SERIALously - 265: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 1: Revealing Text Messages & Witness Perjured Herself

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

In this episode, we’re breaking down the biggest moments from Week 1 of the Karen Read retrial — from powerful opening statements by the defense to explosive testimony, including a witness caught in perjury and revealing text messages. We’re attending the trial in person and live streaming it daily on my YouTube channel 10 to LIFE, with full recaps every Friday. Make sure to subscribe and follow so you never miss an update. 🔎Join Our True Crime Club & Get Exclusive Content & Perks 🔎 Join The Club: https://www.patreon.com/annieelise 🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to EXTRA deep dive episodes every week on Apple! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serialously-with-annie-elise/id1519456164 Follow Annie on Socials 📸 🩷Instagram: @ _annieelise 💜TikTok: @_annieelise 🗞️ Substack: @annieelise 💙Facebook: @10tolife Shop Annie’s Closet & Must-Haves! 👗 Poshmark: https://posh.mk/Tdbki6Ae0Rb ShopMY: https://shopmy.us/annieelise Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/10tolife?ref_=cm_sw_r_apin_aipsfshop_BKN1ZMCMEZHACVFQ2R75&language=en_US Disclaimer ‣ Some links may be affiliate links, they do not cost you anything, but I make a small percentage from the sale. Thank you so much for watching and supporting me. 🎙️ Follow the podcast for FREE on all podcast platforms! Apple:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serialously-with-annie-elise/id1519456164 Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/6HdheEH8WeMTHoe5da34qU All Other Platforms: https://audioboom.com/channels/5100770-serialously-with-annie-elise Get Involved or Recommend the Case 💬 About Annie: https://annieelise.com/ For Business Inquiries: [e-mail]

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. Did you know the first oil well was drilled almost 1,700 years ago? The first American well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, and the Texas oil boom began in 1901, when the Lucas Gusscher produced an astonishing geyser that flowed for nine days. This oil boom helped launch the widespread use of the automobile and greased the wheels of the modern machine age. Today, the US is the world's top producer of oil and gas,

supporting 11 million jobs and contributing two trillion dollars to the American economy. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our modern lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit ItTakesEnergy.com. Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of serialists Lee. Hey everybody. Welcome back to an all new special episode of Serialistly. I'm your host, Annie Elise, and today's episode is a bonus episode and it is a Karen Reed retrial recap.

Gosh, say that five times fast. Karen Reed retrial recap. It's actually not that hard. For those of you who are like, Annie, what are you even talking about? I don't even know what the Karen Reed case is. Don't worry. I did a full deep dive. Not a, like, it's not crazy.

Don't worry. You don't have to like commit like 90 minutes of your life to it. But I did a full recap deep dive of this case. Everything that went down with the initial case, the first trial, all the shadiness, all the red flags, all the conspiracies, the lies, everything, and laid it all out for you so that if you're just now stepping into this world of Karen Reed you can be fully familiar fully caught up so that

episode is available I just released it a couple of days ago you'll see it on the podcast feed you also can find it on YouTube if you want visuals my YouTube channel is tend to life so you can get fully caught up there so that now as we go into this retrial, which is expected to be six to eight weeks, you are fully up to speed on everything. But we are in the full swing of Karen Reed's retrial and week one is complete. And let me just say, week one started off with a bang. Not only were these opening statements just so interesting, in all honesty, the side from the state was a little bit of like a snooze.

They came at it from the point of view of a first responder, didn't really feel that compelling personally to me, but then the defense came in with their opening statements and basically just perfectly illustrated this whole scenario of timelines, cover-ups, you know, timelines, receipts, all of those things. And opening statements are so crucial

because that is the first touch point for the jury. And statistically speaking too, that is when the jury is, I don't wanna say most persuaded, but it's their first impression of the case and it leaves a lasting impression. And I gotta say, in my opinion, the defense crushed it. So we started off with opening statements. Then as we started getting into witness testimony, one of Karen's, I guess you could loosely call her friend, but she was there the morning that they found John O'Keefe's body, she testified.

