the phone that to me is something much more compelling but in combination is it compelling no it's just that for me it's like, why was he destroying his phone at that time? Why wouldn't you just for the sake of safety, hold on to it in case that someone wanted to see it if you had nothing to hide. But this 22 second call,

I get why he's doing it, but I'm not sitting here going, oh my God. Yep. The 22 second call, they got him. Okay. So how would you explain them seeing their butt dials when somebody's actively pushing the call button and then pushing the start, the end button to end the call? How would you explain that? So, I mean, listen, I'm not trying to defend it. I've had times where I've had my iPhone in my pocket and I've had it unlocked or whatever. I was looking at it. It's unlocked. It's in my pocket. All of a sudden I hear someone saying hello from my pocket. I'm like, Hey, what's up? Um, I'm not trying to justify. I could see a world where the phone is activated. It calls him. And then they re he realizes, Oh shit, I called Brian or I called, you know, whoever, and you

hang it up. The fact that he doesn't remember it is not good for him. It would have been much better again, like with many of these instances, even if he was lying, he just said, yeah, I realized I butt dialed him. So I was looking at the phone. It was about a 22 second call. Obviously no one was on the other end. So I hung it up and went on without my day. But the fact that there's conflicting stories between different testimonies, that's why we're sitting here discussing it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be. So Brian Higgins did eventually have a reason that he had gotten rid of his phone. It's too late. Even though I don't know what the reason is, it's too late. Well, initially, in a prior trial, he had testified that he'd gotten rid of it because it was old. But during this trial, he gave a completely different reason for the strange,

covert disposal of his phone and SIM card. So as you mentioned, Brian Higgins returned to the stand today. It lasted about an hour. And he's the ACF agent who also characterizes himself as a John O'Keefe friend and also most relevant to this case. He testified last week that he shared a kiss and even some flirty messages with Karen Reid in the weeks leading up to her boyfriend John O'Keefe's death. Now, back on the stand this morning, his testimony mostly focused on his cell phone, where those messages lived, but also many texts and phone calls between himself and the Canton police chief, along with Brian Albert, the homeowner. And he was questioned repeatedly about why he destroyed his phone,

first saying it was just broken and old, then saying there was another issue. What if anything else was going on with reference to your personal phone that led you to want to get rid of it? So in July of 2022, I had a target of an investigation. I was working who alleged that he called me on my personal cell phone. And when I questioned him as to the fact how he obtained my personal telephone number, he told me that his girlfriend had obtained it off of open source Internet, which I later confirmed that it was that number was out there.

So Higgins testified that issue happened in July, but he pushed back. The defense pushed back, saying that the timing is suspicious. And they added that it really wasn't until months later in September, specifically 24 hours before a court order to keep his phone for evidence that he chose to destroy everything. September 29th of 2022, you changed your phone number and got a new phone. And then September 30th, the next day, you were served with the preservation order, correct? I got the preservation order on the 30th. That's correct. All right. So I know you already suspect this, but I'm not buying it. He found out his phone and his phone number were compromised in July of 2022, but he didn't

get rid of it until the end of September 2022, the day before the preservation order for his phone was going to come through. If you knew your phone was on the open source network or whatever the hell, and you know that people have it who might wish you harm or whatever, then you'd probably want to get rid of it then. You wouldn't wait till the end of September. You wouldn't wait till three months later. Yeah. This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you. I think that if the phone was compromised, you would have wanted to switch that number immediately. The fact that he didn't, that's fine. Maybe he changed his mind. But then months later, a day before getting this preservation letter, he decides to not only switch the number, but destroy the phone. Too coincidental for me. So I'm with you there. I don't know how he knew,

but if that happened, he is just one of the most unlucky guys I've ever seen because that is a really suspicious timing. And I understand why the defense is capitalizing on it. See how that works? See, sometimes we can agree. See that? Yes, and I'm happy because it's pretty evident. Okay, Brian Higgins also claimed that he was the first to leave the Albert home that night.

He said he left around 1 a.m. And that would check out with Ryan Nagel's story. Remember, he arrived to Fairview Lane that night to pick up his sister Julie, and he did not see Higgins' Jeep. And he and his friends parked in the exact same spot that Higgins claimed he had parked in. However, Higgins testified that he left the Albert home around 1. Ryan Nagel was there at 12.30. So he probably left earlier than that. And Higgins testified that after leaving the Albert home, he drove to the Canton Police Department.

