Serialously with Annie Elise - 152: Karen Read Trial Recap: Murdered Her Boyfriend or Police Cover Up?

Episode Date: May 9, 2024

On January 28th, 2022, Karen Read and her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, spent the night bar hopping and later that night, they were invited to a fellow police officer’s house for an afterparty in Canton Massachusetts. When Karen and John arrived at the house, Karen didn’t get out of the car, but John did. What happened next is up for debate. Karen Read Episode: https://pod.fo/e/22c58f Shop the Merch: www.annieelise.com Follow the podcast on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@serialouslypodcast  Follow the podcast on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/serialouslypod/      Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/annieelise    All Social Media Links: https://www.flowcode.com/page/annieelise_    SERIALously FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/SERIALouslyAnnieElise/    About Me: https://annieelise.com/   For Business Inquiries: [e-mail] 

Hey true crime besties, welcome back to an all of serialously with me annie elise we're doing a bonus edition today a bonus episode because due to popular demand and so many requests from you guys um when i did my last week's episode you want karen reed trial recaps so in addition to Chad Daybell Dumball Loserface recaps we're also going to be doing Karen Reid recaps week to week because the trial is now underway now for those of you who are like wait what's Karen Reid what why is everybody requesting it is it a crazy trial it is an insane insane case I'm going to give you a tiny little glimmer of the backstory in case you're not familiar. And then I will link in the show notes the episode where it's like the full deep dive on this case because it is for sure a roller coaster, guys.

So basically, Karen Reed is a woman who is now currently on trial for killing her Boston police officer boyfriend. What all went down, I believe it was what early in January, I think it was, don't quote me on that. It was like a winter night and she had been at the bar with him drinking. They had been drinking with some friends, some colleagues of his, and then they were going to a house party at another fellow officer's house. For whatever reason, Karen ended up dropping John off her boyfriend at that party and not going inside herself. And then she drove to the house and went to sleep.

Now, the next morning, John was found dead in the snow. So she's being accused of backing into him, most likely under the influence because she had been drinking a lot that night. And he was left to die in the snow, hypothermia. He died. However, what's interesting is she and her defense is claiming, no, no, no, no, no, no, I did not kill him. He went inside that house party with fellow officers. He had beef with them.

They killed him and then left him for dead. And they're now framing me. And I have to say, some of the evidence from the defense is pretty compelling. There are some very interesting google searches from people who were inside that house party at two in the morning there is some alleged colluding you could say between different officers and people saying no no keep quiet don't share this information while the investigation was well underway there's a lot of things not for nothing too but a lot of people are saying if she reversed into John, where's the damage to his body?

He's super tall. Like there's a lot of things, guys, that don't make sense. And I'm not going to rehash it all here because if you are listening to the recap, chances are you are familiar with the case. But again, if you're not, pause this really quick. Go listen to the deep dive. It's linked in the show notes below. And then come back because so many of you have been following this and rightfully so want these trial recaps because it is bizarre and I just got

to say the defense is doing a killer job right now no pun intended but they really are and this is what's so interesting about this case too guys is that there are so many people outside of the courtroom they have been since early on with just the hearings and all of that going on even before the trial and they are Karen Reid supporters they're actually holding up poster boards saying free Karen Reid Karen Reid's innocent all of these things and so we haven't seen something like that in a really long time unless it's like a celebrity or somebody super notable. So for this just kind of lay person to now have this whole community rallying behind her it seems does that carry weight? Is there some

truth to these corruption and conspiracy allegations? So let's jump into what's been going down this week at trial. Last week we started with opening statements. There wasn't anything too too crazy but I did touch on it in the headline highlights Thursday episode but now we're just going to talk through everything that's going down this week in trial. So on Monday May 6th 2024 it was day five of trial because remember it was opening statements earlier and it was a full day with a lot of information but there were three main things that were covered this day. The first were the two separate 911 calls that were made on the morning that John's body was found.

