Serialously with Annie Elise - 272: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 3: Solo Cups, Butt Dials & Witnesses Scramble to Cut Ties with the Alberts/Proctor

Starting point is 00:00:00 The Jeep brand has always stood for American freedom. And now we're standing with you with employee pricing plus. Hurry into your Jeep brand dealer for details today and join the family. Jeep. There's only one. Offer valid on select 2024 and 2025 Jeep brand vehicles for non-FCA employees and retirees. $200 admin fee applies. Not all buyers will qualify. Restrictions apply. Does not apply to leases. Ends June 2nd, 2025. Jeep is a registered trademark of FCA US LLC. Karen Reed accused of the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has consistently asserted her innocence, alleging a concerted effort by law enforcement to frame her.

Starting point is 00:00:43 a concerted effort by law enforcement to frame her. Charged with hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV early Saturday morning and leaving him in a snowbank. The closely watched murder trial has ended in a mistrial. The prosecution is indicating that it will retry this case, and the question becomes one of how will they do it? Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialist Sleeve. Hello, hello, hello.

Starting point is 00:01:29 Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly with me, Annie Elise. And today we've got the Karen Reed Week 3 Recap. You know these come out every Friday where I'm breaking down everything that you missed this week. All the high level information, the key takeaways, because I know you don't have seven hours a day to dedicate to watching the trial. If you do, hopefully you're in the live stream with me every day because I'm live streaming it over on my YouTube each day and we talk during the breaks and all of that, but

Starting point is 00:01:58 for those of you who don't have the time to do that, that's why we put together these weekly recaps so that you can get a good understanding of what's gone down this week and you know the need to know. So we are going to be talking about Jen McCabe where things left off with some of her testimony, some expert testimony regarding the phone, the searches, things of that nature. We also this week heard more about the tail light, the amount of drinks that were consumed. A lot of ring footage was reviewed. So there's quite a bit to go over.

Starting point is 00:02:30 Before we get into all of the details though, I do wanna just say on here, for those of you who listened to the podcast only and have not been watching the live stream of the trial with me, and I apologize if you've been watching the live stream with me, it's probably gonna sound redundant right now

Starting point is 00:02:45 but I'm gonna share my opinion on this case and where I've stood on this case since day one years ago when I first heard about it because I've seen some comments too. They're like, oh you're biased you are in Karen Reed's camp You think that she's being framed and that it's this mass conspiracy when I really don't think that and I've been very vocal about that maybe not enough here but certainly over on my youtube I've been very vocal about that from day one and here's where I stand with this case I don't know how John died I don't know who killed John or what really happened I don't know if it was Karen I don't know if it was somebody inside that house at 34 Fairview.

Starting point is 00:03:27 What I personally know and what I believe is that there is too much reasonable doubt to convict Karen. And that's why maybe sometimes my coverage or my opinions that I share do sound a little biased because I'm calling out the doubt. I'm calling out the red flags that we're seeing, the testimonies that aren't matching up, the inconsistencies, because remember too, innocent until proven guilty, and it is on

Starting point is 00:03:50 the state. They have to show the burden of proof that Karen is guilty of this. And that's why I talk about a lot of the inconsistencies, because I don't think that they definitively are doing that. Not to mention all of the shadiness with former trooper proctor, the weird google searches, the butt dials, the destruction of phones, the poorly collected evidence. So when I talk about those things, it's not to necessarily paint this grander picture of this massive conspiracy, but it's to illustrate how much reasonable doubt is there. The most

Starting point is 00:04:23 devastating part about all of this, no matter what side of the argument you're on, the fact of the matter is I don't believe in my heart that John will ever get justice. And that's really tough for, if it's tough for me to swallow that, I mean it's got to be tough for his family and friends and everybody else. But think about it, if Karen's acquitted, which in my mind she should be acquitted because there is so much doubt, I don't think that they can convict her fully knowing that she, you know, with full confidence that she did this. But I also don't think that there's enough evidence for them to charge anybody else, even if they did think it was somebody who was inside 34 Fairview that night.

