Serialously with Annie Elise - 275: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 4: Higgins Late-Night Trip, Cringe Texts, & Public Opinion is Changing

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of serial asleep. Hello, hello. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly with me, Annie Elise. And today I have got the Karen Reed weekly recap for you. It's always, you know, as many times as I say it, it is always a mouthful. Now this week has been very, very interesting because we have heard from a lot more witnesses, we've heard a lot more testimony, and there was even a point in the trial where it sounded like Judge Beverly Canone like whispered asshole under her breath to one of the lawyers, which I thought was very interesting. But there have been a lot of very key moments that have

Starting point is 00:01:00 happened this week and I made it clear on my last recap episode, but I just kind of want to briefly touch on it again here really quick. I'm very much, I haven't moved in my positioning even after this week. I still very much think there's just too much reasonable doubt to convict. Whether or not Karen did it, whether she's being framed and set up, I don't know. That's not my place to judge that necessarily. If I were on the jury, I would just say that there is enough reasonable doubt that I cannot convict. And so that's been my stance since the beginning. And I think there are still,

Starting point is 00:01:33 so regardless how you look at it, some questionable things, questionable behavior, ditching of the phones, lying about butt dials, weird timelines and why people are going to the police department in the middle of the night and then like lying about certain things. Like it's their own fault, right, for exuding shady behavior and putting reasonable doubt on this case. So if they want her to get convicted, like quit acting so shady, right? But anyway, the reason I bring that up is because as I've been live streaming the trial every single day for the last few weeks, I have a poll up every single day. And my poll allows the three buckets like I talked about last week.

Starting point is 00:02:11 Do you think Karen Reed is guilty? Do you think that she is innocent or being framed? Or do you think that there is too much doubt to convict or no? And I will say over the last few weeks, it has trended pretty much the same. The guilty bucket is always between 4 to 6 percent, and then the balance is usually split between innocent and framed or too much doubt to know and convict. However, today when I put that poll up, again,

Starting point is 00:02:41 after this week's testimonies, the guilty percentage went down to 2%. So are there certain things that happened this week that are now making those who thought that she was guilty question themselves and think, now there is a little bit of doubt. A lot of the testimony this week was from experts themselves, not necessarily friends or people like that. And the medical examiner testified too. So it is interesting. It is interesting to see how steady these results from this poll were and now how much they're shifting. And even though it's only shifting a few percent, that is shifting a lot because if you take

Starting point is 00:03:17 those numbers, and not that it of course is going to be indicative of what a jury is thinking, but it's the mass population. And if you take those numbers and then drill it down to the jury pool, there it certainly seems like they would be leaning towards either an acquittal or a mistrial because they're split. I don't know, but very few apparently think she's guilty. Now whether that's true or not, I don't know. I am just reporting what the poll numbers are coming in at. But anyway, we have got the recap for you today where we're going to break down everything that went down this week. Alaina still is in Boston, boots on the ground, breaking down everything for us.

Starting point is 00:03:55 And I'm about to jump on a flight to Boston too this weekend, and I will be there next week in person breaking it all down for you. Of course, at that point, I'm not bringing all my equipment with me, so it's going to be easier for me to update you guys on Instagram through stories and things like that, so make sure you're following at underscore Annie Elise. And then we also will be doing these recaps and I will be updating you that way. But now let's hear straight from Elena everything that went down this week, all those testimonies, and why maybe people now are shifting in what they think. Hey Annie, can you believe it's already the fourth week of the retrial?

Starting point is 00:04:28 Let's go ahead and get right into it. So starting with last Friday, which was May 9th, we had a full day dedicated to cross-examination reviewer Yuri Bukinic, who again is a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the former supervisor to the now infamous Michael Proctor. Now I thought this was Jackson's strongest cross in terms of laying some of the groundwork for the defense's core arguments. First Jackson got Bukinick to admit to some serious problems with that tail light evidence. Bukinick found tail light fragments on the lawn of 34 Fairview from February 4th to February

