Serialously with Annie Elise - 65: Karen Read | Murder or Cover-Up?

Episode Date: September 25, 2023

On a snowy morning in Canton, Massachusetts, on January 30, 2022, a chilling mystery was beginning to unfold. John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, was found unresponsive outside. As the investigation into John’s death began, it quickly turned into a homicide investigation. Someone did this on purpose. But who would want John dead? What really happened? Today's Sponsors: Go check out all of the delicious options at https://www.Nuts.com/ae. You’ll receive a free gift andfree shipping when you spend $29 or more! Go to https://www.SHOPIFY.com/serialously and sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period  Visit https://www.BetterHelp.com/ae today to get 10% off your first month. Go to HelloFresh.com/50ae and use code 50ae for 50% off plus 15% off the next 2 Months! 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. It's me, Annie, your true crime BFF. And we are going to go over a deep dive of a case today. Now, I want to be clear before I jump right into everything. Today's case, there are a lot of different theories out there. There's a little bit of conspiracy. There's a ton of different theories. So as always, I just want to encourage you to do your own research, form your own opinions. I'm not going to be talking a whole bunch about the conspiracy element on this video because I just want to keep it more to the facts with the court documents some of my opinion but as you know you can always go down the rabbit hole on reddit or anywhere else online if

you really want to kind of get knee deep in this and then of course once new revelations come out once new information evidence details I will circle back with you and do a part two on this to give you the updates but I just want to kind of be up front with you guys. This is a wild one. It's twisty and turny and there are a lot of theories. So let's start and kind of just jump right into everything. On a snowy morning in Canton, Massachusetts on January 30th, 2022, a very chilling mystery was beginning to unfold. John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, was found unresponsive outside. Now, as the investigation into John's death began, it quickly turned into a homicide investigation. So, did somebody do this on purpose? But who would ever want John dead? In the immediate aftermath, the relationship between

John and his girlfriend Karen Reed became a central focus in this, and she was later arrested in connection to his death. But now, this case has taken a turn, fueled by some very damning allegations that Karen is actually being framed, and insinuations that this is part of something far, far more sinister. There have been some wild twists, as I mentioned earlier, around every corner. On the other hand, many people agree with everything that the prosecution alleges, and they believe that Karen is a cold-blooded killer. So what's the truth here? What really happened? And why are there such strong opinions on both sides of it?

I want to give one more disclaimer and reminder, guys. This is still an ongoing case, and the facts alleged in this episode are either sourced from court documents or anything else that I put in there is my opinion only. So as always, please do your own research and form your own opinions. If the relationship had become toxic by January 2022, as prosecutors allege, it's not apparent from this snapshot in time. Prosecutors allege that after arguing with O'Keefe, Reid dropped him off at a fellow officer's Canton home,

then backed into him with her SUV and left him unconscious in a blizzard. During a night of heavy drinking. I've never harmed a hair on John O'Keefe's head. I said, can we make sure we're welcome here? Nobody extended the invite to me. I didn't hear the invite extended to you. They drive to the Alberts house. What happens next is disputed. Free Karen Reid! Free Karen Reid! Free Karen Reid! Karen Reid is a 42-year-old finance professor from Mansfield, Massachusetts. Karen started dating John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, in 2019.

They had actually first dated in their 20s before reconnecting later on. And according to Karen, John had reached out to her through Facebook and said something like, hey, blast from the past. How are things going? How is everything? And when she saw that his profile picture had young children in it, she remembered that his sister and his sister's husband had passed away so john told karen yeah i have the kids now now karen really admired this quality about john and thought that it was just so amazing that he was now raising his niece and nephew as if they were his own children so after that conversation on facebook they eventually met up and started dating karen has a home in Mansfield, but once she and John became more serious, for the most part, she always stayed at his house.

So it was kind of like they did live together. I really don't want to be in the picture. Get over here. Karen Reed's parents say she and John O'Keefe became serious in 2019, right before the pandemic. They just seemed to be in a happy place, y spending a lot of time to vacations together, um, g January 28th 2022, it was

friday night. John and Ka to some local bars, have meet up with some of john whom were also Boston police officers. And that's when the events in this case began to unfold. But before we get into all that, we are going to take a quick ad break because, as you know, sponsors are essential to the podcast and help make the video version of the podcast available on YouTube for free. So let's hear from today's first sponsor. So let me talk to you about the first sponsor of today, Nuts.com. Anytime I'm at home watching TV or watching documentaries, I just love to snack. It's peaceful, it's my me time, and I'm always

looking for the perfect snack that is like bite-sized, just good, you know what I mean? Just like the perfect thing to eat while you're watching something. And I found my new absolute snack hub at nuts.com. There is so much variety on their website. They're salty, they're sweet, there's gummy bears, there's so much different stuff. It's not just nuts. And personally, I love all of the different trail mix options because I like mixing sweet and salty together. Nuts.com is your one-stop shop for freshly roasted nuts, dried fruit, sweets, pantry staples like specialty flours, and so much more. Their wide selection means there is something there for everyone. At Nuts.com, quality is also a top priority, so they roast their nuts and pop their corn the same day. The same day it ships, so it reaches

you deliciously fresh. Satisfaction is guaranteed. Right now, Nuts.com is offering new customers a free gift with purchase and free shipping on orders over $29 or more. All you have to do is go to Nuts.com slash AE. So go check out all of the delicious options at Nuts.com slash AE. You will receive a free gift and free shipping when you spend $29 or more. That's nuts.com. Okay, so let me circle back to painting the picture of that evening. Do you remember the massive snowstorm that hit most of the U.S.,

but especially parts of the Northeast back on January 29, 2022? Robin, this storm, it had it all. I mean, just insane amounts of snow, hurricane force wind gusts. And here along the coastline, just south of Boston, we had incredible waves that were banging up against this newly reinforced. Temperatures, look at this,

completely entombed, encased in ice. And it's just a surreal scene here, storm after storm. There's just a surreal scene that highlights just how explosive this storm was. This morning, the Northeast digging out after that vicious nor'easter slammed the region. Massachusetts bearing the brunt of the storm. The blizzard dumping more than 30 inches of snow in some parts of the state. Snowplow drivers working round the clock since Friday night. Whiteout, you couldn't see five feet in front of you. History made in Boston.

The city tying its record for the biggest one-day snowfall Saturday at 23 points. Well, earlier that morning at 6.04 a.m., a frantic police call came into the department in Canton, Massachusetts, a small suburb of Boston. The caller on the other end said that a man, John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, was lying in the middle of the street and not responsive, and that this was outside of a home at 34 Fairview Road. Officers Serif and Mullaney were then dispatched to the chilling scene. When they arrived, they were met with three distressed women in the front yard area of the house, waving desperately for attention. Two of them were hunched over John, trying to revive him with CPR. The women were identified as Karen Reed, Jennifer McCabe, and Carrie Roberts.

Officer Serif felt John's lifeless body, and he was cold and he wasn't breathing. Canton Fire and EMS arrived just moments later, and John was rushed to the Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton. But despite all of their efforts, hours later, John O'Keefe was declared dead. So let's talk about John for just a minute here, because John was a 16-year veteran of the Boston Police Department. He was known for his dedication, not just to his work, but also to his family and his friends. Beyond his role as a police officer, he played a pivotal role in his personal life as the sole caregiver to his niece and nephew, and he was only 46 years old when he died. His tragic death left not only his family, but many people in the community just shocked and completely devastated.

And more than that, the night before, he was with Karen, and they had met up with John's friends, a huge group of people, which included many fellow Boston police officers, and some of their wives, some of whom were even related to each other. And the house where John was lying outside of, where he was found, was owned by another Boston police officer. So how could this have happened? Who would do this? That's a pretty brazen move to kill a police officer outside the home of another police officer with a house full of more police officers. So naturally, the next thing that the Canton police officers had to do was start their investigation and get to the bottom of this. Who was responsible? What happened? As other Canton officers arrived at the scene where John was found, they started sifting through the mounds of snow. They found a broken cocktail

glass and there were splashes of red by the snow near it. Thinking this was blood, officers began to process the cocktail glass as evidence. Later that morning, the Massachusetts State Police Detective Unit, with trooper Michael Procton and a sergeant, arrived at the scene. They began to question one of the women, Jennifer McCabe, who was one of the women at the scene when that 911 call came in. Jennifer said that the night before, she was at the Waterfall Bar and Grill with her husband Matthew. Karen and John met up with them and with a group of friends, and they were all hanging out at the Waterfall around 11 p.m. She said that there were several people in the group at the bar and later on at the home on 34 Fairview.

Now, Jennifer did notice one thing that she thought was weird about their arrival, and she told police that when Karen was walking in, she had a glass cup from C.F. McCarthy's, another bar across the street, and the glass was inside her coat with a clear liquid inside of it. Jennifer said that John was wearing jeans, a baseball cap, and sneakers. She said that Karen looked fine and appeared to be happy, And she said they were acting very normal. They weren't arguing and nothing stood out to her. It wasn't just Jennifer who noticed this. Every witness that the troopers later interviewed echoed the same sentiment.

The night was calm. It was friendly. And everyone seemed to be in a really good mood. So as the bar was beginning to close around midnight, Jennifer invited John and Karen to continue the party over at her sister Nicole Albert's home, right there on 34 Fairview Road. So as the group was leaving the bar, she saw Karen and John walk toward their car and get in together. As Jennifer was walking up to her car, she received a text message from John asking where to. This was at 1214 a.m. Jennifer replied with the address of 34 Fairview

Road. At 1218 a.m., John called Jennifer to ask more specifically where the house was located on Fairview. While inside the house, she looked out the window and saw a black SUV consistent with Karen's car, which is a 2021 black Lexus SUV, pull up in front of the house. Jennifer then texted John at 12.31 a.m. saying, hello, and again at 12.40 a.m. saying, pull up behind me, referencing to her vehicle's parking spot within the driveway to the home located right there on the right side of the property. While looking out the window, Jennifer said she saw the black SUV shift from its original spot on the street near the driveway to the left side of the property, which is where John's body was found the following morning. At 12.45 a.m., Jennifer texted John again, saying hello, and shortly after, she saw the black SUV depart from the property.

