Smoke and Mirrors: The Trial of Karen Read

It was supposed to be just another night—drinks, friends, a ride home. But by morning, John O'Keefe was lying in the snow, and the story of how he got there would fracture into two completely different realities. One version says it was simple: a drunken mistake, a tragic accident, and a man left to die. The other? That the truth never made it past the front door.

And when this case finally made it to trial, it only got crazier. Because in this courtroom, the jury didn’t just have to decide what happened…they had to decide what they believed.

this  is a story where the dead tell no tales—but the prosecution sure tried.

SOURCES:

Law&Crime, Expert Legal Analysis of the Karen Read Trial (2024), https://lawandcrime.com

Court TV Staff, Analysis of Evidence and Testimony in Commonwealth v. Read (2024), https://www.courttv.com

The Boston Globe, Karen Read Trial Coverage (2024), https://www.bostonglobe.com

Eric Levenson, Karen Read Murder Trial: Key Moments and Evidence, CNN (2024), https://www.cnn.com

NBC News, Karen Read Trial Coverage and Updates (2024), https://www.nbcnews.com

ABC News, Massachusetts Murder Trial of Karen Read Explained (2024), https://abcnews.go.com

Commonwealth v. Read, No. ___ (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cnty. filed 2022).

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:02

Trying to find a comfortable position.

SPEAKER_01 0:04

That's what she's Are we recording right now?

SPEAKER_02 0:08

Yeah. Okay, take two. Take two. Let's do this.

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Let's do this. Yeah. Woo! All right. So, Karen Reed, take fucking, I don't even know. Good God, this better be a good episode. Hi.

SPEAKER_02 0:50

Hi, guys.

SPEAKER_00 0:50

Welcome back to Mary to macabre. This is the fifth time I say that today.

SPEAKER_02 0:57

Keep it down. You're scaring the host.

SPEAKER_00 1:00

I'm losing my fucking mind.

SPEAKER_02 1:01

You're scaring the host. I'm here. Hi.

SPEAKER_00 1:03

Hi.

SPEAKER_02 1:04

I'm Isaac.

SPEAKER_00 1:06

I'm D and I'm perfectly calm.

SPEAKER_02 1:08

You know, I've been practicing that. I'm Isaac.

SPEAKER_00 1:11

You're putting the right emphasis on the right syllables. C. C. Come on out.

SPEAKER_02 1:17

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 1:18

Yes. So as you can probably tell, we've had a little bit of a challenge with this episode.

SPEAKER_02 1:25

But we're back, baby.

SPEAKER_00 1:27

We're back, and this is our last run. And I'm telling you right now, if I can't get through this intro, we're scrapping the whole deal. This podcast ends with the candy man, and we're done. So that being said, today, my lovely husband, I'm going to tell you about a case that I followed very, very closely as it occurred in real time. Yeah. And you know a little bit about it from me talking about it, from me asking you questions, from me asking your opinion, but you don't really know the deep dive of issues with this case. And it's not really the case we're going to talk about. We are going to talk about the trial of Karen Reed. And like I said, it's trial.

SPEAKER_02 2:15

Trial.

SPEAKER_00 2:16

Trial. It is the trial of Karen Reed. It is not the case of Karen Reed. It is not her murder, her assault, her disappearance. It's not that. It is her trial. And the reason we're going to talk about the trial is because the trial was absolute madness.

unknown 2:32

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 2:33

You know how I love trash TV?

SPEAKER_03 2:35

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 2:35

This was like basically trash TV. And I think all of my friends and all my lawyer friends in in particular, because the thread was long really in my group chats with my friends from work or or any other attorney friends. Because it was a circus.

SPEAKER_02 2:52

Was she like a reality star, or is it just because it was just like the prosecution or the defense were just completely, completely out their minds?

SPEAKER_00 3:02

Yes.

SPEAKER_02 3:03

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 3:04

All of it. No. So she's not famous. She's famous now. People know her name, but she's not like she's famous like how friggin' anybody who gets off on the case. Casey Anthony or something, right? Like somebody famous just from the crime. Oh my god, Casey Anthony, don't even get me started. So it's the only one I could think of. I know, but I'm like, ugh. I hate that woman. Anyways, so she was terrible. So, yes, like her. Completely different case, but like her, no one knew who she was. Then this happens, and now a lot of people know who Karen Reed is.

SPEAKER_02 3:40

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 3:40

So to talk about the trial of Karen Reed, we have to talk about why she is in trial to begin with and how we got here. So to do that, we have to go to roughly 6 a.m. on January 29th, 2022, where we are in the middle of a brutal Massachusetts snowstorm, and there's a woman screaming in the front yard of a home in Canton, Massachusetts at around 6 a.m. Screaming? Screaming. A man is lying in the snow. He is barely visible under all the accumulating snow. Because remember, we're in a horrible snowstorm. And that man is Boston police officer John O'Keefe. And the woman screaming for help is his girlfriend.

unknown 4:27

Oh my god.