But according to surveillance, he didn't arrive to the Canton Police Department until 1.30 a.m. So if his Jeep was not at the Alberts at around 12.30 a.m. when Ryan Nagel got there, and he didn't get to the police station until 130 a.m., what was he doing? Driving around Canton under the influence of alcohol when he knew a huge blizzard was coming and it had already started to snow. So you'd think he'd want to be safe and sound at home by the time that snow started to like really fall in earnest. So Higgins claims he went to the Canton Police Department to move his government surveillance vehicle at the behest of Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz, and this was so that the police station lot could be plowed. And after this, Higgins testified that he drove to his home in West Roxbury, where he ate, had a couple of drinks, alcoholic drinks, and then fell asleep before waking up hours later to his personal phone, blowing up he had received multiple calls from chief berkowitz

and brian albert and brian albert told him john o'keefe had been found dead on his front lawn so on january 30th higgins also went to a fellow atf agent who was also his best friend and this guy happens to work in the fbi's regional computer forensics lab and higgins asked this guy for advice on how to extract information from his own cell phone. During the trial, Higgins said, quote, I asked him how I could pull text strings off my cellular telephone for the purpose of providing them to law enforcement, end quote. Later during Cross, Higgins admitted that he could have just turned over his entire device to the police. He also confirmed that he'd visited the forensics lab and used a kiosk in an unrestricted area to pull information from his phone. Alan Jackson questioned Higgins about

whether or not he was aware that federal regulations bar the use of one's public office for private gain, and Higgins said, no, I wasn't aware of that. So, yeah, after talking to Brian Albert on the morning of the 29th, Higgins went over to 34 Fairview. He stayed there for a little bit before he returned to the Canton Police Department, even though he was not you heard, Higgins claimed he was not there for the case. He said he used the Sally Port as a common pass-through. When Alan Jackson asked if Higgins was aware that the surveillance video supplied to the defense from the Sally Port garage was missing between 5.08 and 5.50 p.m., and Karen's SUV pinged as arriving at the Sally Port at 5.36 p.m., meaning the time her car entered Sally Port, the video didn't catch it.

So the inside video did catch it. We saw that. It was inverted. The outside of the Sally Port surveillance video, there's 42 minutes missing, okay? That 42 minutes may have shown whether or not Karen's taillight was broken before pulling into Sally Port. Because as we know, the video was inverted, so we didn't see that side of the taillight when it came in. Now, ADA Lally claimed this 42 minutes was missing because the camera is motion activated. But you would think the camera would have been motion activated when Karen's SUV arrived.

This video from Canton Police Department's Sally Port garage, it wasn't turned over, right? That video was discovered later on and then handed over. The first time you revealed the existence of that footage was in that separate proceeding in February of 2024. Isn't that right? You did know, however, that if you had video at the Sallyport, it would clearly show that Ms. Reed's vehicle arrived at 530, 531. You knew that, correct? Yes, from the driveway camera. On April 4th, 2024, you turned over one video from the interior of the Sally Port garage, correct? Yes, sir.

The interior, not the exterior, right? Correct. And that, remarkably enough, was a grainy video, right? Yes. And that video is missing the precise time that that vehicle was delivered to the Sally Port, correct? That's actually... Was it? I'll allow it.

I don't recall. It's missing 42 minutes at the beginning and it jumps from 5.08 p.m. to 5.50 p.m., correct? Jackson. Sustained. Wow. Have you reviewed the video? Yes. Did you see that

the timestamp jumped from 5.08 to 5.50? Jackson. Sustained. Did you see that the time stamp jumped from 5.08 to 5.50? Objection. Sustained. Did you note that the time jumped from 5.08 to about 5.50 at the beginning of the video? Yeah, I observed a jump in video. That was about 42 minutes, correct? Approximately, yes. You're aware that there's another video from the interior of that Sally Port as well, correct? Yes. The second video from the interior of the Sally Port is inverted, correct? Yes. You're now aware of that? I am. So yeah, these are obviously the

main issues, the conflicts, the whole Sally Port at the Canton Police Department, that's a cluster. And once again, there's no way to actually know what was just normal run of the mill, hey, this happened because sometimes these things happen in investigations or what was nefariously done. There's just no way to tell the difference. And that's kind of where we're at. I have an unrelated question regarding Brian Higgins. What is the, from what, and maybe I'm dismissing it, but he seems to have been having some type of extracurricular relationship with Karen, right? Maybe the kissing, flirting, whatever, whatever it was. So they had exchanged texts and according to him, they had shared a covert kiss.

Yes. Okay. So what would be his motive for implicating her in the crime? So what, and we're going to talk about this next episode, which is the last one, but the defense is going to raise several possibilities for what happened to John O'Keefe. Which by the way, that's what they're supposed to do. I don't blame them for that. They don't need to pin down one.