And on cross, she admitted to perjuring herself during her initial testimony with the grand jury. It was very interesting. And don't worry, we're going to get into all the nitty gritty details of this. Then on Thursday, there were a lot of text messages shown between Karen and John the entire day leading up to when they went out that night, went out and had all of those drinks. And then of course, went back to 34 Fairview. They really were using that to illustrate her mental state,

their dynamic between the two of them. And I'll be honest, it felt a little toxic. The relationship definitely did. I also felt like John was kind of keeping Karen on the hook a little bit with these text messages. She was begging for reassurance, wanting to know that he was still interested and he wouldn't just outright say that he was, but he would give her just enough to keep her hooked, which I didn't really like, but yeah, you know. And that's not to shame him. Obviously he's the victim in this. He lost his life, but also the truth is the

truth is the truth. And when you look at these text messages, you see what that dynamic was pretty clearly. So there was a lot that went on in just this short first week of trial. I also just have to mention too, I think it was really interesting that one of the things that the state did not mention during opening statements was Michael Proctor. Michael Proctor, of course, was the state trooper and the lead investigator who ever since the first trial has been let go from the force because of misconduct and specifically due to misconduct during this investigation, the Karen Reed investigation. So there's a lot we have to go over, but I do want to share with you, for those of you who don't know this already, which I think I've announced it, but in case you don't

know, we do have a team member who is in Boston, boots on the ground, watching this trial, attending this trial, going into the courthouse with Karen's family, and she is going to give us a firsthand account of everything that went down this week. I could of course tell you, but why not hear it from somebody who was there, who felt all the emotions in the courtroom, who saw the facial expressions, and who can tell you exactly what went down. So I'm gonna pass it over to our correspondent, Elena Johnson, and she's gonna walk you through

everything that went down this week. Then I will come back over with you and we will wrap up. Hey Annie, it's only been three days, but so far a ton has already happened in the retrial of Karen Reed. So let's go ahead and get right wrap up. Hey Annie, it's only been three days, but so far a ton has already happened in the retrial of Karen Reed, so let's go ahead and get right into it. On Tuesday morning, the judge ruled on a couple of new motions, specifically related to what the defense is allowed to bring up in their opening statements. We already know that the defense is not allowed to make any third-party culpability claims

in their opening statements, which basically means that they can't try to place the blame for the murder on someone else. On Tuesday morning, the judge also ruled that the defense could not mention any of their ARCA experts in opening statements, and these were experts that testified in the last trial, and they're crash experts. So it'll be interesting to see how these new motions will shape the defense's opening statement, given that both the third party culpability and these experts could have been important parts of those statements. We then moved on to opening statements from the lead prosecutor, Hank Brennan.

Now Brennan chose to open with a sort of point of view perspective on what the scene of the crime was like from the perspective of Anthony Flometti, who's a firefighter paramedic. So he sort of opened with what it was like for Anthony to receive the call that there was an incident at 34 Fairview, what it was like for him to travel in the ambulance, what it was like for him

to see John's body, what the snowy conditions were like, and also what it was like to meet Karen. Now, I thought that this was an interesting way to sort of set the trial, sort of set the scene. I think if the prosecution wanted to go with this opening with a point of view, there could have been a more effective perspective to choose. They could have opened from the point of view of John himself, from Karen. They could have even opened from the point of view of John's mother what it was like to receive the call that

her son was dead. But instead they chose to open from the point of view of John's mother what it was like to receive the call that her son was dead. But instead they chose to open you know from the point of view of of this paramedic firefighter. So if I was a juror I would probably assume that the paramedic firefighter is going to be a really key player since this is how the trial started. So I'm interested to see how that will sort of work out and if this was the best way for the prosecution to open. Now after they gave this sort of story about what it was like for the paramedic firefighter, they mentioned a couple of other pieces of evidence that we can assume will be key to their case since they were mentioned in the opening statements. They talk about Karen's cell phone and mention how they have location data, health data, and battery temperature data that they contend will all be important

to showing their case. They spend a little bit of time walking the jury through what it was like for John O'Keefe and Karen Reed at the bars, and then the subsequent movements in Karen Reed's car, 234 Fairview, and then they also mention Jen McCabe allegedly seeing Karen's car.

They then go on to describe Karen's actions after the incident at 34 Fairview. For example, when she sent him a voicemail saying that she hates him. Something that was interesting and different from the first trial is that they also played a clip from Karen's Dateline interview where she's sort of speculating, you know, could I have done something that knocked him out? I think when the prosecution mentioned that they

were going to be playing a clip during their opening statements, a lot of people were wondering if it could be like some really damning admission by Karen, like if they had found news surveillance footage maybe of the accident or if they had found new footage of her saying this alleged I hit him. But it actually turned out to just be this interview where in my opinion she's not making any sort of normative or admitting statement. She's just asking the question, could I have done something that knocked him out? So in my opinion, prosecution choosing to play this clip is not as damning as we maybe originally thought it would be. choosing to play this clip is not as damning as we maybe originally thought it would be. Now during this time, I saw some of the commenters saying that they were not particularly persuaded by this opening statement from the prosecution, and it left them feeling a little bit confused.