Around 4.53 a.m., Jennifer got a call from karen karen was searching for john the call came in from john's niece's phone though because karen asked her to call jennifer for her jennifer picked up and chatted briefly with the niece and then karen got on the phone jennifer told the officers that karen sounded extremely distraught and said that she was driving to Jennifer's house. Apparently, she told Jennifer that her last memory of John was back at the Waterfall Bar. Jennifer corrected her by saying that she had seen them leave the bar together and that she saw Karen's black Lexus outside the Fairview house. Well then, being confronted with that information, Karen's story changed a little bit. Karen told Jennifer that the last time that she had seen John, maybe they had an argument.

Karen made it over to Jennifer's place around 5.30 a.m. Shortly after she got there, Carrie Roberts showed up because she also got some frantic phone calls that morning from Karen, freaking out about not being able to find John. So because of how upset Karen was when she arrived at Jennifer's house, Jennifer decided to drive Karen's vehicle back to John's house, with Carrie also following in her own car. On the way to John's house, Jennifer said that Karen suddenly blurted out, could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Then as they were pulling up to John's house, Karen mentioned a broken taillight on her SUV.

And when they got out of the car, Karen was quick to show Jennifer the damage. Jennifer saw the right rear taillight was smashed and missing some pieces. Then the two of them hopped into Carrie's car to keep searching for John. Karen squeezed into the back seat and Carrie took the wheel and Jennifer rode shotgun. Jennifer said while they were driving down Fairviewview road the snow was coming down very hard and the wind was no joke making it very tough to see much of anything at that moment just before they reached the street number 34 on fairview road karen shouted out that she saw john by a group of trees this caught jennifer and car Carrie very off guard because neither

of them could spot him in all of that snow. But without missing a beat, Karen was out of the car running straight to where John was lying, covered by about a half a foot of snow. Karen then laid herself over him, trying to warm him up, and started doing CPR. While Karen was frantic, Jennifer noticed John's phone just lying there underneath him. Twice, Karen shouted at Jennifer, telling her to Google and look up how long do you have to be left outside until you die from hypothermia or something along those lines. But Jennifer and her recollection couldn't be more specific. Troopers also interviewed Brian and Nicole Albert, the homeowners of 34 Fairview. Brian Albert is a fellow Boston police officer, just like John. Brian and Nicole confirmed that

they had been out at the Waterfall Bar that night hanging out with friends and family. They left around closing time and headed back home. They recalled seeing both John and Karen at the bar, but said that they didn't really know them all that well, and John and Karen had just joined their group for that evening. Brian and Nicole mentioned that after the bar, a bunch of people from their crew came over to their place and hung out for about an hour or so. They mentioned that their nephew Colin Albert was home when they got back, but he had left way before the group from the bar showed up at the house. A couple of other people that were inside that home the previous night said the same thing. Interestingly, Brian and Nicole said that

they had no idea that John and Karen even thought about stopping by their house at all after the bars, but also said that if they had, it would have been no big deal and they would have been fine had they just shown up. Brian and Nicole had no idea what was going on outside their home or that John was lying outside until Jennifer let them know early that morning. Several other people who were there at Albert's house that night were also interviewed. Another guy named Mr. Nagel was riding in a truck with his friend and his sister Julie over to the Albert's house to drop off his sister over at their get-together. They dropped Julie off, and as they were leaving, he believed he saw a large black SUV pull up to the house right as he was leaving. He said it didn't seem like the other driver put the SUV in park at any point,

and he knew this because he could see that the rear brake lights were illuminated, specifically the third top center light. When they drove past the black SUV, he said the interior lights were on in the car, and he could see a white female in the driver's seat, holding the steering wheel at 10 and 2, and staring straight ahead of her. Other witnesses were also interviewed about who was there at the home that night, and it seemed to officers that all of their stories were consistent with each other, and not one person said they saw John at all after Waterfall Bar. Carrie Roberts told police that she got a call around 5 a.m. from Karen, who was frantic. Karen was saying, why hasn't John come home? I'm so scared. What if he's dead? What if a snowplow hit him? All of these things. So Carrie quickly threw on some

clothes and drove over, meeting Karen at Jennifer's house. Carrie could see that Karen was acting weird, maybe even still a little bit drunk from the night before. She was repeating herself, saying she couldn't remember anything from the previous night, and said, I was so hammered, Carrie, I can't remember if we even went to your sister's. When she talked about going over to John's house that morning with Jennifer and Karen, she said that they went inside the house, hoping against hope to find John there, but he was nowhere to be found. They did check on John's niece, ensuring that she was okay. Now, Karen seemed obsessed with a cracked rear passenger taillight on her car,

pointing it out to both Carrie and Jennifer multiple times. When they were back on the road and heading to the Alberts' home, Carrie said that snow was coming down hard, a near whiteout. She said that they could barely see out of the front driver's window, but they were all still looking for any sign of John. And then all of a sudden, Karen started screaming, there he is, there he is, let me out. So Carrie stopped the car and Karen got out and just started running. Carrie said that when she looked, she couldn't see anything through the heavy snowfall. It was Karen who seemed to have somehow spotted where John was, even though he was buried under the snow, a good 12 feet away from the road. When they reached him, Carrie's heart just completely

sank. John looked bad. One eye was swollen shut, there was a cut on his forehead, and blood smeared around his nose and his mouth. Without hesitation, they immediately started CPR and Jennifer dialed 911. When the paramedics got there, as they were lifting John onto the stretcher, Carrie noticed a patch of green grass underneath him. The surrounding area was covered in snow, but right under John, it was clear. And Karen seemed to be stuck on one heart-wrenching question over and over. She asked everyone repeatedly around her, Is he dead? Is he really dead? At one point, she grabbed Carrie's arm and said,

Are they really trying to save him, or is he gone? Troopers also interviewed Nicholas and Karina Kolokithis because both were present with the group at the Waterfall Bar on the evening of January 28th. They had known John for approximately five to six years and had also met Karen a handful of times. They stated that John and Karen arrived at the Waterfall together at approximately 11 p.m. Karina said that she talked to Karen while at the waterfall bar and saw her drinking vodka sodas. She also remembered Karen pushing quite a bit for a member of the group, Christopher Albert, the owner of a local pizza shop, to go across the

street after leaving the bar to keep partying while he made pizzas for everyone. When it was then time to leave, Karina said she walked outside with Jennifer and saw John and Karen walking out together where their vehicle was parked alongside the curb, and it was facing back up towards the Waterfall Bar. Karina had parked nearby, so she could see them as they got into their car. She saw Karen walking toward the driver's side door of her black Lexus SUV. Karina also mentioned an interesting conversation with Karen, saying that Karen complained about John's mother and the lack of private time they had for vacations because of the children, the children's activities and responsibilities. She also described her as fine and did not believe that Karen was overly intoxicated. On January 30th, Trooper Proctor

and another trooper interviewed Canton firefighter Katie McLaughlin. She had been assigned to Station 1 on the 29th and indicated that at approximately 6 a.m., the police call came through. When she and her team arrived at the scene, she saw John lying in the snow. She said that his eyes were extremely swollen, there was blood on his face, and he had vomit stained on his lips. Katie said she approached a very distraught woman nearby, Karen, hoping to get some information about John and his medical history. Karen gave John's name and date of birth. Katie also asked Karen if she knew where John had suffered the trauma to his face and his eye. And apparently, Karen turned around to one of her friends and repeatedly said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. And this

was just the beginning of a series of events that were about to spiral. And we're going to get into all of those, but we are going to have a quick word from the next sponsor of today's video. So following their initial witness interviews on January 29th, the same troopers went to Good Samaritan to view John's body. They observed six bloodied lacerations varying in length on his right arm. The cuts extended from his forearm to his bicep. Both of John's eyes were swollen shut and black and blue in color. The troopers observed a cut to the right eyelid area, too, of John. John's clothing, consisting of blue jeans, an orange t-shirt, a long-sleeved gray t-shirt, and boxer shorts, were all soaking wet and saturated with blood and vomit.

John also had one black Nike sneaker with a white Nike logo on the side of it. On January 31st, a doctor from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner's Office conducted the autopsy. The doctor told troopers that she observed several abrasions to John's right forearm, the two swollen black eyes, a small cut above the right eye, a cut to the left side of his nose, an approximately two-inch laceration to the back right of his head, and multiple skull fractures that resulted in bleeding of the brain. The doctor also said that John's pancreas was a dark red color, indicating hypothermia was a contributing factor to his death. From the autopsy, the doctor believed that the significant blunt force trauma injuries occurred prior to John becoming hypothermic, the doctor believed that the significant blunt force trauma injuries occurred prior to John becoming hypothermic, and this because of the hemorrhaging in his pancreas and stomach, and that when John arrived, his body temperature was reading in the low 80s.