Starting point is 00:05:00 So where does that leave us, right? It leaves us in a place where nobody's held accountable, nobody's convicted, and John doesn't get justice. And I don't know that we will ever actually have the real answer of what happened to John that night. Definitively. I know that we may be 80% there or 90% there, but I don't know that we ever will know for sure what happened to him that night and that is Devastating right? I also know that there are a lot of people out there that believe she is guilty That believe she is being framed and that this is some larger conspiracy even today I did I've been doing polls every single day as we've been covering the trial and Right now only six percent on that poll think she's guilty but that has

Starting point is 00:05:45 increased. Earlier this week it was at 2%. The balance is between being framed and set up and then having too much doubt to know which that's the third bucket that I sit in myself but there's a lot of mixed opinions out there. And I'll just share this too. When I first heard about this case, my mind went to, okay, common sense tells me that she was blackout wasted, that she hit him, that even though the injuries aren't exactly consistent with a six-foot man being hit with a car, maybe he was bent over outside of the car, and when she reversed, she hit him in the head, and that's what incapacitated him, and that's why the injuries don't look like a standing man who was hit by a car.

Starting point is 00:06:28 That would explain why his cocktail glass was still there outside with him because it was right when he got out of the vehicle. Maybe her music was too loud and that's why she didn't hear anything and she drove off, especially if in the morning when she called Jen McCabe she said she didn't even remember leaving Waterfall. Like my mind was like, okay, common sense. Occam's razor tells you she probably hit him. But then you start layering in all of the things of the Google searches, the red Solo cups, the butt dials, the destroying the phones, the this, the that, all of these things

Starting point is 00:07:01 that are being picked apart. Some of like the lies that have been exposed regarding the grand jury testimony, and there's enough question and enough doubt to creep in to where maybe common sense isn't so common. Maybe there's something more. Now again, sorry to reiterate, but for me I don't know if that is enough to where I'm able to jump full bore into, well you know, 15 people must have all conspired together then to cover this murder up and to protect their own. I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy. I don't think I can quite jump to that, personally. I know what

Starting point is 00:07:36 happens. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that there are plenty of situations like that that have happened out there, and maybe even that is what is happening right now, but I am not fully there. I don't necessarily believe that that's the situation. Again, I just believe that there's too much doubt to know what really happened and that's tough because then at the end of the day, John is not getting justice and we don't have any answers. Then again, I could be wrong and at the end of this trial maybe Karen will be found guilty. Maybe she will be convicted of second degree murder. Maybe only manslaughter. Maybe all three. I don't know.

Starting point is 00:08:10 So anyways, I just wanted to address that really quick because I know a lot of the people who listen to this podcast are not watching the trial every day with us. So you probably haven't heard my opinion on it and I've seen a lot of questions asking, well Annie, tell us what you think. What do you think about this case? What side do you stand on? And I just wanted to, you know, make it clear where I'm at. But now I'm gonna shut up and I'm gonna pass the mic over to Elena. You guys know her, Elena Johnson. She is our correspondent, boots on the ground in Boston. She is going to break down

Starting point is 00:08:39 everything that went down this week. So hi Elena and thank you for joining us. Hey Annie. Now we're officially three weeks into the Karen Reed Rue trial and that went down this week. So hi Alayna and thank you for joining us. Hey Annie. Now we're officially three weeks into the current Read Reel trial and given that it was originally scheduled for six to eight weeks it's safe to say we're approaching the halfway point. First some general updates to the case. On Monday we learned that Judge Canone has granted the motion to prohibit references to the Sandra Burchmore case unless that door is opened during other testimony.

Starting point is 00:09:06 Now, if you're not familiar, Sandra was a pregnant woman who was found dead in Canton in 2021. It was originally ruled as self-inflicted, but federal prosecutors have said that she was actually killed by a Stoughton police detective. Now, the defense wanted to bring up the case here, as it involves some of the same officers,

Starting point is 00:09:24 but the prosecution said, quote, "' some of the same officers, but the prosecution said quote, testimony about this unrelated death investigation would result in a trial within a trial, with much of the information being inadmissible, confidential, or offered without proper foundation. And it seems like the judge agreed, but it's still possible that the case could come up if a witness mentions it in other types of testimony. So picking up on Friday, May 2nd, we continue with the contentious cross-examination of Jen McCabe. We went through lots of lines of questioning and I want to hit on four of the big ones.

Starting point is 00:09:55 First, Jackson started by clarifying with Jen when she last saw Karen's SUV in front of 34 Fairview. Now Jen said she isn't exactly sure, but Jackson breaks out her testimony from 2023, where she said she last saw it at around 12.45am. Now this might not seem like a huge deal yet, but we should keep that timestamp in mind, because in the first trial, evidence was shown to suggest that Karen connected to John's WiFi by around 12.36 or 12.37am. And I think it's interesting that given this Wi-Fi timestamp data Jen has changed her stance from it was definitely 12 45 a.m. when I last saw the SUV to I'm not really sure.