Starting point is 00:04:59 10th, but Michael Proctor searched that same area between the 11th and the 18th, and claimed to have recovered some 40 more pieces, including chunks as big as 6 by 6 inches, which I would think would be very difficult to miss the first several times around. Now you might think, okay, well given the weather, some of the pieces would have been stuck in the snow and not obvious at first. But Buchanan committed that the weather was significantly warmer at this point, and that snow was basically all melted by the fourth. And Jackson really drove that point home. He said, look, Lieutenant Gallagher and his trusty team of leafblowers

Starting point is 00:05:35 and solo cups, they didn't find a single piece of tail light. Then he takes it a step further and says, quote, As a matter of fact, you're also aware that no tail light material was found until after that SUV was in Massachusetts State Police custody and sitting in the Sallyport and Canton, correct? And Buchanek actually agreed. Now, the defense also showed ring camera video from John's driveway from around 5 a.m. on the morning of the incident. And Buchanek agreed that it appears to show the rear right side of Karen's Lexus hitting John's car. Now Bukanik said that the collision didn't cause any damage to either vehicle, but I do think that this video has the potential to go far in showing that Karen could have broken her taillight in a different way than

Starting point is 00:06:20 just hitting John. Next on Cross, Bukanek testified that he personally verified that the Albert's German Shepherd Chloe had been rehomed, but he admitted that the only proof he had of this were vet records that didn't list Chloe's name or the new owner's name. And speaking of suspicious record keeping, Jackson pointed out that dozens of official reports were filed in this case, and basically none of them were done so in a timely manner. In fact, at least seven reports were written and filed more than a year after the incident. And it's not just the reports. Bukinick admitted that Ricky and Heather, who were in the car with Ryan Nagel and served as eyewitnesses to Karen's car pulling up to 34 Fairview, they weren't interviewed until more than a year and a half

Starting point is 00:07:03 after John's death. Now, as I said, given all that we've discussed, I thought that Jackson made a lot of progress in Cross, but Buchanek was not making it easy for him. He was especially resistant to admitting to Michael Proctor's involvement in the case. And my thing with this is, you know, he said last week he had every confidence that Proctor handled the case with honesty and integrity. Okay, if that's true, then why is he also trying so hard to distance himself from Proctor? In my opinion, he can't have it both ways. And then maybe as some sort of cosmic karma for being so difficult on cross, Bukanik was the poor soul who had to read aloud every text message between Bryan Higgins and Karen.

Starting point is 00:07:42 Now as a refresher, Brian Higgins, not to be confused with Brian Albert, the homeowner, he's an agent with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and he was at the bar with John, Karen, and the crew, and he was also at 34 Fairview the night of the incident. Now these texts took hours to read aloud in court, and I've done my best to narrow it down to just the highlights. Alright, first is mutual. You think you can handle me? Karen, are you hard to handle? Brian, what do you like about me? Karen, I just feel like you're

Starting point is 00:08:34 from my neighborhood. Brian, yeah, ditto. Karen, and I think you're hot. Brian, you really think that? I've always thought that about you. Karen, what? Brian, that you're hot, smart, witty, but I didn't think you were interested. I'm glad I stopped by. I should have come earlier. Karen, yeah, I was basically begging you. Brian, you don't have to beg me. I'll give you whatever you want. Alright, next thread. Karen, hey, we're single and we don't have kids. We can you whatever you want. Alright, next thread. Karen. Hey, we're single and we don't have

Starting point is 00:09:06 kids. We can do whatever we want. Brian. Don't you have a boyfriend? Karen. None of us is married. Brian. True. So game on? Karen. We can say whatever we want. Game on. Now this next one is a little bit more serious. Karen says, I went from being solo to trying to give attention to kids, who aren't mine and I never wanted kids. Brian, I thought you were happy in this relationship. Karen, It's just a very, very complicated dynamic with the four of us.

Starting point is 00:09:38 He isn't cut out for what he's doing, and the kids present constant issues. Brian, I think he believes he's doing the right thing. Karen, well of course he is, but his heart isn't in it. It's only because he was very, very close to his sister. I never got married, and now I'm somehow arguing with someone about raising kids. I roll emoji.