And I think this is an important point to mention because we have to remember that while we, as viewers, podcasters, audience members, have an idea about the background of this case, and a lot of us have already seen the first trial, the jury was selected because they knew nothing about this case. So outside of, you know, the short juror instructions that they may have heard during jury selection, this is all they know about the case. This is the first they're hearing. So without a sort of really clear roadmap of the players in the game and the timeline, I could really see how an opening statement like this would leave the jury feeling confused. So from now we move on to opening statements from the lead defense attorney who's Alan

Jackson. Now, remember, the defense is not allowed to mention third party culpability. They're not allowed to play slam on someone else and they're not allowed to mention third party culpability. They're not allowed to play slam on someone else. And they're not allowed to mention any of their crash experts. So how are they going to approach this opening statement? Alan Jackson chooses to do it through making two main points. The first point he makes, which is the first sentence of his defense, of his opening statement, is there was no collision with John O'Keefe. He emphasizes this several times that there's no evidence that John O'Keefe

was hit by a car and there's no evidence that a car hit John O'Keefe. He emphasizes this several times that there's no evidence that John O'Keefe was hit by a car and there's no evidence that a car hit John O'Keefe. This comes back, you know, through a, it's sort of a common thread that he weaves throughout his opening statement. The other thing that he really emphasizes is the opening statement is that the involvement of former trooper Michael Proctor has really ruined the integrity of the case. And he demonstrates his point by first mentioning texts he sent to his friends. These are texts immediately after the incident. His friend asks, is the homeowner going to catch any shit? And Michael immediately responds, nope, he's a Boston cop too. Jackson also mentions how Michael Proctor was friends with the Albert family,

Jackson also mentions how Michael Proctor was friends with the Albert family, yet Michael Proctor never set foot inside the Albert house, he never investigated the house, and never secured the crime scene. Alan Jackson mentions that Michael Proctor's own officers said that John O'Keefe may have been in a fight. And he has a couple of specific quotes that I think really demonstrate the defense's theory about Michael Proctor. They say Michael Proctor is the definition of the prosecution's case and he's also their Achilles heel. They say every bit of the case has Michael Proctor's fingerprints on it. So what I think the defense is trying to do here is they're trying to give the jury a lens from which to view the rest of the case.

They're saying, here are a pair of glasses and I want you to put on these Michael Proctor is biased and ruined the investigation glasses so that throughout the rest of the trial, whenever the jury sees evidence or hears testimony. The defense is hoping that the jury is still wearing their glasses and they're viewing all of that testimony and evidence through the lens of well this could be botched because of Michael Proctor. So I think the defense is hoping that by laying these seeds early it will it will influence how the jury views all of the rest of the testimony in the case. They also give a couple of more interesting quotes like, the commonwealth's case is the literal definition of reasonable doubt. Jackson then moves into a discussion about officer John O'Keefe's injuries and he alleges that John didn't suffer from

hygrothermia, frostbite, or any cold induced injuries to her organs, which Jackson says that must mean that John was injured somewhere else, somewhere warmer where he couldn't have gotten frostbite, and then his body moved. Jackson also says that John O'Keefe didn't have a single injury that's consistent with being hit by a car, not even a bruise. After the injury discussion, Jackson then walks us through some of the suspicious behavior from the Albert family and from Jennifer McCabe. Particularly he mentions how the Albert family's family dog, Chloe, has been re-homed.

He mentions how Brian Albert's phone has been destroyed and mentions how the Albert home, which apparently Brian Albert had since his childhood has since been sold. So here I think Jackson is again laying the groundwork for points he's going to make later on about how ties to the Albert family and potential corruption within the Albert family is spread throughout the case. Here Jackson also introduces the infamous Google search on Jenham Frumicabe's phone for house long to die in cold, where we know she means how long to die in cold. He, of course, introduces his proposition that this Google search was made at 2.27 AM.

And we'll see throughout the case that the time of this Google search will be very important for both the prosecution and the defense's case. After discussions about the Albert family and Jen McCabe, Jackson then attempts to get ahead of this alleged statement that Karen made at the scene where she says, I hit him. So Jackson contends basically here that any statements made like this were framed as a question. Were framed as, did I hit him? Could I have hit him? And he says that this was Karen actually making sense of this terrible circumstance that had happened. He says this is not an admission, this is her asking a question, trying to make sense of the scene that she sees in front of her. Now what's interesting is that he also takes this opportunity to bring it back to the Albert family.