From all of this, the doctor believed that the extensive blunt force trauma and brain bleeding likely made John incapacitated, and she said that she didn't see any signs of John being involved in any type of physical altercation or fight, meaning that it's possible that John was still alive when he was left out in the cold but couldn't move. At approximately 4 30 p.m. on January 29th, the same troopers went to Karen's parents' house. Karen's Lexus SUV was outside, and they were able to see the rear light passenger side taillight was shattered, and a large piece of red plastic was missing from that taillight. They were invited inside the home, and Karen agreed to talk with them. Karen said she had met John at C.F. McCarthy's bar in Canton

at approximately 9 p.m. the evening prior. And remember, that's that same glass that she was holding, the C.F. bar glass. John was apparently already there with friends. She said that John was drinking beer and she was drinking vodka sodas. She told the troopers the same thing that all of the other witnesses did, that she and John left C.F. McCarthy's and then went to Waterfall Bar, but she denied that she had taken any drink in her coat or anything like that with her. She stated that they were at the waterfall for about an hour, and during that time, there were no arguments among anyone present there. When she and John were leaving the waterfall, she said they were invited to a house

on Fairview Road, Brian Albert's house. So Karen said she dropped off John at the house on Fairview, but that she went home because she was having stomach issues at the waterfall. She told them that when she dropped John off, she made a three-point turn in the street and then left, and because of that, she did not see John enter the house. Karen first saw her broken taillight in the morning and did not know how she had broken it the previous evening. Karen was adamant that John was uninjured when she dropped him off at that house. She said that when she found John in the morning, he was lying face up, snow on his legs, his eyes swollen, and blood coming out of his nose and mouth. She stated

that she began providing him mouth-to-mouth immediately. Additionally, Karen said that she tried to get a hold of John throughout the night, calling and texting him numerous times, but that John never answered her. Karen's Lexus SUV was immediately towed from the driveway of Karen's parents' house, and it was towed to the Canton Police Department for them to process. Additionally, later on that day, on the 29th, the Massachusetts Police Special Emergency Response Team searched the vicinity of 34 Fairview Road. There, they found another black Nike sneaker matching the one that John was wearing when he was found, and in the thick of the snow, the team unearthed two pieces of plastic fragments, one clear and one red. They were the missing pieces from Karen's damaged taillight.

On February 1st, members of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Scene Services Section, including a crime lab chemist and the Collisions Analysis Reconstruction Section, started processing the Lexus. They noted several pieces of evidence during this process. Broken glass fragments on the rear bumper, a shattered right passenger side taillight with missing red and clear pieces, and various scratches and dents. They also saw a large scratch and minor dent on the right side of the rear taillight and chipped paint above the rear bumper's small red light. They also ran tests on the Lexus to make sure that the rear backup camera system was working properly. They placed a life-sized, six-foot-tall figure behind the SUV and began filming as they reversed the vehicle toward it. The Lexus' rearview camera kicked into action, displaying a clear 360-degree view on the dashboard screen.

As the car got closer to the figure, warning alerts started playing, indicating that something was behind the car. A forensic scientist also examined the vehicle that day. She discovered more damage, including a dent on the trunk door with chipped paint, more scratches on the bumper, and a hair strand on the rear passenger side quarter panel. Upon testing, this hair was confirmed as human. She also said that there were glass fragments on the rear bumper. On January 31st, investigators took a look at some of the security footage from Ring cameras outside of John's house. They accessed the videos using the Ring app on John's cell phone, which revealed that two cameras were connected, one at the front door and the other overlooking the driveway. Between 6 p.m. on January 28th and

6 a.m. on January 29th, around 15 recorded events popped up from these cameras. One of these events was from the driveway camera at around 5.08 a.m. This was on January 29th, and it showed Karen's SUV backing out from the right garage door, heading down the driveway, and then making a left turn. Oddly enough, though, there was no footage showing the same SUV pulling in earlier. As Karen's car backed out, it barely missed John's Chevy Traverse SUV that was parked nearby. The camera captured a broken right passenger side taillight on Karen's car in this footage. So this was before Karen got over to Jennifer's house that morning because the police call happened at 6.04 a.m. Later on, when John's SUV was examined, there wasn't any damage to John's SUV or the garage. They also didn't see any remnants of the broken taillight in or around the driveway. Switching scenes, on February 1st, troopers went

to C.F. McCarthy's bar, where that glass was and where they were earlier in the evening before Waterfall Bar. They reviewed security videos from January 28th and collected receipts. The footage showed John arriving at around 7.37 p.m., looking casual, wearing jeans, black Nikes, a two-toned gray long-sleeve shirt, and a baseball hat with an American flag on it. John was there hanging out with his friend, Michael Camerano. Karen then walked in at 8.51 p.m. Surveillance video showed that Karen got a drink with a lime at 8.58 p.m. from the bartender, consistent with a vodka soda, and then John handed her another similar one at 9.15 p.m. Over the next hour and a half, Karen got four more drinks, each time pouring a shot into her glass. In total, Karen had seven drinks that night, and by 10 40 p.m., both John and Karen were heading out of the bar, with Karen still holding on to her last drink as they left the bar.

Troopers also went to the Waterfall Bar and reviewed security video and receipts for that bar. On the surveillance, they saw John and Karen come into the bar around 10.54 p.m. At about 12.10 a.m., Karen leaves with two other women. Not long after, John, alone at the table, finishes up his drink and then heads out, still holding on to his cocktail. From the outside camera, troopers saw John stepping out at around 12-11 a.m., meeting up with Karen, and then both of them headed toward Washington Street. It looked like it had just started snowing with a light layer of snow on the ground and the cars. So now they finally had collected some evidence and they were beginning to piece together the puzzle of what happened that evening leading up to them going to the house party. Now pausing there,

on February 2nd, after John was found, troopers Dunn and Moore were out looking for more videos. They could have a connection to this case, give them more evidence. So they headed to the Edward J. Lentz Jr. house at Pequitside Farm in Canton. The town's IT director gave them some footage confirming the date and the times were right. They also got videos from outside cameras at Canton Town Library and the next day from Temple Beth Abraham. Now both of these places have a view of Washington Street in Canton and they're about a mile apart. From the library footage, around 12.15 a.m., the troopers spotted a big black SUV, looking like Karen's Lexus, driving on Washington Street toward the Temple. This was just about four minutes after John and Karen left the Waterfall Bar.

Around 12.17 a.m., from the Temple's footage, that same SUV was seen going past the building heading toward Fairview Road. From the library's footage, at about 511 a.m., the trooper saw the black SUV again, this time driving toward the Waterfall Bar. By 515 a.m., the SUV was driving away from the bar, heading toward the Temple. And around 518 a.m. from the temple's footage, the SUV was seen going by again. Additionally, troopers reviewed Karen's phone records, and Lieutenant Brian Tolley reviewed these records and found that Karen's phone location matched up with where the SUV was spotted on all of the videos. All of this happened after Karen called Jennifer and she was seen leaving John's house at 5.08 a.m. on that security

footage. Law enforcement also believed it looked like Karen was heading toward the house on Fairview before going to see Jennifer that morning. On February 22nd, John's 10-year-old nephew, C.F., and 14-year-old niece, K.F., using their initials because they're minors, talked at the Norfolk Advocates for Children Center in Foxborough, Massachusetts. The kids shared that they had been living with John for about eight years after their parents had passed away. They also mentioned that John and Karen had been dating for about two years and that she used to stay over at their house several nights a week. John's nephew said that Karen and John fought pretty often. He remembered them recently fighting about groceries, and John saying that he needed a break from Karen. After that fight, John wanted Karen to leave,

but she didn't want to. The nephew also mentioned that he went to a friend's house for a sleepover around 8 p.m. on January 28th, and that he wasn't home at all that night. He said that he and his sister didn't use the ring system, but thought that Karen could access it from the family's computer. The niece said that Karen and John had been fighting a lot recently, like two to three times a week. About a week before January 29th, she was sitting on the stairs in the house and overheard them fighting. The niece heard John tell Karen that their relationship was over and that it wasn't good for them. But Karen didn't want to break up and wouldn't leave.

On January 28, the niece went to sleep around 11 p.m. after her friend left the house. She was then woken up by Karen around 4.30 a.m., who seemed really upset and panicking. Karen ran into John's room to get the niece's phone, and the niece tried to text and call John, but got no answer. Karen then got the niece to call Jennifer, her friend, Jennifer McCabe, and handed the phone to Karen. After talking with Jennifer, Karen left, telling the niece to have John's friend, who he was with at the first bar, to come and get her. The niece also said that Karen's story kept changing when she was talking to Jennifer. On January 29th, troopers found John's phone and managed to get all of the info from it.

The texts, the calls, and the voicemails between John and Karen, specifically from January 28th to 29th, and it showed that there were big problems in their relationship. John wanted to break up, and Karen said that their relationship with the kids was toxic. On one of the voicemails from Karen on John's phone, she was yelling and saying that she hated him. Also, on January 29th, Karen was taken to the Good Samaritan Medical Center. They took a blood sample for medical reasons, and an expert in toxicology from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab reviewed these results. So he estimated that Karen's blood alcohol level at the time that her blood was taken on the 29 levels around at 1245 a.m. might have been between 0.13 percent and 0.29 percent. And with that, Karen Reed was arrested in February of 2022.

41-year-old Karen Reed of Mansfield brought into Stoughton District Court Wednesday charged in connection with the death of her boyfriend, veteran Boston police officer John O'Keefe. One-pound manslaughter. This is a defensible case. I will tell you that my client has no criminal intent. She loved this man. She is devastated at what happened. Karen, did you hit John?