The second, and probably the biggest thing that was covered, had to do with the crime scene, as well as how the evidence was also processed. Which, honestly, was kind of just like a completely botched mess, and kind of helps Karen's defense team's argument. So, on the morning that John was found, Canton Police Department was processing the scene, right? However, usually they wouldn't be processing a homicide scene, but John still wasn't officially declared dead yet at the time, even after his body was at the hospital. That was because they were still waiting for his

body temperature to come back up due to the very unlikely, but still slightly possible, chance of him coming through if the hypothermia had maybe preserved his body. Now, since he wasn't officially declared dead yet, there technically was still no homicide that had occurred. So instead of the crime scene being handled by state police, it was the Canton police who were left in charge. And that's where things got really messy. The defense questioned multiple different aspects of how the crime scene was handled, because there was a lot that the defense believed should have been handled differently. For one, they questioned why no notes had even been taken at the crime

scene. Probably the biggest thing that was questioned was in regards to cross-contamination and the actual evidence collection as well. For starters, there was no crime scene tape. No crime scene tape ever put up at the scene. We heard that there was a reason for this and that due to the wind, the tape just wasn't staying where it needed to be, which is why none of it was ever placed. But they also mentioned that it wasn't really a huge issue because nobody was coming out of their houses, nobody was trying to get involved, and no media had shown up at this point or anything like that so pretty much stating that there weren't tons of people that needed to be kept in line and away from the crime scene because it was really only the people who needed to be there and they all knew what they were doing so there wasn't really a reason to secure the crime

scene again according to them now probably the biggest thing that the defense questioned was why in the world was the evidence preserved in red solo cups that were from a neighbor's house instead of preserving it in actual sterile evidence containers, which that's a fair question. Why are you putting evidence in solo party cups? It makes no sense. And the neighbor also wasn't just a random neighbor. He was also one of the higher-ups for none other than Canton Police Department. And the cups were not only not sterile at all, but they were also put into a plastic grab-and-go bag, which was unsealed and could have easily, very easily in my opinion, led to cross-contamination. We heard that the reason for all of that was because the lieutenant

was in his personal vehicle when he responded. So he had no sterile bags, no sterile containers with him, as well as no evidence markers for these crime scene photographs. Which I've got to just say, I'm not a cop. I don't know how all of that works. But maybe even if you're the first to respond and you're the lieutenant, if you don't have the material with you, maybe you wait until you get the proper materials to collect evidence rather than just going and grabbing a you know red party cup from a game of king's cup I don't know like I think that there could have definitely been a better approach but again I'm not a professional but something else that was brought up during the

first witness testimony was the whole clearing the snow with a leaf blower and then ultimately putting the pieces of evidence into that solo cup or multiple solo cups I should say but it was never brought up about any taillights that were initially found and the witness even said that they cleared the snow almost all the way to the ground so from my understanding it's not like it could have been hiding under two feet of snow. Not only did the witness not see any pieces of these taillight, but they also didn't see John's shoe or his baseball hat. So just to be extremely clear, the witness said that they only saw what looked to be blood in the snow, as well as pieces of the drinking glass. Now that tidbit of information is really important, at least for the defense's side of things, since they're of course trying to argue that it's super fishy that those pieces of evidence weren't found until after Karen's car was taken in, but not at the initial

crime scene. And lastly, the defense argued that Katie McLaughlin, the paramedic firefighter who testified over the course of two days last week, had committed perjury. During her testimony, Katie claimed that she knew of somebody named Caitlin Albert, but that she didn't really know her on a personal level or even a friendly level. And the defense argued, with pictures of the two of them on a beach vacation together, no less, that her statement was just complete bullshit, a complete lie. They obviously were friends. She did know her. They also presented pictures from the two of them at a baby shower back in June of 2021, which I gotta say, it's pretty recent in the grand scheme of things. But to put that into perspective, that was only about eight months before John's death. Now, the best part was that the defense team didn't even find those pictures themselves.