He points out that the phrase, I hit him, first came up in an interview with a detective named Kevin. And he takes a long pause. He says, this came up in an interview with Detective Kevin Albert, Brian Albert's brother. He uses the same sort of strategy and speaking tone when saying that the MIT first responder, Katie McLaughlin, who's someone that is will is someone who claims that Karen said I hit him. He uses the same strategy and says, Katie McLaughlin is friends with Caitlin, long pause, Albert. Again, trying to set the stage and plant the seeds that the entire case has been hindered by its ties

to the Albert family. Jackson spends a little bit of time discussing tail light and DNA evidence, and he points out that the first and second searches around the crime scene found no evidence of tail light, yet he says 46 pieces of bright red tail light suddenly show up at the scene, he says 46 pieces of bright red taillight suddenly show up at the scene he says. Interestingly he points out that the Commonwealth's own medical examiner

refused to deem the manner of death as a homicide which I think is an important fact and then again throughout this he brings it back to his two main points at the beginning which are that there is no evidence of a collision with Officer John O'Keefe and that Michael Proctor's involvement throughout the case has ruined its integrity and the jury should be very wary of any investigative evidence that may have passed through Proctor's hands. So that was sort of a summary of the two opening statements. From what I saw, you I saw from comments from the audience and in speaking with Aini, it sounds like folks were more persuaded by the defense's opening statement.

They found that they better set the scene and emphasize points that may become important later in the trial. So after the two opening statements, we then go to the Commonwealth, which means the prosecution or the state of Massachusetts. They bring up their first witness, who was a paramedic firefighter named Timothy Nuttall. The first direct examination of Timothy is rather long, but the main point that the

prosecution was trying to establish is that this witness testifies that he is standing over John's body and a woman comes and stands over him. She has blood on her face and Timothy says that she asks her what happened and she says, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him three times. The witness says that he remembers this very distinctly but he didn't get a chance to ask any follow-up questions because the woman who we now know was Karen Reed walked away. That is the main point that the prosecution

was trying to establish in this direct examination. We then move on to cross-examining the witness. This is done again by Alan Jackson, and he's going to attempt to debunk this, I hit him statement. Now, this is something that I think we should listen to throughout the trial, because if it's anything like the first trial,

the prosecution is going to bring up numerous witnesses who claim that Karen stated I hit him. And each time a witness claims that, the defense is going to do everything they can to get the witness to admit that it didn't happen or it happened differently that they previously recalled or something like that. So every time a witness says this, I hit him thing, we need to keep a close eye on it. So in this case, Alan Jackson gets Timothy to admit that he previously testified that Karen said, I hit him twice, but he's now claiming that she

said it three times. And in trying to reconcile the discrepancy between, well, last time he said it was twice, and now it's three times. Timothy actually claims that his memory has gotten better over time. Then Alan brings up the fact that in his original statement, he said that he heard Karen say, I hit him only once. And he also said that Karen made the statement to another woman, not to him. He then presents Timothy with a transcript of his previous testimonies. And the witness, Timothy and Jackson sort of go back and forth on the nature of this discrepancy. Is it because Timothy's memory was poor last time? Is it because, you know,

is it because previous testimony was faulty? Is it because he lied? Is it because his memory is now so much better? They sort of go back and forth with this and they'll continue to do so in the redirect in the recross examination. There's also a brief mention of the clothing that John was wearing at the time of the incident.

This is interesting because Timothy previously testified that John O'Keefe was wearing, quote, weather appropriate clothing, including a puffy and heavy coat. But now the witness is claiming that he's absolutely sure that John was not wearing any sort of coat. And that seems like a big discrepancy. You would probably remember if he was wearing a big puffy coat or nothing at all,

especially because the witness, the witness testified that as a paramedic, they had to remove John's clothing. So you think you'd have some idea if you had to cut through a coat or remove a heavy coat or something like that. So. After this, it seems like that the defense accomplished their goal of poking some holes in Timothy's story. Particularly, they poked some holes in the I hit him statement and they poked some holes in this idea of John was wearing a jacket. And again, in pointing out the discrepancies between any witness's previous testimony and their current

testimony, the defense's goal is to show that stories are changing. And why is that? Are they changing for an innocuous reason or are they changing because there's a conspiracy going on? So then, because it's fair to say that the defense did some damage on the witness, to say that the defense did some damage on the witness. The prosecution chooses to redirect examination Timothy. And now we get, you know, there's a video being shown, there's kind of some chaos about timestamps of the video, what's going on in the video, what a different paramedic is doing. And there's a lot of back and forth, both in the redirect and the recross examination about when Karen said I hit him and how many times. With this witness overall, I think that the defense did a good job of casting some doubt

on the witness's memory and testimony because he does, it seems, admit to going back and forth between these two statements. He now plans his memory has gotten a lot better in the three years since the incident. So it'll be up to the jury to decide if they believe that. Next we move on to direct examination of the next Commonwealth witness. This is Carrie Roberts.