Starting point is 00:09:58 I try very hard, but they're very spoiled, and they're not my family. My parents keep telling me I'd feel differently if they were my own, or my own sisters. Then I told you he got drunk and sloppy on New Year's Eve while we were away, and that had really affected me. Brian. What did he do exactly? Karen. He was a puddle all day and then disappeared. So I was with the kids celebrating New Year's without him, which shouldn't be my role. Then I found him all over a friend's sister in the lobby of our hotel. And she's gross, which I think might actually be worse. Not sure.

Starting point is 00:10:29 Brian. Oh god, did they bang? Karen. No, I doubt it. He was a mess. But honestly, the issues with the kids bother me more than him actually cheating. They're constant, and it feels like a lose-lose. Basically, I just feel like I've spread myself too thin and sometimes it's thankless. Brian, do you plan on leaving him? Karen, I don't have any plans at the moment in either direction. Sometimes I go back and forth. Next text thread. Brian, I'm confused. You don't feel guilty inviting me over? Karen, should I? Brian, I don't know. Who knows what you feel. Karen, I don't really think I should feel guilty. Brian, dude I'm just asking. Don't get your thong all twisted up. Karen, you have no impact on my thong. Alright, next thread. Karen, John has showed me about five times the ring video of me walking you out.

Starting point is 00:11:25 Brian, um, what? Karen, yeah, he has cameras everywhere. You cops. Eye roll emoji. Brian, Jesus. Karen, he's like, Christ, you guys hooking up? Brian, OMG, great. I don't need drama, dude.

Starting point is 00:11:41 You legit planted one on me. Karen, I know where the cameras are anyway. Duh. Brian, so your slick move isn't on there? Three question marks. Karen, of course not. Brian, OMG. I almost vomit emoji. Karen, it was just a peck anyway. I kissed Carrie and gay Jeff too. Alright, next text thread. At this point, Karen is trying to make plans to finally see Brian in person at his house. Brian, I'm up for a drink. Do you really want to come over?

Starting point is 00:12:13 Karen, only if you want me to. Brian, can you take charge? Karen, I thought we already settled this. Brian, haha. Then to stop by for a drink. Now there are a couple of more texts where he gives her his address, and then the texts stop for a little bit until later that evening, when Karen says, home, alive. Winky face emoji. So we can infer that they did meet up and did who knows what. Maybe it was just a drink. Maybe it was, as Brian would call it, a bang. But either

Starting point is 00:12:43 way, Karen must not have been very impressed because the next thread isn't until several days later on January 23rd when Brian says, "'Have not heard from you.' Karen, phones work both ways emoji. Brian, thought you were all set. Karen, with talking? No.

Starting point is 00:13:00 Brian, hmm, you sure? I knew this is how you would act. Whatev, you can get most any guy you want so you're not losing any sleep over this. Then she didn't reply to that and the next text isn't for five more days on January 28th at 11.32pm which is when Brian saw Karen walk into the bar with John and he texted her, um, well? She didn't reply. Then the final text is on January 29th at 11 54 a.m. when Karen says John died. Okay, that was a whole lot. I hope you guys are still with me. Now something I find interesting is that in the first trial it was the prosecution who called for these texts to be read

Starting point is 00:13:38 and in this trial it's the defense. Because the way you interpret these could be different depending on your opinions on the trial, right? If you lean more towards the prosecution side, you might look at these and say, well, geez, here's a woman who's clearly unhappy with her relationship, quickly cheating at least to some extent. Could this contribute to a motive for her to want to get rid of her boyfriend so she could be with Brian the full time? But if you lean more towards the defense side, you might instead say, okay, we have a guy who's been attracted to his buddy's girlfriend for a long time. She finally seems to reciprocate for a bit. And then she ghosts. Could that be motive for him to want to get rid of the boyfriend?

