Serialously with Annie Elise - 164: Karen Read Trial: Proof She Was Framed & This is A Cover Up?

Episode Date: June 7, 2024

One of the most high-profile murder trials in the country, Karen Read is happening, and we have A LOT to talk about. Karen Read's trial was full of explosive testimony from key witnesses. Was she framed or is she guilty of murder? Karen Read Episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/karen-read-cold-blooded-murderer-or-cover-up-the-very/id1519456164?i=1000651041606 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 new episode of Serialistly. Hey everybody, welcome back to an all new episode of of serialously with me annie elise trial recap edition there will not be any trial recap for chad daybell today because as you probably know his loser ass was sentenced to death see ya wouldn't want to be uh so happy I don't have to talk about your dumb face anymore see your dumb face anymore and karma I love karma but we do have to talk about a trial that is ongoing right now and that is the Karen Reid trial because for not only are there a lot of updates going on this week in the trial but I started talking to so many people at crime con last week last weekend to be specific. Why did I say

that like a British last weekend? Last weekend about this trial, I was talking to not only so many of you listeners, but also a lot of creators. And I'm not going to put them on blast here and say what creators it was because I don't want their opinions to be shared if they don't want them shared. But what I will say is this. A lot of people in the creator space and in even the law space are kind of saying the same thing of like, first of all, yes, there is enough reasonable doubt. But like also the prosecution, I can't talk today. The prosecution better show their hand

because they haven't shown any sort of smoking gun at this point, any sort of definitive evidence. And so the fact that they've kind of been wasting all of these weeks and like, why did they bring charges against this woman? Tell us what concrete evidence you have. So everybody's kind of expecting or not hoping, but expecting and believing, I don't know what the right word to use for that is, that we will know what that

is soon to where it will be then, okay, slam dunk case, she is guilty. Otherwise, I mean, this is kind of just like a shit show, right? So let me go into all the trial updates and tell me as we're going to, or I guess tell me at the end, has your opinion at all shifted from maybe where you were at the beginning of this trial of hearing about this case in regards to if you feel like she's guilty, innocent, what do you think? And as a reminder for those of you who have no clue what I'm even talking about, I'm going to link the full case recap episode for you so that you can get fully caught up because this has been a doozy of a case. So week six of the Karen Reed trial started this week, and the majority of the

testimonies this week centered around forensics. More specifically, details surrounding Karen's broken taillight and what evidence was found outside the home on 34 Fairview. So on Monday, June 3rd, it was day 19 of trial. I can't believe we're already at day 19. And we first heard testimony from Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Kevin O'Hara. Now, on January 29, 2022, Lieutenant Kevin was contacted by another member of the State Police Force, Lieutenant Ryan Tolley, and he was asked to help in the investigation. Lieutenant Kevin testified that Lieutenant Tolley told him that the victim, John O'Keefe, was hit by a car and they were trying to find broken pieces of the taillight from that car. Lieutenant Kevin then said that they went to

the home on 34 Fairview and they found plastic pieces of the taillight between the flagpole and between the fire hydrant. They also found one of John's shoes. Now this is the area where Jen McCabe previously testified she saw Karen's car on the night of January 29th. Found multiple pieces of red and clear taillight. And where were they in relation to sort of the grid or the area that you had set up? They were on the street in between the flagpole and the fire hydrant. And sir, in addition to the pieces of red and clear plastic, fire hydrant. I believe maybe six or seven pieces. There was three larger And how big or how small or did they range in size as far as the pieces that you located? There was three larger pieces, two red, one clear, and then a couple of smaller pieces. In addition to the pieces of red and clear plastic that were uncovered during the search process,

what if any other items of interest were located? We found a sneaker. And where was that sneaker located in reference to the scene or your search efforts and in reference to the pieces of clearly red plastic? It was the same location. Generally, it was in between the flagpole and the fire hydrant. The sneaker was flush up against the curb, and it was in between the flagpole and the fire hydrant. The sneaker was flush up against the curb and it was upside down. I think we had found one piece of taillight prior to the sneaker and then after we found the sneaker we found a few more additional pieces of taillight.