Now Carrie is a friend of John O'Keefe and she became closer to him after he took custody of his niece and nephew because she had she has two children that are of similar age to John's niece and nephew. Carrie's important part of the case because she has previously testified that she received a really panicked call from Karen at about 5 a.m. in the morning on the day of the incident. And because of the call, Carrie became part of this search party trio. This trio includes Karen, it includes Carrie Roberts, and it also includes Jen McCabe. These are the three women that were driving around Kitten and the ones that discovered the body. So in direct examination, you know, Carrie sort of lays the groundwork for

her relationship to John and how the night sort of went down. She testifies that her, Carrie, Carrie, Karen, and Jen spent time searching John's house and then after that search they and Jen spent time searching John's house and then after that search they then drove all in one vehicle to the scene of the crime which is 34 Fairview and at the time that they get there Carrie says that Karen sort of suddenly identifies a mountain of snow as John and she says there he is and starts running towards him. That's kind of what was established during the direct examination. Then we move on to cross examination of Kerry and this got pretty interesting. So the first thing that was established

is that she admitted to having a friendship or at least an acquittanship with one of the sergeants on the case. This is Sergeant Michael Link. She admits that her friends are friends with his kids. And she admits that she visited his house for at least 45 minutes just the day after the crime. She admits that Jen McCabe was with her.

And she admits that her, Jen, and Sergeant Link's wife spoke in their car for about 45 minutes the day after the crime, but she says she never talked to Sergeant Link himself. Now, after that, this is again cross-examination by Alan Jackson, and here I think his big goal is to show the jury that And here I think his big goal is to show the jury that everything Carrie Roberts says is colored, influenced by her friendship and interactions with Jen McCabe. So he walks through three different interviews or instances where Carrie gave testimony or interview about the case. And he points out that each time Jen was either calling her, Jen was texting her, or Jen was interacting with her very shortly before the interview. And in one case, he gets her to admit that very shortly before the interview, she was

in Jen's house. She was preparing a timeline with Jen. And she admits that, you know, as she's preparing this timeline with Jen, that that could have influenced her memory because she says they're sort of going back and forth. They're saying you saw this then, this happened at this time, what happened then. And again through this, I think Alan does a good job of establishing, Alan Jackson, sorry, does a good job of establishing that Carrie and Jen are have spent so much time together, close to these interviews that it's possible that their interactions could have affected each other's. Now the sort of meat of this cross

examination comes down to this alleged claim that Kerry had previously made when testifying before a grand jury. When testifying to the grand jury, which I believe was in 2022, she says that she heard Karen Reed tell Jen McCabe to Google hypothermia. How long Google hypothermia. She says that she heard Karen tell this to Jen during a group prayer, which was happening as John was being lifted into a gurney. Now why is this a big deal? Why is it a big deal if Jen heard Karen, I'm sorry, why is it a big deal if Carrie heard Karen tell Jen to Google hypothermia? Well that's a big deal because of the time that she claims this happened. She claims that they were, that Karen told Jen this at like somewhere around 6am.

The prosecution is trying to lay that seed early that Google Talk happened at 6am because we know that the defense has evidence that the Google search actually happened closer to 2.30am, four hours earlier. So they're trying to, prosecution is trying to establish that no, the Google search happened actually between six and seven AM. And we know that because Carrie heard Karen tell Jen to make a Google search. That's why this is important. So we get Carrie admitting that this was her original testimony to the grand jury three years ago. However, Carrie now says that, no, she never heard Karen tell Jen to Google hypothermia.