Starting point is 00:14:13 Could there be some jealousy there? So the fact that it was entered into evidence by the defense suggests that they think the texts make Brian look more guilty than Karen. Will the jury see it that way? What do you guys think? My take, I don't think that these texts make either Karen or Brian look great. But what I don't see is a clear arrow pointing to murder. I don't see like the, I'll get rid of him so we can be together,

Starting point is 00:14:37 that kind of thing. I don't see that from either side. So are they guilty of cheating? Probably. Bad sexting? Definitely. But murder, I'm not convinced, for either one of them. Then Monday the 12th was yes, another full day of testimony from Sergeant Bukanik, which means this guy was on the stand for three full days. We're going to go rapid fire to the most important stuff here for all of our sanity. Rapidfire point one. On cross-examination, Jackson mentioned that

Starting point is 00:15:05 a plow driver around the Canton area saw a Ford Edge parked next to 34 Fairview around 2.30am, and then he said that that car was gone when he returned about an hour later. Now Buchanek testified that he didn't investigate the Ford Edge further, even though it was known that someone in the Albert family owned that type of car. Next, Jackson brought up that Proctor wrote an affidavit that said that Karen's car was seized by them at 5.30pm, but it later came out that the car was actually taken more than an hour earlier at 4.12pm. Little sketchy, little concerning given some of the circumstances of the case.

Starting point is 00:15:44 Next, Spukenek testified that he was aware that Proctor had some sort of relationship with the Alberts before they interviewed Chris and Julie Albert, but he said he was fine with keeping Proctor on the case anyway. Alright, next with what are we at? Rapid Fire Point 4? I think. Alright, 4. Jackson showed surveillance footage from different angles around the Canton Police Department, taken at around 1.30am on the night of the incident. From these basically we can see someone who a bukhanik identified as Brian Higgins milling around the police station, the parking lot, the Sallyport, and that's

Starting point is 00:16:17 what they call the police station garage. So he's in his Jeep, he's walking in and around other cars in the lot, he's holding what they call a snow broom, and at one point he's also talking on the phone. So basically the point is, hey, what's this guy doing at the police station this late at night? He previously testified that he was moving the cars around in the lot in anticipation for the snow, but he doesn't actually move any of the cars other than his own, he just gets in them and like shuffles around.

Starting point is 00:16:46 So again, red flag? I think it could be. Jackson showed a video of the Canton PD Sallyport just after 5.30pm on January 29th. The video shows Karen's parked car, along with the tow truck driver kind of near the hood of the car, and Michael Proctor circling around and then he's kind of popping up and messing around with something that appears to be near the left rear area of the car. And that's how this footage was shown in the first trial. And given this footage, Jackson pointed out that Buchanek testified in that first trial that neither he nor Proctor even came near the rear right taillight, which is in line

Starting point is 00:17:22 with the video. But then here's the kicker we were all waiting for. This video is inverted. It's actually the mirror image of what happened. That means all that messing around, poking around, whatever it was that proctor was up to. That was actually happening next to the right rear taillight, not the left. Buchanek actually agreed, and he also admitted that the video was taken before any tail light

Starting point is 00:17:45 evidence was found at 34 Fairview. And he said that the drive from Canton PD to 34 Fairview only takes about 4 minutes. And in my opinion, this was big for the defense. Remember, before Bukanek was called, all the defense had really done to refute the prosecution's tail light evidence was show that there was this window of opportunity where the scene at 34 Fairview was unmonitored. But now, they've not only shown the jury that there was opportunity to plant the evidence, they've also pointed out exactly who they think did it, they've showed video that suggested that he could have done it, and maybe worst of all, they also showed that measures were

Starting point is 00:18:23 taken to manipulate or cover up that video evidence. Now of course, Bukunik denied that the inversion was purposeful, but you get what I mean, right? This definitely looks shady. The question is, has the defense done enough for the jury to buy that a seasoned Massachusetts state trooper would really plant dozens and dozens of pieces of evidence at a crime scene? How is the jury going to weigh the testimony and the trustworthiness of Bukinik against the shadiness of this inverted video? I don't know. What do you guys think?