SPEAKER_00 4:28

Karen Reed. A few hours later, the police are gonna say that Karen killed him. Case closed, it's clear. But within just months, the case will explode into one of the most controversial criminal trials in America. Think like OJ Simpson captivation.

SPEAKER_02 4:47

Really?

unknown 4:47

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 4:48

It's because the defense, who by the way, side note, brilliant, amazing defense attorneys, and I'm not exaggerating, I'm not being facetious. Like they are phenomenal, phenomenal.

SPEAKER_01 4:58

I think I remember that.

SPEAKER_00 4:59

And they are gonna argue and about to put on an insane defense that is unthinkable to put on a table unless you have a whole lot of proof. The defense is gonna argue that the police and several of their close friends covered up what really happened that night. So uh he's gonna give a full dialogue, and on top of that dialogue and narrative, he's gonna say, and the cops covered the whole thing up, and that's all this is. And that is something you do not say or do unless you can fucking prove it. So those are some fighting words coming from a defense attorney to a state prosecutor. Like, I don't know worse fighting words in that relationship. So to get into that, we've gotta go back a night. Because remember, all this goes down around 6 a.m. She's screaming, he's in the snow. What the fuck happened? So, on the night of January 28th, 2022, Karen Reed and John O'Keefe at this point have been dating for like two years. And their relationship was pretty tumultuous. Allegedly, they were a very volatile couple, they fought all the time, and they were together on this particular night, and they were bar hopping with a group of their friends in the Boston suburbs. And their stops included CF McCarthy's and the waterfall bar and grill. Witnesses say in both locations that both parties, both John O'Keefe and Karen Reed, had been drinking. And security cameras do show them laughing, socializing, and like just like going on with the night with their friends. Just your average night out with your with your with our couple friends, you know. Yeah, we're bar, you know, back before we had kids, we used to bar hop with our friends, and it was a great time, you know. And that's all that was happening here. None of the surveillance cameras get anything too crazy. They get a little bickering and a little like you could tell that John O'Keefe and Karen Reed are like talking and like they might not look the happiest, but nothing violent. You know, they don't catch any screaming, any shoving, nothing like that. So eventually, the group decides that to do what basically what we always do, and that is to continue the party at someone's house. And they decide on the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert. Brian Albert's house is located at 34 Fairview Road in Canton. Canton, Massachusetts. Oh my god. Inside the home that night were several law enforcement friends, including ATF agent Brian Higgins. That name's gonna matter so much later, just so you know. Right? Well, a lot of yeah, a lot of Brian's, a lot of gens. Yeah, so there's a they're at the Yeah, remember, they're at Brian Albert's home, and in that home is a friend named Brian Higgins. So we can call them Albert and Higgins, and he's an ATF agent. Jennifer McCabe is in the home, and other members of the Albert family are at the house. In addition to the friends they were out with, which included some law enforcement. Inside the home that night were several law enforcement friends included. Police officers or people very, very close to police officers, like their direct family or very, very close friends. Just so you know.

SPEAKER_02 8:23

It's a lot of Brian's.