Starting point is 00:10:35 Allen then had Jen retext between herself, her husband Matt McCabe, her sister Nicole Albert, and her brother-in-law Brian Albert. Here are a couple of the most interesting. On February 1st we have a text from Matt McCabe to the group where he's referring to the Channel 4 news crew that apparently showed up at Chris Albert's restaurant. Matt says quote, ask Chris to ask some questions. Tell them the guy never went into the house. Now two things stick out to me.

Starting point is 00:11:01 First keep in mind that this is three days after John's death, and Matt is referring to John as quote, the guy. Supposedly, according to Jen, John was very close to her and her family, but according to Matt, he's just the guy. Couldn't even use his name. Second, we have the full line, tell them the guy never went in the house. Now is this just Matt innocently reminding everyone of the important facts of the case? Or is this Matt instructing everyone to stick to their story, to stick to their lie? And if it is innocent, if this is what really happened, why did Matt even feel the need

Starting point is 00:11:35 to say it? Wouldn't they just know if that's the real story? Now, next there's a set of texts from when Carrie Roberts was at the McCabe house and was being interviewed about the incident. Here, Jen texts the group, quote, she's telling him everything in all caps, all the stuff. Then there's a couple of texts in between about the interview, and then Matt says, going to miss the basketball game at this rate. So we know that at the very least, Jen and Matt were listening in on and gossiping about Carrie's interview. And second, we've learned again that Matt is cold.

Starting point is 00:12:07 John's been gone for three days. First, Matt says he's just the guy. And now that there are important interviews about the death happening, Matt is only concerned with missing his basketball game. Another highlight of Cross was Jackson asking about the seven calls from Jen's phone to John's phone just after 12 15 a.m. on the night of the incident. And this question brought us our first instance of someone on the stand testifying to making butt dials. Now we have two interesting things about these alleged butt dials. First,

Starting point is 00:12:36 all seven of them were deleted from Jen's phone. And second, none of the calls went to voicemail. They were manually ended by the caller. Now this means that Jen not only butt dialed John seven times in a row, she also butt hung up each call exactly after it finished ringing. So we're talking about at least 14 distinct perfectly timed instances of butt-to-phone contact if we're to believe Jen's testimony. Now there's one last line of cross-examination that I want to discuss. Alan asks Jen why she didn't run into the house and grab her brother-in-law Brian Albert, a trained first responder, and have him help John. Then Alan goes a step further and points out, hey, someone's dead on your sister's front

Starting point is 00:13:19 lawn. She's not answering her phone. Did you think to go in and check to see if she herself was in danger? And to this Jen says, I didn't because your client was screaming that she hit him. She had a cracked tail light. She was crying. Here she's sort of implying that she, Jen, immediately figured out that John was hit by a car, so she didn't have any reason to worry about her sister. Jackson counters this and says, quote, the reason you didn't go inside the house is because you knew better. You weren't worried about them at all because you knew

Starting point is 00:13:49 what really happened, didn't you? Jen's answer, No, at that moment, I didn't know that John was hit by a vehicle. Now that's a bit of a contradiction from two lines earlier when she said she she immediately knew it was a car accident, slip of the tongue, miscommunication, or did Jackson catch her in a lie here? So after Cross, here are my final thoughts on Jen. I don't know if she's lying, if she's covering something up. I don't think any of us can really know for sure. But what I will say is that to me, she comes across as if she's more concerned

Starting point is 00:14:20 with siding with the prosecution and disagreeing with the defense than she is with telling the truth of what actually happened. Now that doesn't mean she's actually being untruthful, but I do think it makes her an unreliable witness and I'm curious to see if the jury will see it the same way. Now after finally finishing with all things McCabe, we heard from the prosecution's 13th witness Hannah Knowles, who's a forensic scientist. Knowles testified that given Karen's blood alcohol level of.093% at 9am, she would have

Starting point is 00:14:52 had a blood alcohol between.14% and.28% at 12.45am, which is more than three times the Massachusetts legal limit of.08%. On cross-examination, the defense brought up the possibility that Karen could have had additional alcohol after 12.45 a.m. when she returned to John's house, and Knowles admitted that if this were true, quote, the foundations of my calculations would be incorrect. Then on Monday we went through a number of the prosecution's witnesses rather quickly. We heard from Ryan Nagel. Ryan is the brother of Julie Nagel who was at 34 Fairview the night of the incident for Brian Elbert Jr.'s birthday party. So we have Ryan, his

Starting point is 00:15:30 then girlfriend Heather Maxson, and his friend Ricky, who drove to 34 Fairview around 12.30 a.m. to pick up Julie. Ryan testified that as Ricky's truck approached Fairview, he could see a black SUV that ended up turning onto Fairview just before they did. Now he said that the SUV wasn't speeding and appeared to be operating safely, and he said he didn't notice any pieces missing from the car's taillight. Now here's something interesting. Ryan said that he never saw anyone exit the SUV, and he never saw anyone laying on the ground, but he was also firm that the passenger seat was empty.