Starting point is 00:18:53 Now after Yuri's testimony finally wrapped up on Monday, we learned pretty last minute that court wouldn't be held on Tuesday. And it later came out that that was because Karen herself was sick. But she seemed well enough for court to resume on Wednesday the 14th. Now the prosecution went through quite a few witnesses. And my theory is that they kind of realized that Bukanik hurt their case more than helped it so they wanted to bring in their most reliable, most emotionally compelling witnesses today. Again, just my opinion. Now we started off with John's niece who was 14 at the time of his death

Starting point is 00:19:25 and now only 17, so cameras weren't allowed for her testimony. We did learn that she said Karen would take her out for food and to go shopping, but she sometimes felt like Karen was cold and favored her younger brother, John's nephew. She also testified that Karen and John initially seemed to have a pretty good relationship, but they began fighting a couple times a week towards the end. She specifically mentioned Karen and John arguing during a family trip to Aruba. Apparently something about his nephew being on an iPad too much, and also this thing about John kissing someone else, which lines up pretty well with what we learned from Karen and Brian's text messages. Also in early 2022, John's niece said that she heard John tell Karen that their

Starting point is 00:20:06 relationship was quote, good, but it had run its course, end quote, which ended in John storming off to a bedroom and Karen banging on the door. Now fast forwarding to the morning of John's death, his niece testified that Karen was frantic and saying things like, could I have done something? And maybe I hit him. She also said that Karen didn't try to comfort her or her brother at all after John's death. Now most of the stuff we already knew from other sources, but I think the niece's testimony was still valuable for the prosecution in the same way that John's mother testimony was valuable. It reminded the jury and us that in the middle of all this crazy case, there's a real and beloved person who's no longer with us.

Starting point is 00:20:46 And we now have two kids who've lost their mother, their father, their father figure, who was John, and they've also lost Karen as a mother figure. And it was a reminder that honestly, no matter what the verdict is, there are really no winners in this case. The next witness was State Police Sergeant Zachary Clark, who was in charge of photographing Karen's SUV while it was in the Canton PD garage, as well as photographing this

Starting point is 00:21:08 scene outside of 34 Fairview. He showed the jury photos of the odometer and the backup warning display on Karen's car. On cross-examination, Clark testified that he didn't photograph the car until February 1st, and he admitted that he didn't know how much access Michael Proctor could have had to the car before he arrived. And on a different note, Clark also said that he and Proctor interviewed Colin Albert together. Now that's the nephew of the homeowner, Brian Albert. And when the defense pointed out that Colin wasn't interviewed until a year and a half after the incident, Clark couldn't really explain why they had waited so long. Another state police sergeant was on the

Starting point is 00:21:43 stand next. This was Evan Brent who photographed some of the evidence that was recovered from the lawn of 34 Fairview on February 3rd, and he also went to one Meadows and photographed John's car in the driveway. Now he testified that he didn't observe any damage to John's car, which is in line with Bukenick's testimony, but it doesn't really answer the main question of, well, was there damage to Karen's car?

Starting point is 00:22:05 Because of course it's possible for one car to be damaged, but not the other if there's an accident. Now just like with Clark, the main point that the defense established during Brent's cross-examination was that he wasn't involved in the case until February, and he had no knowledge of who could have had access to the car or to the crime scene before then. Again, showing that there's, at the very least, some opportunity for Proctor to get his hands on everything before everyone else became involved. Sergeant Brian Gallarini briefly took the stand next, and he testified to taking DNA samples from Sergeant Pukinick and former Trooper Michael Proctor.

Starting point is 00:22:39 Then lastly on Wednesday, we heard from Maureen Hartnett from the State Police Crime Lab, who processed a lot of the evidence at the scene. Now I gotta say, I liked Hartnett. She came off as being reliable, and she talked about being very meticulous, very by the book when it came to handling the evidence. In fact, maybe she could teach Mr. Leafblower Gallagher a thing or two about evidence. But even so, I think her analysis can only be as good as the evidence she's given, and in this case, a lot of the evidence is questionable at best.

Starting point is 00:23:08 For example, she had a swab the blood that was in those good ol' reliable red Solo cups, and she testified that she's never before or since seen evidence collected in cups like that. Also, can you believe that after all this nonsense with the cups, no one even tested those swabs she took to determine whose blood it was, or even if it was blood? She also showed jurors up close photos of John's clothes, and one in particular caught my eye. It was John's gray hoodie, which appeared to have some sort of puncture mark in it, about the size of the tip of my pinky, and it was sort of rough around the edges. And when I saw it, I immediately thought, that doesn't look

Starting point is 00:23:43 like something that would be caused by a car collision. It kind of looks more like a bite mark or a tooth mark. Then on cross examination, she said that she swabbed the undercarriage of the car and found no traces of blood. She also admitted that any or all of the damage she observed to the car could have been there before the incident. And on cross, Alessi for the defense cleverly pointed out that one of the photos of the rear bumper that she took

Starting point is 00:24:06 actually shows a reflection, which basically means that Hartnett claimed that there was twice as much glass on the bumper as was actually there, because the reflection made it look like the glass was doubled. Now I put this blunder in the same category as the shoe mix up we had last week.