Close to the curb as we started digging originally the snow drift, the snow pack was pretty solid from where the plow had kind of cleared to. So once we were able to move through that, we started getting into fresh, undisturbed snow, started moving through that, which was a lot easier to move at that point. And all of the items we found were close to the curb. And so my question also, sir, is sort of how deep within the snow that you were digging, what did each of those guys? They were all found at ground level.

During the defense's questioning, Lieutenant Tolley was then asked if he was aware that during that time, the crime scene was not being controlled, meaning it wasn't blocked off, there was nobody watching it, and it was basically this open area to whoever walked by. Lieutenant Tolley said that he was not aware that the crime scene was not being controlled, and it is the defense's belief that these pieces were planted in that area because, again, the area wasn't under any surveillance and was kind of just wide open. The next person to take the stand was a forensic scientist for the Massachusetts State Police Department named Maureen Hartnett. She inspected Karen Reed's car after it was first taken into police's custody. She testified that she observed a dent on the

car's trunk door, that she observed scratches on the rear bumper, and also the broken taillight. She also found, quote, apparent glass and, quote, apparent hair on the car's bumper. She tested the hair, and she determined it was human. However, the defense then asked her how it would be possible for her to find hair and glass on Karen's car bumper. This is because her car was towed to the police station around 60 miles away in a blizzard. So how could a small piece of hair and a small piece of glass stay on a bumper throughout that trip? That was the question here. And clearly it seemed like the defense was insinuating that the pieces were planted after

the car was then brought to the police station, which if you remember, once it was in the police station, that surveillance video is now mysteriously gone or erased, which could happen, but again, just feels, I don't know, I don't know, a little weird. So Maureen also testified that she tested the undercarriage of Karen's car for blood, but that that test came up negative. She also tested the clothes that John was found in, which had reddish-brown stains on them. Those clothes did test positive for blood. Pictures of the clothing that John was wearing the night that he died were then shown in court.

He was wearing a gray sweatshirt, and the sweatshirt had multiple holes and tears all along the right shirt sleeve, and the prosecution argued that these rips got there when John was hit by Karen's car. However, the defense asked Maureen how those tears and holes could have gotten there, because they didn't necessarily match up with somebody being hit by a car. She testified that she couldn't explain how the damage to the sleeve got there. She couldn't find anything on the car that would have caused those tears either. Maureen also said that she was given the broken glass that was found at the scene and the red Solo cups that contained the frozen blood stains, which came from the snow in the area where John was found. Those stains tested positive for blood, but no DNA test was done. Then a second forensic

scientist testified named Ashley. Ashley is a trace evidence analyst specializing in, quote, puzzling. So what she did is she examined these small pieces of debris that were found on John's clothing as well as the broken taillight pieces. She testified that she was able to put the broken pieces together in a way that matched the broken taillight on Karen's car. Court concluded, and then we took a break, and court wasn't in session on Tuesday, but we resumed on Wednesday. And it started with Ashley continuing with her testimony. Again, she was asked about the broken pieces of the taillight, and she showed how they were put together. She was then asked how she obtained these pieces, and she said that the evidence was transported to her by lab lead investigator Michael Proctor. These pieces were

transported to her six weeks after John died. Six weeks. They were delivered on March 14, 2022. Ashley was asked if she knew what happened to the evidence between January 29th and the delivery date of March 14th, but she said that she didn't know. Trooper Proctor is now finding these pieces over two weeks after the smaller pieces were found by Trooper DiCicco, correct? Objection. Sustained. February 18th is nearly three weeks after January 29th, is it not? Correct. nearly three weeks after January 29th, is it not? Correct. This larger piece of red plastic,

like the previous two that you just identified, were all found on February 18th, about three weeks after January 29th, correct? According to your records? Correct. And regarding these last three evidence bags, labeled item number 713, 715, and 716 in February of 2022, from February 8th to the 18th, those were all plastic pieces collected by Michael Proctor, correct? Correct. addition to collecting those plastic pieces on all those different days, Michael Proctor was also the person to hand deliver those last three evidence bags all on March 14th of 2022, correct?