Starting point is 00:16:04 So in his version of events, where was John? This testimony was followed up by testimony from Ryan's now ex-girlfriend, girlfriend at the time, Heather Maxson. Again, she was in the car with Ryan and Ricky during the trip to pick up Julie from Fairview. And her testimony was mostly identical to Ryan's, except she said she did see a male in the passenger seat. Now regardless of whether you believe that Ryan was correct and John wasn't in the car, or you believe that Heather was correct and John was in the car, the point is they both

Starting point is 00:16:33 saw Karen arrive at Fairview shortly before 1230, and they remained there for at least a couple of minutes and they didn't observe any sort of accident. Now I bring this up because if it is in fact true that Karen connected to John's Wi-Fi by around 12 37 a.m. the time window that she could have hit him is getting really, really narrow. Now the next witness was Sarah Levinson. Sarah was at the house also celebrating Brian Albert Jr.'s birthday and Sarah left the party with Jen and Matt McCabe between 1 30 and 2 a.m. and she testified that at that time she didn't see anything unusual or body-like in the yard at this time. Then

Starting point is 00:17:10 on cross-examination Jackson brought up that Sarah had apparently been to 34 Fairview around 20 times but she had never met their German Shepherd Chloe. And to me he asked this to further the defense's argument that Chloe was dangerous and the Elberts knew it so they tried to keep her away from strangers whenever possible. Now that brings us to testimony from Katie McLaughlin, an EMT firefighter. Katie was one of the first emergency workers on the scene to treat John, and she testified that Karen told her the infamous, I hit him statement. Now this is the third witness who's testified to Karen saying, I hit him.

Starting point is 00:17:43 We heard paramedic Timothy Nuttall say it, and we have of course heard Jen McCabe say it. As I've said before, I think this alleged mission is one of the biggest parts of the prosecution's case. So when it's brought up we need to pay close attention to how many times she said it, when she said it, and to who she said it because you can bet that the defense is going to bring up all of those aspects. Now on that note, Katie says that Karen said, I hit him four times. Jen McCabe said that Karen said it three times. In Nodal's first testimony, he said that Karen said it two times. Then in this trial, he's changed it to now back to three times. Now maybe the witness is disagreeing on the specific detail of how many times she said

Starting point is 00:18:22 it wouldn't be that big of an issue. But the thing is they're all so adamant that their memories of this particular moment are really vivid. But clearly they can't all be vividly correct because they disagree. And get this, Katie says that at the time Karen said, I hit him, Timothy was in the ambulance with the doors closed and the engine on. So how is he so confident that he heard it? Now here's the other thing about Katie. She has a connection with Caitlin, wait for it, Albert, Brian Albert's daughter. But the nature of their relationship depends on who you ask. If you ask the prosecution, Katie and Caitlin went to high school together, but Katie says quote, I wouldn't consider her to be a friend of mine. But if you ask the defense, these two follow each other on social media, they go on trips together,

Starting point is 00:19:09 they stay overnight at each other's apartments, they attend baby showers together, and there are photos of the two of them together to prove all of this. Now is it necessarily a huge smoking gun, a definitive proof of corruption, that the firefighter is friends with the homeowner's daughter. No, I don't think so, but the thing is what makes it look bad is that they're hiding it. If there's nothing going on, why go through all this effort to deny it? Then Monday finished off with retired police lieutenant Paul Gallagher, who arrived at 34 Fairview to collect evidence after John had been taken to the hospital. Gallagher found patches of

Starting point is 00:19:45 bloody snow and a broken cocktail glass. Now he said his search was thorough but that he didn't find a shoe, a hat, or any brightly colored taillight pieces. He also testified that he didn't see any footprints, dog tracks, or any other sign that John could have been dragged through the snow. And throughout direct and cross-examination, he was asked about how he collected evidence, how the evidence was stored, and how the residence at Fairview was secured and searched. Let's hit that first point of how the evidence was collected, because this is the part that has a whole lot of people raising their eyebrows. It turns out that Gallagher used a leaf blower to move the snow, and then once he found spots of blood, he scooped that bloody snow, not into evidence containers, but into red solo cups.