Starting point is 00:24:21 Is it a big deal on its own? Probably not. But could it start to add up in a case where evidence handling is already being called into question? Absolutely. The biggest one uncrossed, though, came when Alessi asked about the hair and glass found on Karen's car. Hartnett testified that she found a glass charge resting on the rear bumper and a hair on the back right side of the car. And she said that neither one were hard to remove. She was able to just pick them up and move them with tweezers.

Starting point is 00:24:48 But if they weren't attached to the car in any way, they were just sort of laying there. How were they able to survive that 30 mile, 45 minute journey from the Reed House to Canton P.D., nonetheless during a blizzard and with heavy winds? Then on Thursday, Dr. Arrini-Squirtobello from the medical examiner's office took the stand. Now I was really excited to hear her testimony, because up until this point, the prosecution hasn't really given the jury much to conclude how John died. She testified to examining John's external injuries, as well as conducting an internal autopsy.

Starting point is 00:25:20 On John's face, she identified a 1cm cut to his eye, a scrape on his nose, and swelling and blood pooling under both eyelids. On the back of the head, she identified a 2.5cm cut, and then during the internal portion of the autopsy, she found skull fractures under the cut area. She also observed bleeding on the top of the brain, and because of that, she decided to send the brain to a neuropathologist. She also found fractures in the fourth and fifth ribs close to the sternum, but she testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these were caused

Starting point is 00:25:52 by chest compressions during CPR and she didn't observe any other injuries to the chest or abdomen. She observed two bruises on the back of John's right hand and she testified that one was consistent with bruising from medical staff inserting an IV, but she couldn't say how the other was caused. And she also identified a faint scratch to the back of the left hand. On the right arm, she found multiple cuts ranging in size from three millimeters to seven centimeters. She didn't measure their depth, and she also couldn't say what caused them. She also identified a half centimeter scrape to the side of the right knee. She said that John's toxicology report showed no prescription medications or drugs, but that his blood alcohol level was high

Starting point is 00:26:32 between 0.21 and 0.28 grams per deciliter. Ultimately she determined the primary cause of death to be blunt impact injuries to the head with a secondary finding of hypothermia, since his core body temperature was only 80.1 degrees when he was brought to the hospital. However, she was unable to determine the manner of death. The potential categories for that are homicide, suicide, accidental, or natural. And she wasn't able to definitively say that one of those was the matter of death. Then cross-examination was handled by Alessi for the defense. Now the defense's main goal here was to raise doubt that John's injuries could have been caused by a car crash or hypothermia.

Starting point is 00:27:10 So let's go injury by injury and see if the defense's points make sense here. First we have those two more minor injuries to the face. The cut to the eye and the scrape to the nose. Dr. Scordabelli admitted that those could not have been caused simply by getting struck and falling backwards. And interestingly, she agreed that those injuries could be consistent with getting punched. Next there's that wound to the back of the head. She said on direct that this was the primary cause of death, so it's maybe the most important

Starting point is 00:27:37 injury. Alessi asked if she would expect to see grass inside of that wound if it were caused by a backward fall onto the ground. She agreed that it were possible, but she said that the injury was otherwise completely consistent with falling backwards onto a flat frozen ground. Lastly, there's the important question of damage to John's internal organs. Specifically, Squirtabello has said that the stomach and pancreas showed signs consistent with hypothermia, including ulcers, discoloration, and