And then we sort of go back and forth. Well, you know, now you say that she, you never heard her say this, but three years ago, you testified to a grand jury that you were sure that you heard Karen tell Jen McCabe this. And sort of with this back and forth, Jackson gets, gets carried to admit that the timeline you prepared with Jen McCabe had to have influenced your grand jury testimony about something

that you in fact never heard. And you know, she kind of begrudgingly admits that, that yeah, I guess I never heard it. I guess she says that her grand jury testimony was a misunderstanding. And Jackson instead characterizes this as lying to the grand jury or perjury. This was sort of the big moment of the day was, was Carrie admitting to, you know, whether you see it as misunderstanding or a lie, she's admitted to discrepancies between her two testimonies about this very important Google search. Now, right after this cross-examination, interesting moment of the day, the judge looks

over at Carrie Roberts. And again, keep in mind, Jackson's whole point during this cross-examination was that Carrie Roberts, her knowledge, her testimony of the case has been influenced by Jen McCabe. So the judge turns over to Carrie Roberts and says, Miss McCabe, you're dismissed from the stand. She calls Carrie Roberts by Jen McCabe's name, which kind of goes to the defense's point that these two women have influenced each other. After this, we then get to direct examination of Peggy O'Keefe. This is John O'Keefe's mother. Now she talks about, you know, the loss she's gone through. She talks about first the death of her oldest daughter. This is John's sister Kristen. She died of a tumor, I believe it was a brain tumor, and it, from what I understand, her death happened very quickly and it was very hard

on the family. She then talks about losing her son-in-law, Kristen's widowed husband. She talks about now how her grandchildren have lost both of their parents. And then she talks about, you know, how after her daughter and her son-in-law died, how John had to sort of step up and be a parental figure to his niece and nephew, which is Peggy's grandchildren. She talks a little bit about who John was as a person, and she talks about then having to come to terms

with the death of John after already losing her daughter and her son-in-law. During this testimony, you know, Peggy's crying. She's difficult to understand at times. She's very emotional. I'm sorry, that's my cat. She's very emotional. The courtroom, I was actually in the courtroom

for this testimony. The courtroom was very quiet. You could sort of hear a pin drop and everyone was sort of taking in the courtroom for this testimony. The courtroom was very quiet. You could sort of hear a pin drop and everyone was sort of taking in the emotions that Peggy was feeling. I felt that this was a time where we sort of all remembered who this is really about. This is about the death of a real person.

It's not a media spectacle. It's not, you know, it shouldn't be this big thing. We shouldn't forget about someone who actually lost their life, someone who was important to his family, someone who was raising his nieces and nephews. We shouldn't forget about him. So that's what I thought that Peggy's testimony did for the prosecution. I thought that it humanized John O'Keefe. I thought that it helped us all remember while we're here. And in that sense, I think it was an emotional high for the prosecution. And I think that the defense recognized this. They recognized how emotional Peggy's testimony was and how.

They recognized how emotional Peggy's testimony was, and for that reason, Alan Jackson, the defense attorney, gets up there and he says, I'm very sorry for your loss. I have no questions. Now, did Jackson do this because they actually had no questions? Did he do this as a strategic move because he didn't want to look bad for badgering someone who's obviously in this emotional state? I'm not sure, but I do think that in my opinion, this was probably the right move. I don't know if asking Peggy a bunch of questions after she sort of bared her soul and shared how much losing her children has hurt her

would have been a win for the defense. So after this emotional testimony from Peggy, which again, in my mind was a point to the prosecution, we then go into a brief direct examination from Trooper Nicholas Garino. Garino is a cell phone expert for the Massachusetts State Police District Attorney's Office and basically his job is to extract and sometimes analyze cell phone data. We didn't hear from Garino very much on Wednesday. It was a brief testimony and the prosecution mentioned that he will be coming back for additional testimony and also for his cross-examination. So we didn't hear

much from him but if you're familiar with other cases around Boston the name Trooper Nicholas Garino might sound familiar to you because he was also involved in the investigation into the death of Sandra Burchmore. So it will be interesting to see. How? If his if his. You know. Testimony or a way he speaks on the stand, how it sort of compares between the two cases. Then we move on to a direct examination of the next Commonwealth witness who's Daniel Whitley. This is another paramedic firefighter.