Starting point is 00:20:31 And not even sterile ones, these were ones that he grabbed across the street from his cop buddy. And to top it off, he stored those solo cups not in an evidence bag, but in a stop and shop grocery bag. Now, I understand the weather was bad and this was an emergency, so you could argue that they were doing the best with what they had on hand. And to that point Gallagher says, quote, I expected it to be John's DNA and I wasn't going to get a second chance on it. It was either collect it or never have it. End quote. But remember, Canton PD was only about a mile from 34 Fairview, and Gallagher took the time to dispatch one of his officers to go get the leaf blower, but not to get real evidence

Starting point is 00:21:11 containers? And to the second point, how was the evidence stored once it was back at the police department? Well, according to the defense, the less than ideal treatment of the evidence continued. They showed photos of those uncovered, unsealed solo cups of blood just sitting out in the open in the police station's garage. And not just anywhere in the garage, they were right on the ground next to Karen's SUV. Jackson called this a quote, recipe for cross contamination.

Starting point is 00:21:37 And I'm inclined to agree. During the third main thread of questioning, Gallagher said that he never asked any of the neighbors for security footage from the night of the incident, even though he admitted that he knew the neighbor across the street definitely had a working doorbell camera. And furthermore, he said that while he was briefly inside the house at 34 Fairview, he never searched it, and he maintained that he never had any reason to do so, even though he acknowledged that at that time there was a possibility that John might have been involved in some sort of fight. Now throughout the day on Tuesday the 6th, the prosecution played more clips from Karen's

Starting point is 00:22:11 various interviews. In one interview Karen says, quote, When John got out of the car at Brian Albert's house, he took my full vodka soda. And I think this is the prosecution answering the question of where did those cocktail glass shards come from? They say that they came from a glass that John was holding. In another clip, Karen says, quote, Now this clip, I do think it's a strong point for the prosecution, because while she's

Starting point is 00:22:50 not saying, you know, I definitively hit him as a declarative statement or anything, she's speculating and strongly speculating, I'd say, that she could have hit John. And we have to think about this from the jury's point of view. They're seeing this and they're potentially thinking, well, Karen herself thinks she could have done it. We have her lawyers making their case on the fact that there's no collision, but now the jury is looking at evidence of the defendant saying, well, maybe there was a collision. And I think that difference is a serious problem for the defense.

Starting point is 00:23:20 Now the next witness for the prosecution was meteorologist Robert Gilman, and I think the prosecution called him mainly to establish that the ground was completely frozen at that time, meaning that maybe a hit to the head on that hard ground could have killed somebody. But I also think Gilman provided some decent points for the defense, because he testified that at around 1am on the night of the incident, snow was only falling at around 3 tenths of an inch per hour and visibility was 1.25 miles. And he agreed that at that time, which was around the time of Jen McCabe's lookout mission and around the time that some of the partygoers started to leave the house, he

Starting point is 00:23:59 said that someone should have been able to see something laying only 30 feet away. Then Nicholas Garino retook the stand for the final time. We've heard from him throughout the trial, he's a state trooper, and he's in charge of cell phone extractions. He testified that on the night of the incident, there were 34 unanswered calls from Karen to John, as well as 8 voicemails and 2 texts. I'll read a couple of them. At 12.37am Karen left a voicemailail saying quote, John I effing hate you. At 12.59am she said, John I'm here with your effing kids. No one

Starting point is 00:24:31 knows where the eff you are you effing pervert. At 1.10am she left a voicemail saying, you're effing using me right now. You're effing another girl. Now, is it a good look to be throwing eff bombs at your boyfriend who it turns out was dead or dying at the time? No. But it's so bad of a look that I almost think it comes back around and helps the defense. And what I mean by that is that if she intentionally and knowingly killed him, which is what that second degree murder charge says, would she really go call him to scream at him?

Starting point is 00:25:03 If she were trying to use these calls to establish an alibi, I would imagine she'd try to come off as a little bit more loving, wouldn't you? As is, I think the messages are so raw and so vulgar that they actually come across as genuine emotion and help Karen's case. And Grino's testimony did sneak in one more very important tidbit, one that I really hammered home earlier in the video, and that's the fact that Karen connected to John's wifi at 12.37am, and he also testified that her phone would have been, at most, 300 feet from the home at that point. So now we know A, we have direct evidence refuting Jen McCabe's testimony that Karen's SUV was still at 34F at 12.45am, and B, the window that Karen's SUV was still at 34 Fairview at 12.45am.