Correct. Now here, it seemed pretty clear that the defense was trying to insinuate that there might have been some chain of custody issues and that Michael Proctor could have maybe tampered with the evidence during those six weeks. Michael was also brought up a lot during this week's testimonies as well and many people are wondering if he will ever even be called to testify during the trial. He was the lead investigator in this case after all and I have seen some people suggest that maybe he will what is it not exude I don't know the word I'm looking for uh claim his right to remain silent and not self-incriminate I don't know if that really is true and if that will happen if he is called to testify but I guess we'll see so another forensic scientist then testified named Christina

and Christina was asked about the glass that was found on the bumper of Karen's car and the broken glass that was found near John's body the defense then asked her if there was a physical match between the two of them, and she said yes. However, there was a lot of glass on Karen's bumper, and only one piece matched the glass that was found near John. So as you sit here, none of the items on the bumper were deemed to match the cup, correct? Correct. All right. Then the Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Uri Bukunic, and I hope I'm saying that right, took the stand. And this was a pretty big testimony, guys,

because Uri is Michael Proctor's supervisor, and the two of them worked closely together during this case. Many people noticed that his demeanor on the stand was also a little bit weird. He was seen smirking at the defense a lot. He was kind of making these like odd faces at the jury and quite honestly just overall seemed very smug during his testimony. He said that on January 29th, he met Michael Proctor at the Canton Police Department around 9. a.m. Then, together,

they interviewed Jen McCabe, Matt McCabe, and Brian Albert. He said all three people were interviewed separately. He then testified that they went to the hospital where John was taken and they got his clothing for evidence. At the hospital, his clothes were all piled up one on top of another. So they put the clothing all in one bag, then took them back to the police station. There, they laid them out in a secure area to dry. They were apparently soaking wet because John's body had, remember, been in the snow all night. After, he said they then went to Karen's parents' home where they saw her SUV with a broken taillight. He was asked if he saw Michael Proctor touch Karen's car, but he said no.

They talked to Karen, and she said that on the night of January 29th, she dropped John off at 34 Fairview, she did a three-point turn, and then she went home. She said she went home because she was having stomach issues and she didn't want to go inside of that house party. She was asked to explain exactly how she did that three-point turn, though, and was then told that her vehicle and her phone were going to be taken for evidence. Karen said that she knew that her taillight was broken, but she didn't know how it happened. Something very strange about Yuri's testimony was that the prosecution was asking him a lot about John's injuries at the hospital. The nature of his injuries, how severe they were, what potentially caused them etc and what is weird about this is that Yuri is a police officer not a medical professional so why would he be questioned about these things rather than I don't know say a coroner this line of questioning was also objected

to and then sustained but I think it's important to bring it up because I wonder where the prosecution was going with that line of questioning a series of pictures and videos of Karen's car leaving John's home were then shown, and the video showed Karen's car leaving John's home on the morning of January 29th at around 5 a.m., and in the video, you can see the broken taillight. Uri said that it looked like Karen's car got close to John's when she was leaving, but it didn't hit John's car. They also didn't find any plastic pieces in that area, so therefore, that's not what caused Karen's taillight to crack. But the defense argued that you can see her hit John's car, and that that is in fact how her taillight cracked. Then Yuri was shown security footage from the bars that the group attended on the night that John died.

In the footage, you see Karen get this tall glass of something, and throughout the night you see kind of poor shots of what looks to be vodka in a larger glass, into the larger glass, and Yuri said that Karen consumed about eight drinks in total that night. Yuri started to read a receipt from the bar too, but that ended up being objected to and then sustained, and this is likely because we can't be sure who paid for the drinks, whose drinks were on that tab, who drank what drink, etc. So we don't even know what was on that receipt, which means we don't really know what Karen was drinking that night. The large drink that she was drinking could have easily been a vodka soda or just even plain soda like Sprite. I don't know. We don't know for sure. But as court continued, it was only a half day on Thursday,

and the day started with more testimony from Sergeant Urie. He claimed that the bar footage shows Karen drinking nine drinks that night, then goes on to talk about the missing doorbell camera footage from John's home. There were two clips missing, though, when Karen arrived home after dropping John off and when Karen was showing Jen her cracked taillight the next morning. He then testified that he and other officers, including Michael Proctor, went back to 34 Fairview on February 3rd. By this point, snow from the blizzard had already started to melt and they hoped that this would reveal more