They straight up said that it was people on the defense team didn't even find those pictures themselves. They straight up said that it was people on the internet who started sending all of these pictures in. And along with those two pictures, they were also sent pictures of their high school yearbook, which showed that they were teammates on a track team. And it looked like they knew each other pretty well. So from last week when she was saying that she didn't know her at all and didn't know on a personal or friendly level uh you went to high school together you played track together you were on the or played track or ran track whatever it's called you were on the same team together

you went to a baby shower together eight months before John's death the two of you were on a beach vacation together as well there's photos of you two together on a beach like how do you not know each other on a personal level I don't know it's not making sense to me now I personally just can't even understand why you would even try to say that you knew her but didn't really know her when you know that it's a complete lie and one that can easily be backed up by photos I mean we all know that nothing is a secret on the internet right right? And especially in these cases, which are so public online, online sleuths will figure out every single detail, leave no stone unturned, bring it over to the Kate Middleton hoax that everybody thought was going on, which

sadly, it's not she's just very ill. But you know what I'm talking about, like, the sleuths are going to sleuth it out, there is no point in lying now what's interesting is this wasn't really focused on a whole lot from the judge's side of things because the judge stated that she was going to pretty much just get to it further on in the trial before caitlin albert took the stand so pretty much put it on the back burner even though the defense argued to the judge that his concern was that it get handled before Kaitlyn took the stand. Because since Katie McLaughlin testified on Thursday and Friday, we received a deluge of photographs that put her with Kaitlyn Albert on many different occasions after they graduated high school. We received information from their high

school yearbook that they were more than just acquaintances in high school. They were teammates on the track team. And even after I sent that email with the photographs that I attached to it, late last night, we received another photo where Katie McLaughlin and Caitlin Albert are standing next to each other in a photo at a baby shower in June of 2021, about eight months before John O'Keefe's death. It's very clear to us that Katie McLaughlin perjured herself. Hold on one second. So on top of that, we can discuss this later. I'd like to get the trial started. That's fine, Your Honor. We just, my belief, my strong belief is that we need to determine this today. And the reason is

that Caitlin Albert is coming up as a witness for the Commonwealth. She faces the same areas of cross-examination that Katie McLaughlin faced, and these photos are relevant to her cross-examination. Okay. All right. So, aside from the Rule 14 issue, I also think this is cumulative. I don't have the email. I do have the photos, but we can address this. When do you expect Albert, I'm sorry, what's, what's her name? Caitlin Albert. Um, I'd say midweek probably. It depends on how far we get today. So we'll adjust to see the today or tomorrow. So then on Tuesday, May 7th, it was day six and day six was a pretty big day because it's when the first real piece of physical evidence in the trial was actually shown,

other than just kind of the crappy evidence photos. The evidence was the broken cocktail glass that was found in the snow next to John's body. It was one of those pieces of evidence that was later put into those plastic cups, which caused the whole evidence collection controversy. People saying that it was contaminated, not collected the right way, which, fair, fair. So, the prosecution argued that the glass matched the one that John was seen on surveillance footage holding in his hands when he left the Waterfall Grill, because they had been drinking out earlier in the evening, as I had mentioned.

The defense argued that they really couldn't be too sure just from the footage, and they argued that they should have searched the Albert House for any matching glasses instead of just assuming that this was a glass from the bar earlier that day which I also think that that's fair too maybe there is a matching glass inside it would prove that he had been inside or you do match it back to the bar but footage alone not that it's always grainy I know that CCTV could be pretty crisp but don't you want to go a step further and really clarify where that glass came from? I don't know. Again, not a professional, not a professional. But both of those arguments are really trying to prove two opposite sides. The prosecution is

trying to prove, based on the evidence, that John never made it inside the Albert house, which would indicate that Karen is the one who ran him over and killed him before he could ever even get inside. But the defense is basically trying to prove the exact opposite, and especially that John did make it inside of that Albert home, which would mean that Karen had left him alive and well and wasn't involved in this at all, that he had gone into this house party and something had happened inside. Again, this would indicate that if that were true, something would have had to have happened to John while he was inside that house at this after party making it virtually impossible for Karen to have murdered him if she was already long gone and at home. Now in relation to the evidence we saw some photographs of the piece of the taillight in the snow in Brian Albert's front yard. Now I do want to say that

before you form any opinions you should look up pictures of the taillight evidence and those photos because I will say it's a pretty large piece of plastic and it's bright red in contrast to the white snow. This taillight is supposed to have been found in the exact same location as that broken glass but if you remember the witness from the day earlier said that he did not see that taillight. So with all of that information, do what you want with that. I'm not here to sway any opinions one way or another, but I do want to give you all of the information. The defense also brought forward Canton Officer Lieutenant Michael Lank, who was on the stand briefly the day before the court broke for the day.