Reed had no comment leaving court. Officer O'Keefe's family sobbed in court as fellow officers gathered there in support. John was a tremendous human being. I think when those stories come out, you'll see, you know, who he was and why, you know, he was adored by, you know, anyone, like I said, that he worked with anyone that knew him. So ultimately, prosecutors charged her with three crimes, manslaughter, motor vehicular homicide, and the crime of leaving the scene of a collision that caused a death. Here the prosecution's operating assumption was recklessness, that Karen consciously disregarded a risk by doing that three-point turn during blizzard-like conditions and not looking

back, not realizing that she had hit anything, and then driving off. Now just pausing here for a second because I am genuinely confused about how Karen had that many drinks with police officers and she still then got in the car and drove. Nobody stopped her. She was confidently having all of those drinks, throwing them back with cops to go then party at the after party with more cops. What's going on? But things changed very quickly after a grand jury was presented more of the information that we just went through, and Karen's charges were upgraded to second-degree murder. Now the prosecutors believe that she actually had intent with her

actions. Karen was released on bail, however she was let go from her job at Fidelity and at the university. Since her initial court hearing after her charges were upgraded, Karen's defense team came out of the gate hot with different theories of their own. And since then, this case has become even more complex. In a recent interview with Dateline highlighting what has been going on in this case and the large group of supporters that believe Karen is innocent, here is what Karen herself had to say. Outside this courthouse in Canton, Massachusetts, supporters swarmed around Karen Reed. Charged with murder in January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe,

Reid has strenuously denied the allegations. I did not kill John O'Keefe. I've never harmed a hair on John O'Keefe's head. Her defense, bare-knuckled and bold, is making national headlines. Her lawyers alleging in court documents that a fellow police officer was involved in O'Keefe's death and colluded with other people in a cover-up. You're alleging that law enforcement officials in this state committed murder and that they're covering it up. Why would they want to be involved in this? Because he's dead. I think things went too far. It was late. There was alcohol involved, but they're all family. And there's many of them involved. After posting bail, Reid has spent much of the past 18 months in and out of court

awaiting a trial date. And me and my family and my attorneys and my team have marshaled every resource to get to the truth. It just feels like no one else wants it. I'll link this full clip in the show notes and in the description on YouTube if you want to see it. So let's break that down a little bit here and get into more of what Karen's defense has said in their motions and in court. First, they insist that she is innocent. They claim she had no criminal intent and highlighted her ongoing medical issues, including multiple sclerosis, colitis, and a brain tumor. And now they suggest that John was definitely inside the house and was actually assaulted before being left outside, alleging foul play by other parties inside that house and including a potential cover-up involving state and local police.

So what does that actually mean? They used John's injuries as proof of an alleged beating that took place coupled with the homeowner Brian Albert's German Shepherd attacking John. Both times I met Brian Albert, he seemed like the type of person that you'd be surprised he's out socially because he doesn't seem like he ever wants to be there. But at the bar, Reed says there was an invitation to continue hanging out at Albert's home. I said, can we make sure we're welcome here? Nobody extended the invite to me. I didn't hear the invite extended to you.

They drive to the Albert's house. What happens next is disputed. So I pull at the foot of the driveway. It's snowing. John has no coat on. It's windy. So I drop him off. He goes up the driveway and approaches the

side door. And as I see him approach the door, I look down at my phone. Reed says after about 10 minutes of waiting in her car, she became irritated that O'Keefe still hadn't gotten in touch with her. And she drove back to his home where she continued calling him before she says she fell asleep around 1 30 in the says she woke up before f at home. She then started It's gonna drive around i that we spent the precede

minutes of unsuccessful s john's friend, Kerry Robe Brian Albert's sister inl at his house the night before. They also made claims from a search that they did of a cell phone that belonged to someone else at that house party. And they used this as proof, saying that the state police investigator in charge of the case had ties to the homeowner, and said that people at the party coordinated to point and blame falsely at Karen. Additionally, Karen had a much different story to tell about some of the arguments that John's niece and nephew reported. According to Karen, John had been relying more on her to take

care of the kids, and he criticized some of the child care decisions that she had made. This included an argument on New Year's Eve in 2021. Karen said that John was incoherently drunk and left her with his niece and nephew, leaving her feeling like she was getting taken advantage of. Karen said that later on, John profusely apologized for what had happened, but then said, if you can't get over it, then you need to spend some time at your house. I can't keep apologizing. I don't want to keep rehashing this. There was another situation the day before John died. John's niece and nephew told investigators that John and Karen argued regularly, and John had actually expressed that he wanted to take a break from their relationship

completely. But Karen said that that's not what happened and that the argument was over what she fed his niece for breakfast. Earlier in May of this year, Karen spoke out after one of her hearings. A reporter named Steve Cooper from Boston News 7 asked Karen, just to be clear, you didn't do it. And her response said it all. We know who did it steve. We spearheaded this cover up know she didn't do it. No is an innocent woman. A l

how someone could hit ano to leave them seriously i even if they had been dri have shaken the car? Was We know that from law enf the Lexus SUV's rear camera system was working and that the car was beeping when an object was behind it. Considering the evidence, there aren't any eyewitnesses who saw Karen hit John, and some legal analysts and law professors have described the evidence presented by the prosecution

as pretty circumstantial. However, prosecutors have also pointed to compelling pieces of evidence, such as the red plastic matching Karen's taillight that was found at the scene and shards of the cocktail glass embedded in the bumper. The red plastic bumper pieces found at the scene by Trooper Proctor have also been brought into question by many people online, though, as well as by the defense. The main issue people were having is understanding how they could have found this evidence on the street after so much time had passed, especially given the weather conditions on the 29th and the fact that multiple snow plows may have already been through the area. That, coupled with how crucial this evidence is in alleging Karen's involvement, has obviously raised questions, and don't worry, we are going

to get deeper into that in just a minute. But even if we can get past that, what about when John's body was discovered, and Karen tells an EMS worker, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him? Well, Karen's defense says that that's not what happened at all and that she was posing that as a question instead of a statement. And guys, it gets even crazier, but quick, we're going to take a small, small break and hear from another sponsor today's episode. Okay, so as everybody's going to bat for Karen, some of the people saying she's guilty of it, a lot of conflicting opinions. Hearings start to begin. In hearings in May, Karen's defense brought their claims to the court's attention.

Now, this is a longer clip, but it fully explains the defense's claims from their own words, which I think is really important given the contentious nature of the conversation around this case. And because it seems like a lot of people have inter said differently. If the toxic by January 2022 as not apparent from this sn C. F. McCarthy's in Canton during a night of heavy d police, Karen would back

him for dead in a snowstorm two hours later. Prosecutors say it happened outside the Canton home of another Boston cop named Brian Albert. Karen says she dropped John off there for a get-together. During your first discussions with Karen, did she believe she may have hit John? No. No. She felt she struck something. She said, Dad, I think I struck something. I said, what do you mean? Right. This was in the hospital. Right. Says, I remember. All right. Backing up and hitting something. Police find damage to the passenger side taillight of Karen's Lexus LX 570.

How the damage occurred is in dispute. The Reeds believe it happened when Karen backed out of John O'Keefe's driveway, hours after police say she hit him. Here's the video. She backs up to go out and search for John O'Keefe, and that's how that vehicle was damaged. In court documents, prosecutors say the video only shows Karen coming close to John's car and no fragments or pieces of a broken taillight were discovered in John's driveway. Look at it frame by frame. And you tell me whether or not the O'Keefe vehicle, the left rear wheel, does not jettison forward upon impact and return to its previous position. Police did discover pieces of

taillight where O'Keefe was allegedly hit, but the Reeds say it wasn't until after Karen's SUV was in the custody of law enforcement. State police reported towing the Lexus to the Canton police station at 5 30 p.m. Nathan Reed says daylight video from his dad's house shows the car was taken more than an hour before that. They confiscate Karen's car at my parents' residence in North Dighton at 4.16 p.m. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 5.30, 5.45, Mass State Police search team comes back to the scene. They search the scene then with two feet of snow and pieces of a tail lamp found on top of the stump. JOHN YANG, The Reeds also questioned John's injuries, as seen in autopsy photos.

They say John appears to have dog bites on his arm. The defense theory is that O'Keefe was beaten inside the Albert home and attacked by the Alberts' German shepherd. Brian Albert's attorney declined to comment. BRIAN ALBERTS, Attorney for John O'Keefe, Norfolk DA, Norfolk, N.C.: Our investigators also have found multiple people who have been attacked by the dog. I think John O'Keefe entered that house, was sucker-punched, a fight ensued, and he was overwhelmed. JOHN YANG, Prosecutors call that theory a fanciful conspiracy. According to the Norfolk DA's office, eight people inside the home and three more outside had testified that O'Keefe never entered.

The office says GPS data from O'Keefe's phone backs that up. And the medical examiner who performed an autopsy on O'Keefe found no signs of Mr. O'Keefe being involved in any type of physical altercation or fight. JOHN YANG, If the events happen the way Karen's attorneys say they did, how many people would have to be involved in the cover-up? JOHN O' My sense is that there are a handful of people, influential people, who know what happened, and right will resolve these issues my daughter will be free that's what i believe are you confident of that as well yes

is karen yes that confident yes it's almost three months ago that we last appeared before you, Your Honor, we requested access to these items and yet again have the response from the Commonwealth was that they would be tested soon. The prosecutor had represented within 30 to 60 days. That's on record. It's now close to 90 days. We've made zero progress. This court did order that the Commonwealth request expedited testing, but that order has yielded nothing. I asked the court to set deadlines then, which the court was not inclined to do. Three months later, it is crystal clear that deadlines need to be set.