pieces of evidence. He said that they brought tools like rakes and shovels, and they found John's missing baseball hat. They found a straw, and they also found more plastic pieces near the flagpole and that fire hydrant. They again returned on February 4th and also the 10th, and then they found six pieces of plastic and 14 pieces of broken glass. Then an audio file was played of him interviewing Karen Reed on June 9th, 2022. And in this clip, you hear Karen ask him, we're all in the same joke, right? She said John was beaten up by Brian Albert. But then. I mean, we're all in on the same joke, right? My tail end is cracked and John's just pulverized. Then began the defense's cross-examination of Yuri. They started by asking him how he obtained the doorbell camera footage from John's home,

and Yuri said that they obtained a search warrant, and they eventually received the videos from the company who made the doorbell. Yuri said that they asked the company if anybody knew had logged into the account, had maybe changed the account information, or if anything was deleted. But he said that the company was not able to provide this information. That information simply did not exist. The prosecution here was insinuating that Karen did delete this footage. But the defense asked Uri who had this footage, and it was Michael Proctor, so they were insinuating that he deleted the footage. The defense asked Yuri,

during the entire course of your investigation, you never revealed any evidence whatsoever that my client ever even accessed the account information? And Yuri replied with, nothing provided by Ring suggested or proved any evidence of that type of activity. Uri then explained that he wasn't initially told that the person injured at 34 Fairview was a police officer, and he first heard that the person suffered from a heart attack. The defense asked him if he made a call to the hospital, asking if John may have been involved in a physical fight and hit his head with the cocktail glass. But Uri denied ever making this call. However, the defense continued to push him,

and then he admitted that he did make this call to the medical examiner's office, not the hospital. He was then asked if he followed any steps to determine whether a fight broke out in the home or not, if they secured any items from inside the home on 34 Fairview because it was a potential crime scene, right? However, Urie said that no items were secured from the home. He claimed that they, quote, followed the evidence and had interviewed people who were in the home that night. Then they asked him about John's wet clothing and asked where they were held. Urie said that they were held under lock and key at the police station. He even showed a label indicating

the clothing was bagged for evidence and when they were finally dry on February 4th it indicated as such. Now this was six days after they apparently obtained the clothing from the hospital and laid them out to dry though. He said he did not know who bagged those items on February 4th. So again the defense here was questioning why these clothes took so long to dry. What happened to them between January 29th and February 4th? And if somebody maybe even potentially tampered with them. Plastic pieces were found on John's clothing, but this all lines up with the defense's argument that this whole thing has been a setup, with evidence being planted, evidence being tampered with all along the way so then court ended for

the week with the judge telling the jury that the case would likely be handed over to them for deliberation by the end of June I mean we have still got a ways to go guys and I don't know I don't know I don't know every time I think that I know what direction this case is going I don't I get like a curveball thing I just like I can't imagine that charges would be brought simply to frame somebody maybe but even so it's like there is so much reasonable doubt and I hate to be a broken record but there is so much shady stuff going on here I don't know if it's because it's a cover-up for the fact that there were officers drinking and driving that night and they're trying to save their. I don't know if it's because they are trying to cover up a fight happening inside that house

and them framing this woman. I don't know if it's just a string of bad luck and crazy-ass coincidences, and it means nothing. I don't know. I really don't know. I keep, like, going back and forth on this. So tell me what you guys think. I can't believe that we still have such a long way to go, and I want to know what that smoking gun is going to be from the prosecution.

There's got to be something. There has got to be something. Right? I mean, right? Unless they're just like throwing everything to the wall hoping it sticks. I just cannot figure it out. So let me know what you guys think. Thank you guys for tuning in to another episode of Serialistly. As a reminder, I will be back on the mic first thing Monday morning. And guys, the case we were doing a deep dive on on Monday is one that all of you have been requesting and it took me a while to like stomach it, but it's coming. So it'll be fresh on the podcast bright and early Monday morning. But until then, please stay safe please be kind to other people don't kill anyone and just like be a good human I can't believe we even have

to say that but I feel like we do right and don't frame anybody not that she is being framed but you get it all right guys anyways I am signing off I will be back on the mic with you very very soon thanks so much. Bye. Thank you.