And once he took the stand the defense really laid into him for multiple different things. He was the responding officer after John's body was found and the first thing that he had questioned was why had he dispatched that John seemed to have head trauma and specifically said and I quote I don't know if he's been in a fight or something. Officer Lang testified that it basically wasn't that deep and said that there were multiple possibilities running through his head after seeing the injuries. But running off of that, the defense then questioned why Officer Link never went inside of the Albert home to check of any signs that a fight had occurred, especially if a fight was something that he had been the one

to initially even bring up in all of this. Now, Officer Link was questioned without the jury present about his relationship and his friendship with Brian Albert, and this friendship was brought up at the time in front of the jury on Tuesday, but later questioned without the jury present. But apparently, the defense had learned of an incident back in 2002 where Officer Link had off-duty inserted himself into a group of men who were fighting outside of the bar, one of those men specifically being Brian's younger brother named Chris. And I think that the defense was trying to set up a standpoint that because Officer Lank knew the family and because they were all friends, his involvement in the case could very easily

have been corrupt. Officer Lank, however, argued that even though he had known all three of the Albert brothers his whole life, it's just from living in the same area and being around the same ages, which I can see in a small town that does make total sense. He says he really only had a closer and personal relationship with Chris, which was why he inserted himself that night. He testified that the incident had nothing to do with his ability to handle the investigation, even if Brian was in the center of all of it. Similarly to the defense bringing in an incident between Officer Lank and the Albert family, the judge allowed the prosecution to discuss a separate incident between Officer Lank and the Albert family, which they argued showed Officer Lank had some bad blood with the Albert family, meaning that his involvement wasn't corrupt or a conflict of interest at all.

See, apparently one of the other Albert brothers named Tim had hit somebody's car and then gone over to Brian's house, parked his car there, and that's where Officer Link investigated the accident. And charges were ultimately filed against Tim after the investigation that was led by Officer Lank, which the prosecution argued pretty much showed that Officer Lank wasn't biased toward any of the Albert family, and if anything, he sort of had a rocky relationship with them because of this incident. Officer Lank was also the person who transported those solo cups of evidence in that grab-and-go bag from the crime scene, though, and he testified that after transporting the evidence from the crime scene, they went into temporary evidence, which, interestingly enough, is accessible to everybody. I didn't observe any dirt in the glass.

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

No. After the, well, when you scooped up the blood, did you videotape that process so we know exactly which blood stain was scooped up from where? I don't recall if it was videotaped, but we did not document which scoop went in which cup. Right, but if it's a brown paper bag that's an evidence bag, you certainly just fold over the edge of it and just put a red evidence seal on it to make sure that that's secure and not tampered with, correct? That would be one way to do it, yes. I don't recall if I left them in the bag or took them out of the bag. I don't recall. If you left them in the bag, you likely would have...

If you're booking them into evidence, you likely would have used some red crime scene... Not crime scene tape, evidence tape. If I had left them in the bag, I would have put the property label right on the bag. So everybody could see it? Yes. Okay, it's an evidence bag with important evidence in it. Don't mess with it. So everybody could see it? Yes. Okay, there's an evidence bag

with important evidence in it. Don't mess with it. It's secure, correct? Yes. The whole portion of testimony was just kind of wild because Officer Link also said during the testimony that he wasn't sure what the protocol was for tagging evidence as well as taping and opening or not opening evidence bags, which just doesn't look good at all. Again, why are you handling anything if you don't know the proper protocol? So then on day seven, the trial focused heavily on the demeanor of Karen and John in those final hours before his death. Remember, the prosecution is arguing that Karen and John were in a rocky relationship. They were drunk. They were fighting. So because of that, Karen ultimately ran him over with her car as a result of said argument. Well, the defense is still arguing that no, that's not true at all.