Without a deadline, we have no assurances that this case will not drag on who knows how long into the future. With each passing day my client, who not only is presumed to be innocent but is factually innocent, remains jobless with inadequate health insurance and with each passing day her savings and her family savings continue to be depleted. There is no time to wait. There is no time to waste. It is time for excuses to end. As we noted in our motion the prosecution in the crime lab move very quickly when they want to. In other cases pending before this very court, the very same investigators secured DNA testing

within two weeks of opening their investigation, before anybody was charged. Contrast that with our case, where here we are 15 months later, no such testing has even started. Regarding the Canton Library video, this court should know we still do not have relevant time periods. From the commonwealth's evidence, we know that my client drove by the Canton Library at 12 16 a.m. on January 29th because that was recorded. There is video of her driving by at that time heading to 34 Fairview, which is where John O'Keefe died, with her taillight intact. We know that my client arrived back at John O'Keefe's residence at 1 Meadows Ave in Canton at 12 41 a.m. because the Commonwealth produced a voicemail that she left for John where you can hear the garage door closing, the car door closing,

the house door closing while she walked in her high heels on the garage floor. One Meadows is about a mile from the Canton Library. We know the video equipment was working because they have that footage from 12-16 a.m. But in the video that the prosecution turned over to us, there is a gap in that video from 12.37 a.m. to 12.39 a.m., which would have been the precise time my client would have been driving back past the library. We know that that footage would show that my client's taillight was still intact at that point because she never struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle, yet the prosecution has produced a video from the library with that crucial time period missing. This evidence is strictly in their possession. We've been told that the Canton Police provided the evidence to them via ShareFi, I'm sorry, the Canton Library provided this evidence to them

via ShareFi, a link with a guest ID and a guest password. We need that link, that user ID and that password. We cannot rely on trooper Michael Proctor, conflicted Michael Proctor, to sanitize exculpatory evidence before sending it to us. We need the original footage. If the Commonwealth answers that that original footage no longer exists, then we'll need an evidentiary hearing to put the relevant parties under oath to find out what happened to it. The bottom line here, Your Honor, is that we've spent 15 months trying to uncover the truth. We are not afraid of whatever evidence is unearthed from whatever source because for 15 months

every stitch of evidence has been consistent with my client's innocence. Yes, Your Honor. So in response to the counsel's motion, just in response to the statement that every piece of evidence that's been provided thus far is inconsistent with the defendant's guilt and consistent with her innocence, I would have a large issue with that. We are, as indicated in our papers, we are seeking summonses, and this is dealing with the animal control issue, that Rule 17 motion. We're seeking summonses directed at two entities, the Canton Animal Control and the Canton Town Clerk, both. We believe they both have records. We know they both have records. These are records that we need, the defense needs, to shine a light on Karen Reed's innocence. These are records that are central to our theory of the case.

And these are records that we have no other option to get but through a summons they've indicated to us. They have the records, but they need a court order. They need some sort of a summons. Your Honor, in furtherance of this motion, I want to talk for a quick second about a couple of undisputed facts. Undisputed fact number one, on January 29th, 2022, Officer John O'Keefe was found dead in the yard of Brian Albert at his house at 34 Fairview in Canton. That is undisputed fact, where he was found dead and what the circumstances were surrounding that death are why we're here now. Second undisputed fact, when John O'Keefe was found, he had this set of wounds on his right arm.

The medical examiner indicated that these wounds were concomitant with his death in terms of the temporal, the time that he died. These were wounds that he suffered at or near the time that he died and the Commonwealth looks at these wounds and says, yeah there's nothing to see here. Why are we looking at this? This is, you know, you're following a red herring basically. This is just a road rash. This means nothing. It has no impact on our case one way or the other. This is, according to the Commonwealth, simply a set of injuries that John O'Keefe suffered at the hands of being struck by a moving vehicle.

Well, first, I would ask the common sense question, does this look like a road rash? I mean, the court's got years, decades of experience, life experience and legal experience. Of course, this doesn't look like a road rash. I mean, the court's got years, decades of experience, life experience and legal experience. Of course, this doesn't look like a road rash. It's not a road rash that any of us have ever seen. Or does it look more like claw marks and bite marks from an animal, which is exactly what they are? Second, if it was a road rash, where's the rest of the road rash? You've had one set of injuries like this.

Deep scratches, deep puncture wounds on his arm, on his right arm only, from mid-biceps to mid-forearm and no other place. For instance, mid-biceps and mid-forearm that you might put in front of your face or your body if a large animal was attacking you, resulting in these wounds. Why are the wounds confined just to his right arm? What about all the other pointy bits of a human body if someone is rolled under a car, or rolled in gravel because of the car? What about the shoulders? What about the knees? What about the ankles? What about the elbows? None of that exists.

These are the only wounds that are confined to his right arm and they're deep scratch wounds, puncture wounds that are indicative of claw marks and bite marks from a large animal. And third, what about the Commonwealth's own expert? She has to have opined about this, correct? She has to have said during the grand jury, I mean, this was a full-throated investigation surrounding the potential murder of a police officer. What does the Commonwealth's own experts say? First of all, she was never asked by the Commonwealth during the course of the grand jury about the injuries. It took a grand juror actually asking the question

of the witness, and she said, no, I cannot say that is a road rash. There's certainly not enough evidence to suggest that these wounds are consistent with a road rash. Well, she had to have at least talked about the fact that it was an animal, right? She had to. The Commonwealth had to have asked that question. She actually said nothing about whether or not that's consistent with an animal because the Commonwealth very particularly did not ever pose that question but we did we hired one of the preeminent medical examiners in the country a doctor by the

name of Sheridan Frank Sheridan and he wasn't some deputy medical examiner Dr. Frank Sheridan was the medical examiner for San Bernardino County in California with more than 12,000 autopsies under his belt, the supervising medical examiner for one of the largest counties in California. And he concluded to a scientific certainty that these wounds are from an animal attack. Period. Full stop. So what do we know about animals and the Alvarez? Which is exactly where Officer John O'Keefe was found dead. In February of 2017, we know that the Alberts had a dog.

There's a photograph of Brian Albert with a dog, Chloe, in the foreground. By 2019, the Albert family had registered ownership of that German Shepherd. Moving on to 2022, in January of 2022, specifically January 29th, John O'Keefe suffers these animal puncture wounds, these animal scratches, these animal bite marks that are heretofore and questions about this animal, about these injuries, about the dog, about what dog existed at the Albert's house. Where is the dog? We started inquiring pretty significantly. That same month, amazingly, the Alberts informed the Canton Animal Control that the dog was remarkably and mysteriously rehomed. The dog was gotten rid of. And to date, the Commonwealth has yet, as my colleague just mentioned, has yet to release the tissue samples to us for DNA testing to determine if there's evidence in these wounds of a canine attack, which we believe there will be.

During that grand jury testimony, Brian Albert admitted to three things. Number one, he admitted that he owned a large German shepherd. His words, not mine. A large German shepherd. Number two, he admitted that the dog was at his home on the night John O'Keefe, early morning hours, John O'Keefe was killed on January 29th, 2022. And the dog, according to his own testimony, was inside the house and never in the front yard, which is where John O'Keefe's body was ultimately found. And the third thing that he admitted was that the dog was, quote,

not great with strangers, end quote. That's a dog owner's euphemism for the dog bites, the dog attacks, the dog is mean or can be mean. So why wouldn't the Commonwealth ask about these injuries? Why wouldn't the Commonwealth inquire, as we have been inquiring, about the nature of these injuries and their significance in terms of John O'Keefe's death? It's because they know that the answer completely obliterates their case. Their theory of homicide would fold if they got the true answers to these questions. The answer exculpates Jared Reed, and the answer inculpates Brian Albert. That's because if that dog was inside the house that night, not on the front lawn, not in the front yard, but inside the house,

and these injuries were suffered or sustained at the time John O'Keefe was killed, then that means John O'Keefe was inside the house when he was killed. And it also means that his body was moved. That's consistent with the facts that we also know to be true, which is not one person, not one person that was in that house and ultimately exited that house from that party that night, not one saw John O'Keefe's body laying in the cold in the front yard. And that's because he wasn't there yet. Multiple people walked out of the house,

multiple people who would have no reason to lie about that. A 200-pound man, 6'2", lying in the front yard on a light dusting of snow in dark clothing not one person saw him but if john o'keefe was beaten unconscious in for instance the basement of that house and later moved to the front yard after the guests left. There's your answer as to why no one saw him. And it also answers two other questions, which are looming in this case. Why would Brian Albert rip out the floor of his basement months after John O'Keefe was killed? The second question, why would he sell his house? So in the months following John O'Keefe's

death, the dog has been gotten rid of, got rid of the evidence in the basement, got rid of the house, the crime scene itself. Your Honor, I would submit to the court that evidence is literally being destroyed right under our nose. It's been reported that the federal authorities have now gotten involved in the circumstances surrounding this case and have impaneled a grand jury, a federal grand jury, to investigate some of these circumstances. But Karen Reid should not have to wait for the feds to figure out which heads should roll. I would implore the court, now is the time for the court to take some action

and give us the tools, the defense, the tools that we need to fully investigate this case. We need these records to track down this German Shepherd, if it's still alive, which clearly is an open question. Our understanding is, at least up to this point, is that the dog was not only rehomed, but rehomed out of state. Out of the jurisdiction of this court, and out of the reach of the defense. Or at least that was the attempt. We need those records to find where that dog is. If the dog still exists, we need a saliva sample, we need a hair sample, we need something. And then we need the Commonwealth to give us the tissue samples that were taken at the time so that they can be compared. This is vital to the defense. We ask that the summonses at issue for the two entities that we've described. Those summons is issue. Our request clearly meets

the Lampron standards. Number one, it's relevant evidence. Number two, we definitely need a subpoena or a summons. They will not provide the information without a court order. Number three, this information is necessary for our defense. And number four, contrary to what the Commonwealth constantly says, oh, well, this is just phishing. I think we've established this is not just our defense. Number four, contrary to what the Commonwealth constantly says, oh, well, this is just fishing, I think we've established this is not just fishing. We've got to fish on the hook. We just need the court to help us reel it in.