Now, remember, we heard from a paramedic firefighter on Tuesday. That was a paramedic who was on the scene to treat John. This paramedic, Daniel, he was on the scene actually to treat Karen. A Section 12, which is a psychiatric, like a psychiatric call, was called in for Karen shortly after John was taken to the hospital because her family was concerned about her making suicidal comments. So this is a paramedic who was on the scene

to treat Karen for an alleged psychiatric episode. So because of that, we're not gonna hear him make testimony, we're not gonna hear him, you know, have too much testimony about John. We're not going to hear him make testimony, we're not going to hear him have too much testimony about John. We're not going to hear him discuss the alleged, I hit him sort of statement because remember he arrived on the scene after that would have happened. He arrived only to treat Karen. So the big point that the prosecution makes during the direct examination of this witness is sort

of this interaction that he that the paramedic claims he had with Karen in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. And he describes her demeanor during this interaction as snarky. Here's what he says happened. He says that Karen was distraught about about John, either John's death or the accident. And he says that she's sort of sort of spiraling. She's worried about caring for the kids, things like that. And he says that he said, you have a very strong support system. Then he says, Karen kind of whips her head up and says,

do you know Carrie Roberts? The witness then says, as a matter of fact, I do. He alleges that Carrie Menz said snarkily, anyone who knows Carrie Roberts wouldn't say that. To sort of indicate that she doesn't consider Carrie Roberts a strong support system, or that she doesn't have a strong support system. This was the big point that the prosecution made. I don't know if this is particularly damning testimony to demonstrate that allegedly Karen made a snarky comment about Carrie in the ambulance on the way to her psychiatric home. Then we get some cross-examination of this witness where basically the witness admits that he never mentioned this sort of

snarky comment, either in previous interviews or in the patient care report. That brings us to Thursday morning, where we finished up a little bit of cross-examination of Daniel, yesterday's paramedic witness. Then the prosecution brings up two witnesses who are the managers at the two bars that John and Karen visited the day of the incident. He brings up the manager of CF McCarthy's and he brings up the owner of the Waterfar Bar and Grill. Both of these people are on the stand for like a couple of minutes each.

They're basically asked like, are you the manager? And they say yes. And they show a picture of their bar or their store and they say, is this the place you own? And they say yes. That's all that happens during these direct examinations and there's no cross examination. So probably not particularly important testimony

at least so far. The next witness that the Commonwealth brings up is someone named Michael, I want to make sure I say it right, Camarino. I believe that's correct. And this is John's friend. And this is a friend that John interacted with actually on the day of his incident. And that's because Michael's daughter and John's niece both received acceptances to a prestigious private school on the day of the incident.

So Mike and John were in contact that day to discuss what the girls had accomplished and how they wanted to celebrate. I did not find, and I think it didn't seem like, you know, the direct examination of Camarino, Michael Camarino, was particularly damning. They were just sort of establishing that this was the person that John talked to on the day of the incident. Cross-examination was also not super damning. Basically, the defense attorney gets Mike to admit that John really, really liked Karen. They were involved in an affectionate greeting on the day of the bar.

The witness agrees that John and Karen weren't involved in any bickering or tension on the day. And he describes instances where Karen was sort of overly caring or overly spoiling John's niece and nephew. He describes how Karen bought apparently the niece an expensive sweater, would take the niece to get her nails done, how she would spend a lot of money on the children, and sometimes John would think of this as spoiling. So sort of the point here is the defense is establishing that from Michael's perspective, John and Karen were good. Now we're going to bring back the witness from Wednesday. We're going to bring back Nick Garino. This is the cell phone expert that testified very briefly on Wednesday. He's now back today for more direct examination.

And he today reads for quite a while, he reads text messages between Karen and John. He spends a lot of time reading text messages about Karen's plumbing and how she's like having a plumber over and like she needs a hot shower, things like that, that I think myself and the audience tend to be a little bit boring. But there were a couple of key points within these text messages

that I kind of want to read aloud. So at the beginning, they're, you know, discussing the hardships of parenthood. Karen says, quote, you've really hurt me this time. John says in response, I'm hurting and I'm struggling daily with them. Meaning he's struggling daily with his niece and nephew. Then, you know, the sort of conflict

about how they're raising the children, you can see it sort of spills over and colors how they feel about their own relationship with each other. John says, "'Things haven't been great between us for a while now. Ever consider that?' Karen says,

"'So you're not into it anymore? I'm trying to hug and kiss you this morning and you whack me in the face with a pillow. Can you admit your head is out of the game with us? Karen goes on to say, I've been dealing with my own personal crisis over things I have zero control over. I'd like to lean on you too sometimes.