Starting point is 00:25:47 And b, the window that Karen could have hit John is getting really small, like we have mere minutes between when Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxson put her safely driving up to 34 Fairview, and when her phone puts her back at John's house. Then after Carina, we heard brief testimony from Lieutenant Charles Ray, who did a well-being check on John's niece and nephew in the morning of the incident. Then the final witness on Tuesday was Lieutenant Tevin O'Hara, who helped search for evidence outside of 34 Fairview a couple of hours after the incident. He said that his team found a sneaker and six or seven pieces of tail light that matched Karen's Lexus. Now remember, Gallagher and his trusty leaf blower, they didn't find any tail light

Starting point is 00:26:29 pieces a couple of hours earlier. But regardless of that throughout the trials, I've always thought that the tail light evidence, along with the witnesses saying that Karen said I hit him, are the strongest pieces of the prosecution's evidence. I personally see holes in each of those that I think cast reasonable doubt on them, but nonetheless I do think they're the best thing the prosecution has, so I'm always curious to see how the defense will handle them. And in this case Jackson didn't really go after O'Hara's background or his methods of evidence collecting or anything like that, but he

Starting point is 00:27:02 instead went the route of showing that there could have been opportunity for someone else to plant evidence. Jackson said quote, For some time before you got there, the scene could have been accessed by anyone. He also pointed out that there were at least six people at the scene at the time, who were not from Kevin's team, and he got Kevin to admit that he saw no crime scene tape, barricades, or police presence that could have prevented someone else from accessing the scene. And while I do think that Jackson made some good points, I personally think that the defense

Starting point is 00:27:33 still has a lot more work to do when it comes to discrediting mis-tailed evidence. I do think it's a lot to just ask the jury to buy into the police straight up planting evidence. And while I think the defense has made some headway in showing that there was opportunity for someone to do so, I don't think that the opportunity is enough. So I think we should expect to hear more taillight talk from both sides. Then we kicked off Wednesday with state trooper Connor Keefe briefly taking a stand for the prosecution. Now that's the last name Keefe, not O'Keefe, keep that in mind. And he

Starting point is 00:28:05 showed jurors John's shoe as well as two pieces of clear pterolite, but he helped process at the scene. On cross-examination, he was hesitant to admit that he had ever worked with Michael Proctor. I can't say I really blame him there, I wouldn't want to be associated with Proctor. But he eventually admitted that he and Proctor did interview Sarah Levinson together. But he eventually admitted that he and Proctor did interview Sarah Levinson together. Keefe also observed John's autopsy performed by the Commonwealth Medical Examiner, and the defense said, quote, you left without her ruling at a homicide, correct? That question was objected to, and the objection was sustained. But we know that this is true, and the defense was making the point early.

Starting point is 00:28:41 Next we heard from Jessica Hyde, a digital forensics examiner. And if you thought you heard the last of House Long to Die in Cold, buckle up because we heard about it for hours more. And similar to the testimony from the prosecution's other digital forensics expert that was Ian Wiffin, this testimony was very long, is very technical, so I'm here to try to give a high level summary.

Starting point is 00:29:04 And Matil D.R. is that Hyde agrees with Gwiffin's findings that Jen McCabe searched house long to die in cold between 6 and 7, not between 2 and 3. And to support her argument, she explained that a single search can leave multiple artifacts in different places on a phone, and an artifact is like a digital footprint. Hyde said that Jen's search left multiple footprints, but only one of them is associated with the 227 timestamp. The rest point to the 623 timestamp. Now, Alessi pointed out on cross-examination that her stance on this issue has changed somewhat since the case started. In a May 2023 report, she said that the search was associated with a timestamp of 22740.

Starting point is 00:29:48 And likewise, in the first trial last year, when asked whether she could definitively rule out that the search happened at 227, she said that it was unlikely, but that she couldn't rule it out completely. Now you'll also remember that Wiffin testified that Gen searches were deleted by the phone itself, not by the user. Hyde agreed, and she even said that the user can't delete a tab even if they wanted to. They can close a tab, they can delete a search, but they cannot delete a tab. And she said the reason that the tab appears to be deleted is because it was living in what's called the right-of-head log. This is an intermediate database

Starting point is 00:30:25 within a phone that basically holds incoming and outgoing information. So in other words, it contains both deleted data and data that hasn't yet been delivered to a specific database. And because of that distinction, Hyde said that it's wrong to assume that data has been deleted just because it's living in this intermediate database. And likewise, she had an explanation for why the seven alleged butt dials from Jen to John appeared to be deleted from Jen's phone. Hyde said that Jen's model of iPhone can store up to 200 recent calls at once before it automatically deletes the oldest one. And she testified that the calls from John were behind that 200th call, and they were therefore removed by the phone, not by Jen.