With regard to the dog, first of all, I think the Commonwealth misses the point. If there was a fight inside the house with the dog's owner, the dog would likely attack. That is the idea that is borne out by the evidence that we have. We know that he was beaten. We've got evidence that John O'Keefe was beaten, that he lay there unconscious. And we also have evidence that at the time he was beaten facially, and blunt force was used against the back of his head, he was also attacked by an animal. Well, Brian Albert, who's a known fighter, owns a 90-pound German shepherd

that has since been gotten rid of and had a skin piercing incident as the excuse for having gotten rid of him. So we know that the dog attacks according to sort of uncontroverted evidence. We weren't saying, we don't suggest that the dog killed John O'Keefe, we're suggesting that the dog was there when John O'Keefe died and also attacked John O'Keefe were suggesting that the dog was there when John O'Keefe died and also attacked John O'Keefe. That's the point. This is the first I've heard of the Commonwealth's new position after, what, 15, 16 months, that

somehow John O'Keefe was stabbed or cut up with a broken cocktail glass, which would produce these injuries? That makes absolutely no sense. It just doesn't pass the civil test. These are not from a cocktail glass. Who did that to him? Is there a new theory that Karen Reid got out of the car, broke a cocktail glass, then wielded an edge of that cocktail glass and cut up John's arm? Then John stood there while she jumps in the car, slams it in reverse, then hits him with the car, with her taillight in the back of the head. It makes absolutely no sense. That is the Commonwealth

grasping at straws. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. This looks like an animal attack because it is an animal attack. Now, what originally struck me as so crazy about this case is the differences in what they are arguing. This isn't just a different interpretation of evidence. They are flat out accusing the police department and specific individuals of being involved in a cover-up, pointing fingers, and naming names. So is this a phishing expedition, as the prosecution says, or is there something to these claims? Karen's defense team dropped even more bombs that some believe have changed everything in this case. They now claim that someone inside the home

searched on Google for how long to die in the cold, and that this search was made at 2.27 a.m., hours before Karen is seen leaving John's house in the surveillance footage, and long before John was discovered. factually incorrect theory. That's exactly what you heard today, was exactly what Mr. Lally has been reciting. He literally read it from a paper that he's clearly had for some time. It's the exact recitation of the same facts of the facts that we've cited in our moving papers are supported by any evidence that's absolutely incorrect for instance Jennifer McCabe he said Jennifer McCabe was not up all night there's no evidence whatsoever that Jennifer McCabe was up all night

except for her Apple Health data which shows that she was up all night. We didn't make that data up. That data came right from a cell phone extraction that was conducted in no small part by their own expert, and then reconducted by our own expert. How about the fact that she was actually on the phone searching? The Safari data establishes that not only was she up all night, but that the phone and Safari was being manipulated during those times at 2

o'clock, 3 o'clock in the morning. These are unassailable facts, unassailable data, directly from the Celebrite extraction. These aren't, as Mr. Lally likes to say, fanciful facts. He's got that written down somewhere, obviously. He said that at just about every hearing. There's nothing fanciful about any of the facts that we've submitted and have supported with affidavits and evidence. The Commonwealth's theory, quite to the converse, is supported by nearly nothing. Nothing. Everything that we've suggested is supported by the data, the evidence, and the facts. The Commonwealth's theory is supported by conjecture and really bad policing. almost unbelievable and very troubling as an officer of the court.

Mr. Lally provides a brand spanking new expert yesterday. We didn't have any of the information concerning this new expert. Quite frankly, I haven't even committed her name to memory yet, I don't even know her, is... Jessica Hyde. Hyde. H-Y-D-E. First time I've ever heard of Jessica Hyde was yesterday while I was on the plane on my way here. That's when we received that information. And lo and behold, Mr. Lally springs that on us today and starts reciting her factual conclusions and opinions.

That is wildly, wildly inappropriate, wildly unfair. We even had an opportunity to look at her report, to review it in detail, to have our expert compare his notes to her report. What I will tell you is that what Mr. Lally said about her report is not quite true. He didn't quite get that right either. What she actually said is why the time stamp is listing the time of 2.27 and 40 seconds in the morning is unknown. Her words, not my words. That's what she said about the timestamp. That her conclusion is that the reason for the definitive timestamp is unknown to her. Lally brought it up and tried to explain what his theory, an incorrect theory of the time stamp is, I'll take a minute to explain what the actual true facts are. An Apple iPhone has a clock in it.

It actually has two internal clocks. One of those internal clocks is run by a program known as Apple COCOA Core Time. The Apple COCOA Core Time is the number of seconds from January 1st, 2001 until right now. So for instance, if I open my phone, which I just did, Apple COCOA Core Time stamp just noted the exact moment that I just opened my phone. And it's noted from January 1st, 2001. Right now, actually in 2022, in January of 2022, those numbers of seconds was around 665 million. About 665 million seconds had passed between January 1st at midnight, 2001, to January 29th, around midnight, around 2.27 in the morning, on January 29th, 2022. Why is that important? Because their expert, Mr. Garina, indicated, oh, well, you can't rely on the time stamp of how long to die in cold

because that's at the exact same time as the Ozark basketball webpage was brought up. So something must have gone wrong. I don't really know what it was, but it must have been something. Well, what we would do, had we had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Burino, is perhaps explain to him that which he doesn't know, which is the following. More than one web page can be up and open on a cell phone at any given time. The court knows this. Everybody who owns a cell phone knows this. You can have multiple pages open. One page is sitting on top of the other, and then there are multiple pages behind it.

All those pages are still open and potentially running in the program in the iPhone. The 227 how long to die in cold search was nanoseconds, milliseconds, before the Ozark basketball search page came up. How did Apple, Cocoa, CoreTime relate those two events, those two artifacts on the phone? It happened like this. At some point, she searched, used her thumbs. The Apple iPhone doesn't coordinate the timestamp for when she searched used her thumbs the Apple iPhone doesn't coordinate the timestamp for when she's using her thumbs people type faster

people text slower it coordinates when someone exits out of a search in other words when you close that web page she obviously Google search how long to die in cold we know that because we found the search the deletion was not the deletion of the search. It was the deletion of the page. And as soon as that page was deleted, the other page behind it, Ozark Basketball, was immediately populated. And when I say immediately, not at the same time. Nano seconds behind it. We actually have the nano seconds.

It's five digits beyond the decimal point. We know exactly how that happened and why it happened. And Rick Green, our expert, has verified that not through one, not through two, but five different tools. Establishing exactly how long it took for the Ozark page to populate behind the How Long to Die in cold page once Jennifer McCabe exited out of that page, if that makes sense. So we know that she was googling how long to die in cold at minimum, at minimum, three hours before John O'Keefe's body was ever found. This is not some anomaly. It's not a question. It's not, as their new expert says, unknown why the Google search took place or the timestamp is what it is at 2.27.40. We actually know. Rick Green knows. His colleagues know. And the scientific community knows.

Who could have searched that? Was there a partygoer who searched that in the House? What do you think? While you're thinking on that, we are going to hear from the last sponsor of today's episode. Okay, so these searches are now being brought up by the defense. And the difference in what the cell phone experts found regarding the timestamps is that the prosecution used one version of Cellbrite to extract the data, and the defense's expert used an updated version of Cellbrite. The prosecution has been adamant that Jennifer McCabe had that Google search of how long to die in the cold because she was directed to do so by

Karen on the morning that they found John and that this search was not done at 2 27 a.m. but actually done just after 6 a.m. Now obviously I am not an expert on how this works and I want to have some experts on the podcast to talk more about these claims, as well as what this could potentially mean. So stay tuned for that. Later on, a surveillance video from the Ring cameras that showed the driveway of John's house and captured Karen backing up her car was released. Let me know in the comments what you believe this showed. Was Karen's taillight already damaged? Or is this video of her actually backing into John's car? So she's pulling out in the black SUV and that's the victim's SUV

parked. And the defense says that she makes contact, hits the victim's SUV right there, damaging that back right passenger side taillight. And they also claim you can see the victim's SUV move, indicating that there was a collision. And then as she pulls away, they say that you can tell there's missing parts of the taillight. Right. But it would have been missing if it was a result of striking Officer O'Keefe at that time also. Here's a closer look at it. Once again as we're backing up here, keep your eye and see if you see any movement here from the other car. It's very possible. It's very possible.

The prosecution doesn't say there's contact. If the whole case was how did the taillight get broken, you've got reasonable doubt right there. Yes. You've got reasonable doubt right there because you can't tell, but it's a very reasonable thing that at that point you could have broken that taillight. Okay. Wow. And that's defense evidence that we got our hands on. Great job.

The defense also asked that the judge recuse herself, saying that she too has ties to some of the people involved and should step away from the case. Prosecutors, though, objected to the request. The defense presented a message between Sean McCabe and a reporter as evidence as well. Now, Sean McCabe is Jennifer McCabe's brother-in-law. The reporter in the message exchange asked, do you really have a line to Judge Beverly? Auntie Bev, whose seaside cottage do you think we're going to bury your

corpse under? A very odd message to say the least. District Attorney Adam Lally said in court that the message and a Venmo message posted by another person referencing the judge are irrelevant and that both people have literally nothing to do with this case. The judge said, I can tell both parties I don't know Sean McCabe. As far as I know, I have never spoken to him or had any contact with him. I've never interacted with him, and certainly I've never socialized with him or any family members or any witnesses who have been said here in court. And with that, the defense's request for the judge to recuse herself was denied. As the defense's claims started to circulate around the internet, some people who fully believed the defense were said to have been harassing the allegedly involved individuals in this case,

and finally the district attorney, said enough is enough and this needs to stop. These claims are absolutely baseless. This will be the first statement of its kind in my dozen years as Norfolk District Attorney. The harassment of witnesses in the murder prosecution of Karen Reed is absolutely baseless. It should be an outrage to any decent person and it needs to stop. Innuendo is not evidence. False narratives are not evidence. However, what evidence does show is that John O'Keefe never entered the home at 34 Fairview Road in Campton the night he died. Location data from his phone,

recovered from the lawn beneath his body when he was transported to the hospital, shows that his phone did not enter that home. Eleven people have given statements that they did not see John O'Keefe enter the home at 34 Fivu that night. Zero people have said that they saw him enter the home. Zero. No one. Some have, without any evidence, pointed to 18-year-old Colin Albert, a nephew of the homeowner, and accused him of attacking John O'Keefe as he entered the home. But foreign evidence shows O'Keefe never entered the home at all. Testimonies from witnesses tell us that 18-year-old Colin Albert had left his uncle's home before John O'Keefe

and Karen Reed had arrived outside the residence. There was no fight inside that home. John O'Keefe did not enter the home. Colin Albert, the young man being vilified, was not present when Reed's vehicle and John O'Keefe arrived on the street. This is a false narrative. Colin Elbert didn't commit murder. Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, and Brian Elbert, these people were not part of a conspiracy and certainly did not commit murder or any crime that night. They have been forthcoming with authority, providing statements, and have not engaged in any cover-up. They are not suspects in any crime. They are merely witnesses in the case.