Instead, I just hear everything I've done wrong. I've been trying to get over things with us arguing, and now you tell me you're not into things? You don't want to fight weekly weekly but fly off the handle with me at 8 a.m. like you're setting me up to fail then they go back to talking about how they're struggling with their relationship and the relationship with the kids Karen says I think it's clear to me I think it's clear me around with the kids is slowly killing our relationship and our relationship is

much more important to me. Karen says, I know your heart isn't in this anymore. I felt it for a while and especially lately. I'm willing to try more, but not if you're approaching the point of indifference. If you wanna come up and you had out for a while, then say so when you know what your father is doing. So with this and, you know,

throw out a couple of more texts that I didn't read, I think the prosecution is trying to demonstrate that maybe their relationship was not as good as the previous witness testified. Maybe there was conflict, it sounds like they were struggling with how to raise the kids, it sounds like they were struggling with how much to spoil the kids, and it also sounds like whatever problems they were having with the kids could have been affecting their relationship with each other. So in the prosecution's mind, maybe this goes to motive. Maybe this shows actually they were fighting. They weren't getting along. They're even discussing the end of their relationship. And in a couple of cases, I'm not sure if I read them, but there are a couple of texts where Karen accuses John

of, are you with someone else? Do you have eyes for someone else? So in this, I think the prosecution is maybe trying to paint her as jealous and that could go to motive. However, I felt that the texts that were read were kind of within normal range of relationship disagreements or drama or struggles. I felt that they didn't paint the relationship always in a very good light, but I didn't think that they painted Karen as a murderer either. I thought that they demonstrated

a relationship kind of experiencing a normal level of conflict that a lot of relationships unfortunately do experience. Then we finished off today, the last day of testimony, by showing three videos, the Commonwealth prosecution showed three videos of Karen's interviews that Karen has previously given, like with different documentaries, different reporters, things like that. And all of the clips that the prosecution shows at this point all have to do with how much Karen drank the day of the incident. So they first show a 2022, I'm sorry, a 2020 interview, 2020 being the name of the channel,

interview where Karen admits to having about four drinks. They then show a Karen Voss, I'm sorry, a Gretchen Voss interview where Karen admits to being buzzed that day. Then they show a longer clip from an ID docu-series where Karen sort of walks us through every drink she had the date of the incident and at the end her total drink count she says was at least nine, nine between like vodka tonics and shots. She says she had about nine drinks within a couple of hours which is is a lot. She claims she had about nine drinks within a couple of hours, which is a lot.

She claims that after these nine drinks, she says, quote, she was not driving recklessly by any measure, but she admits that she was not as clear as she would have been if she hadn't been drinking. And then because of this, you can sort of hear her asking, well, did I incapacitate him? Could I have hit him?

And I think the prosecution is showing this to demonstrate, well, one, she was hammered, as was everyone else that night. And two, she was so hammered that she's kind of asking herself, well, did I do something? So in this way, I think, you know, I give the point to the prosecution here. I think that these videos, you know, don't shed Karen in the best light. They certainly show that she was drinking a lot and that could be powerful evidence to the jury that she was so drunk that she was maybe not thinking right,

maybe not driving carefully, and maybe that influenced her anger and her attitude towards John. So I do think this was a point to the prosecution. However, again, in none of those videos, does Karen ever make the claim, you know, as a statement, I hit him. Every time she talks about this as a question, could I have hit him? Could I have incapacitated him? And that was no different in these interviews. So that sort of wraps up the main highlights from

these first three days of opening statements and testimony. It was, it's already been, you know, so much has already happened. I think it'll be interesting to see what happens Friday and going into next week. Interested to hear your thoughts, Annie. Thank you. All right, guys. So you just heard from Elena. Definitely an interesting week and we will see what next week brings. We are obviously only getting started here and I think that there is a lot more to come. I also am waiting for some finalized details. It looks like I will be in Boston either next week or possibly the following. So once I know those details and those dates, I will let you know. But we're continuing to live stream this every single day

over on YouTube on 10 to Life. We have the live chat going. I jump on intermittently throughout the trial when they're on recess and breaks and give you some commentary and what I've noticed and what I'm gathering from it. So if you want to tune in real time, you can definitely do that every single day

or you can come back here every Friday for our recaps. And if you prefer to have these recaps midweek rather than end of week, totally fine. Just let me know. Let me know either on the Spotify section, in the Q&A section, or in the Apple review section or even in YouTube comments. That is what we've got this week for the Karen Reed retrial. I will be back with you with a brand new case on Monday morning, a full deep dive. Definitely don't miss that.

It is a wild one. But until then, stay safe deep dive. Definitely don't miss that. It is a wild one. But until then, stay safe, be nice, don't kill people, don't drink and drive, and definitely don't hang out with anybody who has the last name McCabe. Just saying. All right guys, thanks so much. Take care, bye. I'm gonna be a man, I'm gonna be a man Thanks for watching!