Karen was framed. Karen is innocent. Surveillance footage of the couple, as well as their friend group at that bar that they had all attended just hours before John's death, called C.F. McCarthy's, was then brought into question and the surveillance footage shown to jurors was pretty much just very casual and very normal between the couple but some of their friends who were there with them that night specifically also testified to their demeanors. One friend named Nicholas Koloskiathis, I don't think I'm saying that right, Koloskiathis but it's a hard one but we'll call him Nick. He testified that the couple wasn't just acting normal, they were actually acting extremely affectionate, extremely loving toward one another. So much so that his own partner literally asked

him why he didn't act that way toward her, referring to the way that John was acting toward Karen. It certainly didn't seem as though it was a fight between this couple or that they had some sort of quarrel. Sure, anything could have happened when they left the bar and got into the car, but I mean, everybody was saying that it seemed normal. It seemed casual. And it wasn't just Nicholas who testified that they acted very affectionate toward each other. I mean, multiple friends who were there with them that night all testified the exact same thing. There didn't seem to be any tension between them and C.F. McCartney's, is that right? Not that I recall.

You didn't see any evidence of any problems between Karen and John O'Keefe? I did not. It seemed like they were like quite lovey-dovey at that point. Everybody was having a great time. The witnesses didn't just testify on their relationship toward each other that specific night either. They testified on their entire relationship as a whole. These witnesses were all friends of the couple, friends who knew them personally, who spent

a lot of time around both of them, and who all really would have had the inside scoop of their relationship, as well as any problems that maybe were going on in the relationship. And again, surely not everybody always knows the inner workings of a relationship, but this whole collection of friends and close friends at that, none of them reported any sort of rocky doings, any sort of rocky history between John and Karen. And all of the testimonies pretty much said the same thing. Karen loved John very deeply. And from the outside looking in, it seemed like they had a very loving and a very good relationship. Now like I said obviously things aren't always the same behind closed doors as they seem on the outside but who knows. The only testimony that really could even be perceived

as bad in all of this on Karen's part if you had to even call it that I guess was one specific testimony from a friend that claimed that Karen had expressed a little bit of annoyance in the past with John's family with his family not really stepping up to help with his niece and his nephew which if you've been following this case you know he has been raising them for eight years at the time of his death so that lack of help in turn meant less quality alone time between him and Karen and this again is something where you can kind of perceive that information however you will I'm not here to tell you whether or not that specific testimony alone time between him and Karen. And this, again, is something where you can kind of perceive that information however you will. I'm not here to tell you whether or not that specific testimony

made Karen look one way or another. I mean, you can decide for yourself. But the surveillance video focusing on the couple's actions toward each other wasn't the only one that was shown either in all of this. The defense showed a second clip from a bar called Waterfall Grill and Bar where the group went after they were drinking at C.F. McCarthy's and the video showed John and Brian Albert play fighting and arguing that quote speaks for itself. The defense also called to the stand the bartender who was working that night where she testified in agreement with the defense that even though everybody was ordering drinks and having some fun, nobody in the group seemed to be noticeably highly intoxicated. Now that's not to say that Karen or anyone else in the group was completely sober because they definitely were all drinking alcohol

that night, but several of the witnesses who testified this day, mainly about Karen and John's relationship, were also asked if they remembered Karen drinking anything, which they did testify that they had, but again, not in copious amounts. One of the witnesses, Kurt Roberts, testified that Karen was either drinking some sort of wine or a vodka mixed drink. Another witness, Michael, testified that he remembered Karen drinking some kind of mixed vodka drink as well. So based on the different testimonies, as well as that surveillance footage, it is safe to say that Karen had been drinking that night and that more than likely she was probably drinking some sort of mixed drink. Now the prosecution also used surveillance footage from the night at the bar to argue their stance in all of this. There was a specific moment in those surveillance clips from the last bar that the group was at before heading towards the

Albert House for the after party where John can be seen finishing his drink. He's then sitting an empty glass down on the table and he's picking up another glass on the table that was presumed to be Karen's. This is all before walking out of the bar and leaving with that glass still in hand and the reason that this footage was shown was because it was shown to kind of corroborate their argument that the broken evidence glass was from that bar, since he was seen leaving with it, and that this glass was not from inside the Albert home. So then on day eight of the trial, it was a half day, which ended right around 1230 p.m. On this day, Brian's younger brother, Chris, who was the center of a lot of conversations in previous days of court,

he took the stand to testify. Chris testified that he and his wife Julie, who testified later, went to the Waterfall Grill with the rest of the group that night. He claimed that Karen at no point seemed highly intoxicated to him, and he even went into detail about how there was never a moment where she was swaying, slurring her words, or talking any sort of gibberish. He even said that based on how she was acting, he completely believed that she would have been fine to drive herself and John home that night. Now remember, he is Brian Albert's brother, but he did not go over to his brother's house when the rest of the group went. Instead of going to the after-party, he testified that he decided to walk home.