They're going to raise several theories that they have about what could have happened to John O'Keefe that does not include Karen Reid hitting him, right? They didn't include that one? No, no. Okay. So one of them is that he was beat up inside the house, right? And they're going to bring up the fact

that Colin Albert had previous issues with John. Colin Albert was an athlete. He was a boxer. He's got his knuckles all scraped up in the aftermath of John O'Keefe's death. They're also going to bring up the fact that Brian Higgins, ATF agent, had a little crush on Karen. And that night when they were all out together, even though Karen and Brian Higgins didn't like interact while everyone else was around, Brian Higgins sent her a text message saying something like,

so dot, dot, dot, kind of like, you know, what's up with us, girl, right? And then they all go to the Albert home. And once there, Brian Higgins is one of the people who's texting and calling John O'Keefe, like, where are you? Come on. Why aren't you here yet? So the defense is going to say, like, was Brian Higgins trying to lure John O'Keefe there so that they could beat him up so that he could have Karen?

Or was this a thing where Brian Higgins had texted or called John O'Keefe after they all left the bars. And Brian Higgins is kind of like drunk and pissed. And he's like, this bitch is ignoring me. We've texted back and forth. We've had a kiss. And she's just going to sit here and act like nothing happened. I'm going to tell John what happened. And now maybe in one of these texts or calls, because we have no idea what these texts or calls said, because Brian Higgins threw away his phone on a military base. Maybe he said that. And then maybe this is why John and Karen start arguing in the car. Right. So that's kind of the line of theories that the defense is going to put forward. But we'll go deeper into that. And then Chloe comes in. Chloe, the dog comes in. Yeah. A lot of these theories

revolve around John being in some type of physical altercation, right? He's got the injury somehow. So what are the people in that camp as far as the physical altercation or maybe just the defense, what is their pushback or their defense to the medical examiner's office saying that, and I have the quote here, hold on, the quote being the doctor stating that there were no signs of Mr. O'Keefe being involved in any type of physical altercation or fight. What's their response to that as far as the doctor's observations and analysis? Under questioning, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy did admit like, yes, some of these injuries could

have been sustained from a fist. And we did cover that already last episode. Yeah. No, I know we covered it, but I'm saying what do they say to that? Could have been sustained from him getting hit and then falling. And he could have gotten that blunt force trauma. And the medical investigator also said like, yeah, getting hit by a car, you would expect to see like broken bones or something like that. So you could. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, once again, this would expect to see like broken bones or something like that. You could, yeah. Yeah. I mean, once again, this is going to be one expert, the medical examiner, on the stand, questioned by the prosecution selectively, and she's going to answer based on the questions

she's being asked. And then when the defense gets up there, they are also going to ask questions selectively. Of course. Hey. That's every expert. Is it possible that these injuries that you said were sustained this way could have also been sustained this way? Yes, that's possible. So it is one thing that I'm interested in seeing what the, what new experts are brought in. What's the narratives that are being presented because the defense is going to be better and the prosecution's going to be better. They better

be better. Um, cause their first time around, they were horrible. Um, but I will be intrigued to tune into that trial and see now that everyone kind of has a little bit of understanding of the direction the other side's going to go, what type of countermeasures are going to be taken as far as experts, because this is a battle of experts for sure. It's all it is. It's interpretation of the evidence. What do you believe? And if there is evidence that's incriminating, then it's going to revert back to the way that evidence was obtained but the Higgins thing is interesting to me because on the surface based on what we know it seems like he'd be more pro Karen Reed and want to see her come out of this unscathed but if to your theory or their

theory I should say he was mad at her when this happened then that would explain it that would explain it now yep that's where we're at this case it's uh interesting and also demoralizing at the same time because you know you're not going to get a lot out of it whatever point is made there always will be a counterpoint and i mean that on both sides no matter what is said in this trial depending on what side you fall on there will be a counter expert to combat that argument. And I see it a lot in the comments and you can see it there. And the worst part about it is both sides do make valid points. Like you're reading it like, huh, that does make sense. And then you'll read the other side and you're like, oh yeah, but that makes sense too. So, and then the biggest problem to

wrap it up, my final words is it all comes back to the source. And whenever the source is Proctor, it's hard to believe it. That's the problem. Whenever you rely on Proctor to make your argument or anything he's involved in, that's a tough one to sell. Yeah, it's a tough pill to swallow. And as we had mentioned in Crime Weekly News, we are off next week for the Christmas holiday. But when we return we will wrap up this case and then the week after that we'll be starting a new one so let's continue the ride and we'll see where it takes us and yeah and merry christmas on that note for anybody who celebrates christmas or happy holidays but uh yeah no we hope everyone enjoys it with their family and thank you for joining us for this ride it'll be a nice break for us to kind of hang out and catch up with the families and we'll be back strong with the final episode and take that into the new year. Can't wait. Oh, and by the way,

ground coffee, peppermint bark sold out in 12 hours. I had mentioned it in crime weekly news sold out in 12 hours, got more coming. Thank you for the love and support. Hope you enjoy the coffee. And if you do, besides weighing in down below about John O'Keefe and Karen Reed, let us know if you like the coffee and on a positive note. You will like the coffee. It's great. Christmas trees in the comment section if you made it to the end of the video. Thank you guys so much. Everyone stay safe. See you soon. Bye.