To have them accused of murder is outrageous. To have them harassed and intimidated based on false narratives and accusations is wrong. They are witnesses doing what our justice system asks of them. The autopsy of John O'Keefe was conducted by a forensic pathologist from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The doctor found that the injuries that left John helpless in the cold were not a result of a fight. She further found that the line of abrasions on his arm was consistent with blunt trauma, not an animal attack. A grand jury of everyday citizens heard the documented evidence and testimony before making a decision. The subject of that murder indictment enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Why should the witnesses who have committed no crime be afforded less by members of the community? They should not be harassed for telling the government what they heard or saw. I'm asking the Canton community and everyone who feels invested in this case to hear all the actual evidence at trial before assigning guilt to people who have done nothing wrong. And certainly before taking it upon yourself to harass citizens, who evidence shows, have done nothing in this matter but come forward and bear witness. We try people in the court and not on the Internet for a reason. The Internet has no rules of evidence. The Internet has no punishment for perjury, and the Internet does not know all the facts. Conspiracy theories are not evidence.

The idea that multiple police departments, EMTs, fire personnel, the medical examiner, and prosecuting agencies are joined in or taken in by a vast conspiracy should be seen for what it is, completely contrary to the evidence and a desperate attempt to reassign guilt. Michael Proctor, the state police trooper being accused of planting evidence outside 34 Fairview Road, was never at Fairview Road on the day of the incident. Proctor and his state police partner traveled together the entire day while other officers were processing 34 Fairview Road on the day of the incident. Proctor and his state police partner traveled together the entire day while other officers were processing 34 Fairview. Trooper Proctor was not there and did not plant evidence at 34 Fairview Road. In addition to having no

opportunity to plant the evidence, as has been suggested, Proctor would have no motive to do so. Trooper Proctor had no close personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the investigation and had no conflict and he had no reason to step out of this investigation. Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie. This should be seen for what it is and not used as a pretext to attack and harass others. What is happening to the witnesses, some with no actual involvement in the case, is wrong. It is contrary to the American values of fairness and the constitutional value of fair trial. It

needs to stop now. I'm releasing this quoted statement rather than holding a news conference because my remarks need to be so narrowly tailored to the issue at hand while the prosecution is pending a superior court. But the message is the same. What is happening to these innocent people, these witnesses, is wrong and it needs to stop. In Karen's most recent hearing, the defense says that when they tested the alleged human hair that was found outside of the car, their test results actually showed that it was not human. Now there has been a lot of conversation around this fact, and some experts have said that the reason it didn't show a positive as human hair was because

there wasn't enough of a sample present for the test to have concluded that. So almost a conundrum of like well it's not human hair because there isn't enough to conclude it is human so it must not be human hair. At the end of the day all we're asking for is to have the item reviewed microscopically that has nothing to do with any destructive testing whatsoever. It's going to be reviewed microscopically by somebody who actually knows what they're doing. And my problem with Mr. Lally's response, and I understand why he's responding this way, well, there's no deception here, we weren't pulling the wool over the court's eyes or counsel's eyes or anybody else's eyes, it looked like a hair. Why didn't they say that? Why didn't they say it looks like

a hair as established by our expert who failed her proficiency examination? That would have been a truthful statement. But the statement that they've repeated over and over and over to this court in papers and in affidavits under oath, the penalty of perjury is the hair has been forensically confirmed. There is no, you can't word salad your way out of that. Forensically confirmed means it's been DNA tested to confirm forensically and scientifically that it is a hair. Then they turn around and try to confirm it forensically, and there is no human DNA detected. I understand that the short-tandem repeat testing, the mitochondrial testing, has not been done yet. That's their 11th hour sort of Hail Mary to try to cover themselves for what they've already done,

which is to basically defraud the court in not one, but two, but three, but four different filings, three in front of this court, one in front of the Court of Appeal. It just doesn't pass the smell test. What we're asking for is very simple. We can address the mitochondrial destructive and exhaustive DNA testing at some point down the road. There has been also a lot of speculation about the people involved, including Albert's 18-year-old nephew's involvement and a particular Ford Edge SUV that could have possibly been mistaken for Karen's SUV in some eyewitness accounts. The defense also questioned why Brian Albert and his nephew Colin Albert, who were named as suspects by the defense, haven't been looked into more. It was established that Brian and Colin both

drove Ford Edges. Additionally, the pieces of the plastic taillight that were recovered after the snow had been plowed in the street were brought up in court. By the time I got back to my office that afternoon, I had already begun to learn that this wasn't just a tragedy, and it wasn't just that my client had committed no crime but shockingly at the time i learned from somebody else i learned that somebody else did in fact commit a very heinous crime a friend and colleague of brian albert's called me on february 2nd 2022 only hours after my client was arraigned and named brian albert and his nephew col nephew Colin Albert as potential suspects. That tip on day one of this case led us to do the investigation the Commonwealth did not do, the investigation they refused to do. And as my co-counsel has argued today, that investigation revealed that the Commonwealth's investigation

was based on one lie after another and the exposure of those lies is a major change circumstance which justifies lowering my client's bail to personal recognizance i'd like the court to consider that at the outset of this case state trooper michael proctor submitted a report stating that fairview road in canton had not been plowed during the early morning hours of january 29th of 2022. He claimed in that report that Michael Trotta at the DPW had told him during a phone call that he had with him after John O'Keefe was killed. We did not take Michael Proctor's word for that, and thank God we didn't, because we learned that was a lie.

Rather than take Michael Proctor's word, we instead sent our investigator to speak to Mr. Trotta in February of 2022. He directed us to another man who led us to the plow driver who did plow the street. Our investigator interviewed plow driver Brian Loughran. Within a couple of weeks of John O'Keefe's death, Mr. Loughran told us what he has now told Michael Proctor, now that Proctor finally got around to speaking to him a year and a half after the fact. Shortly after John O'Keefe died, Brian Loughran told us that he did plow the street in front of 34 Fairview, made a pass by there at 2 30 in the morning on January 29th and when he passed that house there was not a lot of snow that had fallen visibility was good the lights were working on his plow he passed right by the area where John O'Keefe's body would have been if Karen Reed had actually struck him with her vehicle and he confirmed that at 2 30 a.m plowing that area there was no body there and

mr lawfern was firm with trooper proctor there was no body and he told him not only was there no body but if there had been a body there he would have seen it he left michael proctor in the commonwealth no wiggle room the plow driver's testimony should end this case. To put it simply, no body at 2.30 a.m. means Karen Reid is innocent. Forget about all the other evidence that points to her innocent, but this one fact alone prevents the Commonwealth from ever convicting her. No body at 2.30 a.m., she is innocent. But, Your Honor, it's not just that he saw no body at 2.30 a.m. She is innocent. But your honor, it's not just that he saw no body at 2 30 a.m. After

that, he saw a Ford Edge parked right in the area where John O'Keefe's body was later found. Whoever moved that Ford Edge to that location in the early morning hours of January 29th, hours after Karen Reed left Fairview to go home. That person or persons knows or knows, know or knows exactly what happened to John O'Keefe. That mysterious driver and his or her accomplices likely know who beat up and killed John O'Keefe, and that person knows how John O'Keefe received all of the scratch marks and bite marks to his arm. This is all brand new information to you, Your Honor, as you did not have the benefit of any of this exculpatory evidence when you were deciding on an appropriate amount of bail. Frankly, when the Commonwealth relies on the nature and circumstances of the case in order

to justify bail being set, those nature and circumstances have changed in such a fundamental and drastic way that I'm surprised the Commonwealth is opposing this motion. When you set bail, you did so in part on a representation by Mr. Lally at my client's arraignment that there was that apparent hair on the rear passenger side quarter panel of my client's Lexus. We now know that Mr. Lally relied on the gross examination performed by a criminalist who failed her proficiency exam in performing gross examinations of evidence. We now know from the Commonwealth's own testing that not only did the hair not belong to John O'Keefe, it turns out it wasn't even a human hair. That is a significant change

circumstance from what was represented to you by the Commonwealth and that would justify lowering her bail. When you last said bail your honor you had no idea that one of the Commonwealth's main witnesses Jennifer McCabe who had been at Brian Albert's house on the night in question and would have had to walk by John O'Keefe's body in the yard if it actually was there at that time. Went home and at 2 27 a.m. googled Haas long to die in cold. You did not know when you set bail that Jennifer McCabe deleted that Google search. We have stressed to you ever since that our expert not only found that search but we stand ready to prove beyond a doubt that Jennifer McCabe did it at 2.27 a.m.