Starting point is 00:28:04 hemorrhaging. On crash, she admitted that the ulcers in John's stomach, which she had previously attributed to hypothermia, could have also been caused by alcohol consumption. Now, Alessi actually showed autopsy photos from the inside of John's stomach, and by the way, these were so graphic that the jurors had to request a break. And he did this to point out that not much of the stomach area was actually covered in ulcers. Now as for that pancreas hemorrhaging, which is just another word for bleeding, Skrortybello agreed that there could be alternative causes, like deep chest compressions that were performed on John by a Lucas machine, which is a sort of automatic CPR machine. And finally, she admitted that John had no signs of frostbite,

Starting point is 00:28:44 which I have to admit is pretty surprising considering it was below freezing on the night of the incident. At the end of those findings, Alessi asked Scordobello if she wanted to change her opinions on whether hypothermia was a contributing cause of death for John, but she said, quote, No, I do not. I still believe that there were hypothermic signs. Now, there was another interesting part of Cross, which came when Alalesi gave Scordabello a copy of John's death report. When she was asked to read it to the jury, she mentioned that it references some kind of altercation or dispute in the original death notification. Now as soon as that was read, of course the prosecution was like,

Starting point is 00:29:18 objection, objection, and the judge told the jury to disregard it. But again, it gives credence to this idea that early on, even law enforcement were considering that something other than a car crash could have caused John's death. Now overall, I found Dr. Skorty Bellow to be a credible witness, but I found it hard to say if the testimony really helped either the prosecution or the defense very much. On one hand, you could argue that it's going to be really hard for a jury to convict someone of murder when a trained medical examiner won't even rule the death as a homicide. On the other hand, she did say that most of John's injuries could be consistent with falling backwards, hitting the back of the head, and being left in the snow. Although she did say that most car impact victims have some

Starting point is 00:29:59 injuries to the leg area, which she didn't find. Now for me, I still have some questions, especially about those arm lacerations that many people are calling dog bites. Now for me, I still have some questions, especially about those arm lacerations that many people are calling dog bites. And in fact, Alessi specifically asks Cordobello if those cuts could be consistent with a dog bite, but Judge Canone wouldn't allow the question. Personally, I would have liked to hear the answer. What do you guys think? Do you guys think this testimony left us with more questions than answers? Well, there you go. It was a jam-packed week as she mentioned. So there's still a lot more to go. It seems as though we are going to be getting into more of the defenses witness list over the next week. We'll see what happens. Again, the trial was

Starting point is 00:30:38 expected to go through mid-June. I don't know if that still is the case. It might only because next week I believe they're taking off Thursday, Friday and the following Monday for Memorial Day. So because they would be losing three days, it could still stretch out and take the full eight weeks, but it could also end sooner. We'll see. So let me know what you guys think about this case. Did anything that happened this week change your mind?

Starting point is 00:31:00 Have you been following it? Did you hear the little remark that it sounded like Bev called him an asshole? Curious to know your thoughts. And I'll be back with you all next week where we are going to be still streaming the trial, where I will be talking to you guys on Instagram, live from the courthouse. Again, don't forget to follow at underscore Annie Elise. And then we of course will be back with our recap. Aside from that too, I have listened to you guys. I have heard your feedback, I've received your DMs, I know that you guys want Diddy trial updates. I briefly touched on it this week in headline highlights, but we are gonna try to give you more regular updates regarding the Diddy trial,

Starting point is 00:31:35 but more in a bullet list of the biggest takeaways, the biggest allegations, not all the details of all the testimony, all the witnesses, just more of like the need to know rather than like all of the other stuff. So I'm just trying to figure out what format we're going to do that in since we all are here putting out so much content. So for now, I think I'm gonna be lumping it in with headline highlights, but it'll just be a longer segment.

Starting point is 00:31:59 And then if we need to end up splitting it out, maybe this recap segment for the next few weeks becomes more of a weekly trial update segment where we cover both of them. So I haven't really decided yet, but if you have a preference, please let me know in the comment section because I need all the help I can get when making decisions.

Starting point is 00:32:17 I am very indecisive. So let me know how you want that. All right, guys, thanks so much for tuning in. I'll be back with you on Monday with an all new deep dive into a case. And until then, be nice, don't kill people, don't join any cults, and I hope you have a fantastic weekend. Alright, bye. I'm out. you

Serialously with Annie Elise - 275: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 4: Higgins Late-Night Trip, Cringe Texts, & Public Opinion is Changing

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