Chris's timeline of events that night were also questioned. Chris had originally testified that he went back home from the bar around 12.05 to 12.10 a.m., but surveillance video showed that he hadn't even left the bar until a little before 12.14 a.m. Chris claimed that the walk from the bar to his house was around a five-minute walk or so, so when he was asked by the defense if it was impossible for him to be home around 12.05 or 12.10 based on that surveillance footage, he agreed. Julie, Chris's wife, took the stand next. She also confirmed that she was at the Waterfall Grill with Chris and with the rest of the group that night, which included both Karen and John, and most of her testimony as far as who was at the bar and how everyone was acting was pretty

much the same as Chris's. It's important to note that Julie testified that she didn't stay very long due to getting a migraine, so she didn't stay as long as Chris had, or she hadn't walked home with him either. Before leaving, though, Julie testified that she remembered the moment that Karen and John arrived at the bar, and she remembered specifically that Karen had smuggled in a glass of some kind of clear liquid, which they later laughed about together. Now, I'm guessing that the clear liquid is presumed to be some sort of liquor, I don't know, maybe vodka, so there's a possibility that Karen had arrived already tipsy or maybe drank more than it seemed from just the drinks that were ordered earlier directly from the bar. Now one of the last things that we'll go over was

during the cross-examination. The prosecution had asked Julie if it was correct that a few days after John's death she met with two state troopers who were part of the investigation. Her answer was yes. The defense though told, told her that according to records, it had actually been two weeks after John's death that the state troopers came and talked to her, which was on February 10, 2022. Now, one of those state troopers was a man named Michael Proctor, who Julie testified that she did know and was familiar with due to him being brothers with her close friend Courtney. But get this, Michael Proctor is currently being investigated internally due to possible violation of department policy. Julie testified that she

never spoke to Michael through her friend Courtney and that February 10th was the very first time. When she was asked what she and Courtney chatted about during a 12-minute phone call on February 1st, the day that Karen was arrested, she said she didn't recall. When she was asked what she and Courtney talked about during their 27-minute phone call the following day after Karen was arraigned, she again said she couldn't recall. Now all of this might mean nothing at all. I mean she genuinely could just have a memory that wasn't that great and it caused her to mix up the days it caused her to forget phone calls conversation but I thought it was important to mention

especially since it was the primary conversation to wrap up day five of the trial but again make with it what you will and come to your own conclusions so that's where we're at right now with the Karen Reed trial I mean more divided than ever. Like I said in the beginning of this episode a lot of people think that her defense team is like crushing it right now and bringing in a lot of reasonable doubt. Will it be enough when everything goes to the jury? TBD. We will find out. So I will keep you posted every step of the way. Every week we will do these trial recaps. as a reminder it will air first on the podcast and then once YouTube approves it a few days later it'll go live on YouTube so if you

are following this case and you want the updates like right away check out the podcast it's on all podcast platforms it's totally free just search serialistly and you will find it and you'll see it gets released every single Thursday and then the YouTube one I think will be up probably I don't know let's hope they approve it right away but probably set more like Saturday so that's where we're at now let me know in the comment section what do you believe have you been following this trial do you think Karen is guilty do you think she is innocent personally I haven't made my decision yet but I do have to say there is a lot of reasonable doubt here I don't know I don't know this is going to be an interesting one to watch which is why I think people are so glued to it

so I will keep you updated every step of the way as a reminder if you haven't snagged any of the new merch yet we have very limited quantities left we have sold out of so much already but you can check that out at annieelise.com we've got the hoodies the sweatsuits the stanleys all sorts of different stuff so check that out and until the next episode guys be nice don't kill people stay safe all the things and i will be back on the mic with you soon all right thanks guys bye Thank you.