Starting point is 00:31:09 Now at this point, the jury has heard so much house-long-to-die-in-cold talk that I can only imagine what their take is. If I had to guess, since they've now heard two experts say that it occurred between 6 and 7, not 2 and 3, I would imagine they're leaning in that direction, but who knows if that will change when the defense calls their cell phone experts. The thing I want to point out is that this is kind of devolved into a trial within a trial. And what I mean by that is that whenever house long is brought up, suddenly the defense becomes the ones that are prosecuting Jen, and the prosecution become the ones that are prosecuting Jen and the prosecution become the ones defending

Starting point is 00:31:45 her. And sticking with that analogy, if the jury finds Jen quote-unquote guilty of making the search at 227, it is probably game over for the prosecution. But if they find her innocent and may agree that the search was at 623, they're still at square one when it comes to Karen's guilt. Do you see what I mean? Like this mini trial we're having for Jen, yes it's important, but it doesn't actually answer any fundamental questions about Karen's guilt. And on that note, we ended the day with the prosecution playing another clip from Karen's interviews, where she says, quote, Jen McCabe, it's me or her. Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are." Now that brings us to Thursday, which was dedicated to testimony from Yuri Bukhanik, a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the supervisor of none

Starting point is 00:32:33 other than Michael Proctor at the time of the incident. Now right off the bat we heard something interesting. Bukhanik stated that his understanding was that Karen had made statements, quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defensive stance that Karen had made statements, quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defense's stance that Karen was making interrogative statements, in other words those are questions, about hitting John, not declarative statements. Now Buchanek also testified to observing the injuries on John's body at the hospital, which included some blood pooling under his head, blood and swelling in both eyes, small cuts to his face, and abrasions or cuts to his right arm. He said that he found a pile of

Starting point is 00:33:11 John's clothes, including a sweatshirt, shirt, and pants, which he showed to the jury. He also testified to finding one of John's shoes at the hospital, but there was a little bit of a slip-up when he was showing it to the jury. The prosecution brought him an evidence bag and asked Bukanik if this is the shoe he recovered from the hospital. And he's like, nope, that's not it. That's the shoe that was found at 34 Fairview, John's other shoe. Then the judge called a break and when they returned Bukanik was again asked and now he was like, yes, this is the hospital shoe, not the 34 Fairview shoe.

Starting point is 00:33:45 So a bit of a blunder, it could have been an honest mistake, but in a case where evidence management is already under such heavy scrutiny, I do think these little things could add up for the jury. Now after the hospital, Bukinick and Proctor visited Karen at her parents' house, and at that time he said that her car was missing a large chunk of its rear right tail light. So they seized Karen's phone and car and brought the car to the garage at the Canton Police Department. Even though Canton PD had already been removed

Starting point is 00:34:14 from the investigation at this point, because of the connection between Brian Albert and Kevin Albert, a Canton PD officer. Now Buchanan testified that he never touched Karen's car once it was in the Canton PD garage, and he said that he never saw Proctor touch it either. Now to be clear on the timeline, Buchanan says that they got Karen's SUV at around 4.15.

Starting point is 00:34:36 O'Hara from the search team arrived to 34 Fairview at 4.56 p.m., and his team found that first piece of tail light at 5.45 p.m. and his team found that first piece of tail light at 5.45 p.m. So if evidence was planted, which is what the defense is alleging, the time period for that to happen is not terribly wide. We're talking only about 45 minutes. But speaking of people who might plant evidence, the prosecution tried to get ahead of questions that they knew the defense might ask about Proctor.

Starting point is 00:35:04 So on direct examination, they asked Bukinick about his relationship with Proctor, and he admitted that he was on a text thread with Proctor and others where Proctor made comments on the case. Three of those read, quote, funny, I'm going through his R-word client's phone. No nudes yet. And then, I hate that man. I I truly hate him which is in reference to defense lawyer David Yanetti. Bukinick said he sent a thumbs up emoji in response and as a result of these texts and others we know that Proctor was fired and Bukinick admitted that he was found guilty of quote failing to

Starting point is 00:35:38 properly supervise and or counsel a subordinate and his punishment lost five days of vacation time. Now lastly, we saw a lot of media, including videos and photos of Karen's car, which Bukinik described as missing a taillight in the photos, videos, as well as from his own first-hand knowledge. And we also saw surveillance footage from the bars that show Karen ordering and consuming a number of drinks. Now, after direct examination, both Bukinick and Jackson for the defense got a little bit testy on cross-examination, I will say. To kick it off, Bukinick was really resistant