Our expert is certain. And importantly, the Commonwealth's hand-picked expert, Ms. Hyde, confirms that the time stamp was 2.27 a.m., but says that the reason is unknown. This is all new information that you did not have when you have set bail in this case. And it goes without saying, Your Honor, that Jennifer McCabe's Google search, trying to determine just how much time had to pass before Joan O'Keefe would die in the cold, is completely consistent with her guilt or complicity in this crime and completely consistent with my client's innocence. You did not know this, Your Honor, at any time that you set bail and this is a changed

circumstance justifying a reduction. This is on top of the lies that have been uncovered. Not only did Proctor lie about the plowing of the street, not only did Mr. Lowry represent that a human hair was found on my client's car when it wasn't, but importantly, your honor, you have been lied to by brian albert in opposing our motion to get the animal control records mr albert's attorney told you that mr albert's dog chloe had no history of attacking human beings thank goodness you ordered the records your honor because we learned that was a lie and to be clear i do not believe for a second that brian albert's attorney g Henning, would lie to this court.

That leaves only one possibility. Brian Albert lied to him. Brian Albert told him that Chloe had never attacked a person. Brian Albert was desperate to keep these records secret from the defense and was willing to lie to keep them secret. The fact that those records have now been brought to court and revealed that Chloe attacked not just one but two people in the past, sending them both to the hospital, is a major change circumstance. Brian Albert lied, which is powerful evidence of his consciousness of guilt. You should have been able to consider that before you set bail in this case, but that information was kept from you. It is now yet another changed circumstance that justifies the lowering of Ms. Reed's bail. Now, I expect that the Commonwealth will argue

two points in opposing this motion, both from lab reports. One, that John McKeith's DNA was found on my client's Lexus, and two, that there were microscopic pieces of taillights supposedly found on his clothing. Both of these arguments are red herrings. Regarding his DNA being found on the vehicle, our response is, of course it was found on the vehicle. It would have been shocking if John O'Keefe's DNA were not all over that vehicle, on every part of both the outside and the inside of the vehicle. He was in the vehicle that night, shortly before he was killed. He was around the outside of the vehicle several times that day and night.

That vehicle was parked at his house for months. He lived with the owner of that vehicle. It's completely unsurprising that his DNA is on it. That finding does not undercut the new and powerful exculpatory evidence of no body being found in the yard at 2 30 a.m. a Ford Edge being near the yard where the body was later found after 2 30 a.m. Jennifer McCabe googling how long to die in cold at 2 27 a.m. and then three minutes later Brian Loughran driving by 34 Fairview and confirming no body there. Regarding the tiny pieces of taillight, for those to have

any evidentiary value, you have to trust the person who had custody of John O'Keefe's clothing before it was sent to the lab. So, Ms. Little, I'm not looking at any, if you show them to the audience before you show them to me, I'm not going to look at them. Okay. Please put that down. Mr. Yannetti, do you have chalks for your bail? Please put that down. Do you have chalks for your bail argument? I have one chalk that I was intending to show the court at the appropriate time. I don't need to see a chalk, Mr. Yannetti. You didn't give me sufficient evidence under Commonwealth versus Brangham. So I will hear you because you want to make this statement. So go ahead, but no chalks.

Well, wait, you're right. Just so we're clear, it's not just her financial status that justifies reducing the bail. The thrust of my argument is all with regard to change circumstances. I understand that, so I'm going to let you continue but a very important piece of this is missing so go ahead with your argument no chalks please. And obviously my argument is leaving the financial issues aside the bail should be lowered based on my argument here today that I'm making to this court. I had just said stated your honor that in order for that the microscopic supposed pieces of taillight to have any evidentiary value,

you have to trust who had custody of them, which means that you have to trust Michael Proctor. And I question how on earth can anyone trust Michael Proctor? I've previously referred to him as being conflicted, which is certainly true, but it actually does not go far enough to describe what he has done in this case just by taking the case the more appropriate word to describe him is corrupt only a corrupt state trooper would agree to investigate a murder case in which a body was found in the yard of a family friend only a corrupt state trooper would keep his ties to that family friend hidden only a corrupt state trooper would keep his ties to that family friend hidden.

Only a corrupt state trooper would refuse to go inside the home, which featured the body of a dead police officer on its lawn. Only a corrupt state trooper would write in his report that a street had not been plowed when it had. It was the corrupt Michael Proctor who took custody of John O'Keefe's clothing, and that clothing was not submitted to the lab until several weeks after Michael Proctor who took custody of John O'Keefe's clothing and that clothing was not submitted to the lab until several weeks after Michael Proctor seized it. You, I believe, have seen the chalk, Your Honor. That chalk shows that Michael Proctor is at the hospital. John O'Keefe's body is on a hospital bed. You see Michael Proctor's feet and at the bottom of his feet you see a pile

of John O'Keefe's clothing unattended sloppily you know thrown on the floor that's the care with which Michael Proctor treated what they now claim is important evidence and that clothing was not submitted to the lab your honor until after Michael Proctor had seized my client's Lexus and therefore seized pieces of the taillight. And you should consider how he treated the evidence afterward as well in terms of not sending it to the lab until March of 2022. He had it for weeks. Michael Proctor's mother has described the Albert family as the Pro until March of 2022. He had it for weeks. Michael Proctor's mother has described the Albert family as the Proctor's second family. Michael Proctor told witnesses

who showed up to testify before the grand jury that Brian Albert is the salt of the earth. Michael Proctor's wife has posted about how much they love Colin Albert. The Proctors have constantly been photographed with the Alberts going back over a decade. We've shown that Michael Proctor's at a wedding party with Colin Albert. Colin Albert was the ring bearer at Michael Proctor's sister's wedding. It's so clear that Michael Proctor was both conflicted and corrupt. He had every reason to sprinkle tiny pieces of tail light that he had seized into the clothing that he alone took so that the lab would later find it weeks later and sure enough they did.

And this supposed discovery does not undercut the fact that Jennifer McCabe googled how long to die in the cold at 2 27 a.m. and Brian Loughran went by and saw no body outside that house three minutes later. When Assistant District Attorney Lally took the podium again and suggested that there was no evidence to suggest that the Proctors and Alberts had a close relationship, the gallery literally laughed out loud. What he leaves out, though, is that all these insinuations that the Fort Edge somehow belongs to the Alberts or is Brian Alberts' Fort Edge, or something to that effect.

What he leaves out from that interview with Ms. Veloferen is that Ms. Veloferen specifically says that that Ford Edge is not Brian Alberts' Ford Edge. Another sort of interesting issue in relation to the affidavit from the investigator in regards to seeing that Ford Edge and his label as such is that the investigator essentially takes Mr. Loughran out to the parking lot, points to a Ford Edge, and essentially says, is that it? Somewhat suggestive identification of that particular vehicle, the Commonwealth would suggest. There is simply no evidence of Trooper Proctor having a close connection with the homeowners. There is simply no evidence as far as... Karen's trial has now been scheduled for March 12, 2024, and I want to know your thoughts in

the comment section on this because this case has everyone split, and there are strong opinions on both sides of it. On one hand, you have a snowplow driver who said he didn't see John's body. You have multiple people leaving the Alberts' home that night after Karen left and also didn't see John's body. You have a missing dog, missing carpet that was cut out of the basement. You have the Alberts who sold their home on 34 Fairview. You have an alleged cover-up that the defense believes was coordinated by a specific trooper. You have other people that drove dark-colored SUVs. The surveillance camera of what some people believe shows Karen actually breaking her taillight on John's SUV when she was backing up in the driveway. You have Jennifer's Google search, how long to die in the cold,

and the hair strand maybe being human, maybe not, depending whether you ask the prosecution or the defense. And then, on the other hand, you also have Karen drinking heavily on camera, at least seven drinks. Surveillance footage from different buildings in the city that show a black SUV and Karen's phone activity placing her there, and then all of the witnesses' testimony about Karen's behavior, her admission of saying she was hammered and doesn't remember going to the Alberts' home. You have John's niece and nephew saying that he wanted to break up with her, the voicemails, the text messages between John and Karen, and also the fact about Karen talking about her taillight being broken. I mean, it is a lot. I understand why

there's a divide here. So what do you guys think about this case? Do you believe that Karen is guilty of hitting John on purpose? Do you think that this was an accident? Do you think that she purposely left him for dead in the snow after accidentally hitting him? Or do you believe the defense? Do you think that the Google search is a smoking gun? Or better yet, when was the last time someone accused of murdering a police officer had crowds cheering in support of them being innocent outside of a courthouse? I mean, this case is insane. I will definitely be keeping you updated with this case. So if you want to hear more about this case and as it progresses, let me know in the comment section and on the review section of the podcast and definitely

make sure that you are subscribed to the podcast and to YouTube so that you don't miss any notifications or future episodes on this case. As a reminder if you are listening to the audio only version of this and you want to see all of the visuals including the court footage the car footage the surveillance all of those things head on over to my youtube channel tend to life where the video version of this will be posted all right guys let me know what you think about this case where do you sit on the divide i definitely am going to throw up a poll on this on spotify so let me know your thoughts on that poll but i'm'm curious to hear from you. And as a reminder, if you would just please take 30 seconds to quickly rate this podcast, leave a review as well, letting me know what other cases you want me to cover, certain content you

want me to cover. I want to make sure that we are always pivoting and giving you the content that you want. So please leave that in the review section and give us a quick rating if you could. All right, guys, thank you so much for tuning in with me on today's Monday deep dive of this case. I will be with you bright and early on Thursday for headline highlights talking about everything that's gone down in the true crime world this week. There's a lot. And you never know, I might actually drop a bonus episode before then. So make sure you're following the podcast so you don't miss anything. And as a last last final reminder, every Friday, I am posting ad-free bonus episodes of brand new cases that you have never heard about from me if you are looking just for an

extra true crime fix. So you can either sign up to get access to those over on Apple, on Apple Podcasts, or through Patreon, which I will link in the show notes below, along with all of the amazing deals from today's sponsors. It'll all be in the show notes, so make sure to check those out and swoop up on those deals while you can. All right, guys, it's your true crime bestie. I'm signing off, and let me know what you think about this case. It's a crazy one. All right, guys, have a good rest of your week. I will talk with you very, very soon. Bye.