Starting point is 00:36:13 to saying that Proctor was the lead investigator on the case. And then he was really resistant to saying that Proctor was involved in many aspects of the case. And to be honest, I got some Jen McCabe vibes here. I think that Jen and Bukanik both give off this aura that's like refusing to admit that the defense is right about anything. And to me, sorry, it looks a little shifty and I think that Dre will be smart enough to see that. So after we finally established that Proctor was heavily

Starting point is 00:36:41 involved in the case, Jackson asked if the investigation was done properly. Bukanik said, quote, this investigation was conducted professionally, with integrity, and all evidence collected, all the statements collected, pointed in one direction. There was no bias influence on the evidence, on the information that was collected, or which the direction the investigation pointed." Jackson then said, quote, Do you believe that Mike Proctor's involvement in this case tainted the investigation? End quote.

Starting point is 00:37:13 Bukinic said no, and then after some pushing some back and forth about the exact wording, he says, the investigation was handled with integrity by Michael Proctor. That was a quote. Now, just to refresh your memory, that's the same Michael Proctor. That was a quote. Now just to refresh your memory that's the same Michael Proctor who said quote, funny I'm going through his R word client's phone no nudes so far. So that's what honor and integrity mean to the state police, apparently. Now another important point from Cross, Bukunik admitted that early in the investigation

Starting point is 00:37:42 he thought it was possible that John was involved in some sort of fight, like getting hit in the face with a cocktail glass. But he admitted that he didn't secure the house at 34 Fairview and only interviewed three of the partygoers from that night. And he also admitted that a report about the incident wasn't written until almost a year and a half later. Jackson also pointed out that there was no chain of custody log for John's clothes for the time that the state police had them. And throughout this and other discussions of the evidence, Jackson was always quick to point out that Proctor was involved at every turn, that he always had access to all the evidence. And that's consistent with the defense's

Starting point is 00:38:21 opening argument, opening statement rather, that Proctor had his hands literally and figuratively all over this case. And again, that's because the defense wants the jury to view the case and all of the evidence through the lens of Proctor was biased. That was the end of the day on Thursday, but it wasn't the end of Cross, and I think we can expect a lot more back and forth between Bukinick and Jackson. I'll wait till the end of his testimony to give my final reading on Bukinick, but for now, I put him pretty high on the evasive scale. Just my opinion. Now with all of this Proctor talk, a lot of people have been wondering when he'll take

Starting point is 00:38:58 the stand. I personally don't think the prosecution is going to call him at all because I don't think it would help their case any. It could even hurt it given all that's come out about Proctor. So I think we'll have to wait for the defense to call him. Now on that note, Karen herself said on Wednesday that the prosecution is quote, almost over. So it's possible that they'll be wrapping up soon. We'll have to wait and see what happens next week, Gany. Talk to you later. All right guys, well you just heard from Elena. It was a jam-packed week. Next week is also expected to be a pretty busy week. And think about it, although we've seen so many witnesses and heard from them, there are still many more to go. We have Proctor, we have Higgins, we have the ARCA experts, and all of that is going to be some pretty

Starting point is 00:39:43 interesting and quite honestly probably even damning testimony. So we have a ways to go. We're gonna be entering week four next week. It is slated to be an eight week long trial. I will be there. I'm not gonna give the exact dates just cause I don't know what Looney Tunes are out there on the streets,

Starting point is 00:39:57 but I am going to be in Boston myself very soon. And I will be in the courtroom covering it directly with you as well. So stay tuned for that. Other than that guys, we will be in the courtroom covering it directly with you as well. So stay tuned for that. Other than that guys, we will be back on next week. I will give you the recap again on Friday with Elena and we will be live streaming day to day over on my YouTube channel. So thank you guys so much for tuning in.

Starting point is 00:40:16 Let me know what you guys think about this case. What bucket are you in? Are you in bucket one? Karen is guilty. Bucket two, she is innocent and being framed or bucket three Too much doubt to know let me know where you guys sit. All right. Thank you so much And until the next one don't drink and drive be nice and don't kill people stay the hell away from Boston just for now just for now just stay on the side of caution and

Starting point is 00:40:42 Just you know be responsible and make good choices. Not to sound like a teacher but that's all I got for you. Alright bye. I'm out. you

Serialously with Annie Elise - 272: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 3: Solo Cups, Butt Dials & Witnesses Scramble to Cut Ties with the Alberts/Proctor

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.