SPEAKER_00 8:24

So, because remember, this is a police officer's home. Yeah, a lot of Brian's. So around 12 20 a.m. Karen and John arrive outside. They're at Brian. But here's where things get kind of weird, and time literally splits in two depending on who you ask. If you ask the people who are inside the house, they're all gonna say the same thing. They're gonna say John did not come inside, Karen and John never came over, they must have continued bickering and decided to call it and just go home because they couldn't stand each other. So these are all these are all the next thing you know, and it's the morning, and nowhere knows where John is, including Karen. So this is Karen's point of view. Okay. So it's hours later, and very early in the morning during the blizzard, Karen wakes up and realizes John's not home. He never came home last night, and she starts to get worried. But here's where it's which I think is completely valid. So it's around 4 23 in the morning while there's heavy, heavy snow falling. And O'Keeffe's niece called Jennifer McCabe, who remember was in the home because she's Brian Albert's sister-in-law. So she's also a friend of John's. So she said Reed had called her. So Karen Reed had called John O'Keefe's niece, and she sounded very distraught because O'Keefe had never come home and now he wasn't answering his cell phone. According to court documents, McCabe said that she heard Reed screaming, quote, John didn't come home, we had a fight. John didn't come home, we had a fight. So sounds to me like she's in a panic. Like they had a fight, she didn't talk to him, she went to bed, and then she wakes up at four in the morning and he's not home. So then around 5 a.m., Reed called another woman whose husband was friends with John O'Keefe. Okay. And prosecutors allege that Reed said while they searched what if he's dead? What if a plow hit him? I don't remember anything from last night. We drank so much, I don't remember anything. So people are saying like they've heard they are hearing her say these things as they're all trying to figure out where the hell John O'Keefe is. So eventually she heads back to Fairview around 6 a.m. with two of her friends, one of them being Jennifer McCabe, which was in that house. The night before. That's when she spots something in the snow. And it's John. He's unresponsive and covered in snow, and witnesses say that Karen starts to lose it and screaming, Oh my god, oh my god, did I hit him? Did I hit him? And John O'Keefe is then rushed to the hospital, but sadly, not very long after he's pronounced dead. What if he's dead? What if a plow hit him? Yeah. I don't remember. Yeah, it's not good. So much. I don't know. When the first thing are saying like they've heard I hit him. She's like, oh my god, oh my god. And they they're saying that she was screaming. Did I hit him? Did I hit him? Eventually she heads back to Fair. That's what people are saying. 6 a.m. There's no like recording of her saying it. So Jennifer McCabe. First responders, when they arrived, they did try life-saving measures, but by the time he arrived to the hospital, he was technically alive because his body temperature was too low to like really know if they could call it. You have to rise to a certain temperature before they can legally call you dead. So in this state, obviously, when you haven't been dead in the snow for days, when it's been a couple hours and your body. Yeah, it's not good. So yeah, number one. She was screaming dead. Based on the trauma to his body, which I'm about to explain to you, I think he was dead when they found him. That's what they're saying. They just couldn't call it recording until they warmed him up because he had an extremely low core body temperature, and it indicated possible severe hypothermia. So that's why you can't just say, okay, they're gone. So despite all of EMS's efforts, John was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. And his injuries included blunt force trauma to his head, cuts on his arm, bruising and trauma on his face and body, and severe hypothermia. But something about the scene just doesn't quite make sense. Based on the trauma. It had snowed overnight. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Well, that's part of the problem with the evidence in court. Because yes, there was something found around his body. And it had snowed, remember, all night. So that's obviously going to give you a lot of issues with evidence contamination. And Karen was hysterical and described by multiple people as being in shock. So people say all kinds of weird shit when they're in shock. You know, they act weird. Like, how many times do I tell you I'm like these people like when they're like, oh my god, but they don't even look sad. It's like, listen, people mourn. I've been around people who have mourned horrible deaths and they can't stop laughing.

SPEAKER_02 13:22

Was there anything that's my woman around this?

SPEAKER_00 13:24

Somebody very close to me passed away. I remember like their mother couldn't stop smiling.

unknown 13:29

That's freaked.

SPEAKER_00 13:30

It's weird, but I could you could see it in her eyes that it was it was grieving and she gets nervous. Yeah. Remember, all night. So that's obviously going to give you a lot of issues with epic. It's I can't it depends. Obviously, if they're laughing like a maniacal villain, it's a problem. But you know, if they're like wringing their hands in a corner, then it's a problem. But I I I've seen it live, and I of course you can see it's a shock response. You can see it's not like a oh my god, she's laughing like she's crazy. Like it's sad because it's very, very clear like this poor person is going through such a nervous system explosion that like that's just how they're reacting. So I no longer hold too much weight in how I see people grieve like in a moment of crisis because it is insane what the brain will do. If you're telling me brains will completely block out traumatic experiences like they never happened, I'm gonna go ahead and believe that if you see a traumatic experience, it's gonna short short circuit. And you're gonna be like, I don't know. Could you imagine? Right? I I I've seen bottom line is she's described as in shock, and I'm not fucking shocked. And I'm not I'm not saying she did or she didn't hit him. I'm just saying, like, I'm not gonna give my complete opinion until the end. But either way, I don't think anyone can hold too much weight in what a woman screams at the top of her lungs when she finds her boyfriend dead in the snow. Because it is like and she's clearly in public with people all around her. Like, she's not gonna be like, oh my god, I so did this. But they're trying to say she basically was like, what if I did? I think it's a fair question to ask if I find you dead on the floor. Like, of course, and you don't know, and I don't know how the fuck you got there, and I don't remember last night. I'd be like, oh god. Yeah, I'm not gonna do it. Yes. I'm not saying she did or she didn't. Oh shit, I hit him. Like, I'm not gonna give my end. I know one well. I don't think anyone can hold too much weight from what the woman screams at the top of her. What were you gonna say?

SPEAKER_02 15:37

Something we were talking about, anyways.

SPEAKER_00 15:41

With people all around her, like she's not gonna be able to do it. What were you gonna say? So did this. When the emergency vehicles arrived at the house, most of the people in the house stayed inside of the house.

SPEAKER_02 15:58

Oh god. Have you met girls from up north though? It's not a Dr. Seuss poem. It's literally what happened. You're fucking ugly. Yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_00 16:05

It's not like this isn't the hole in the ground at the grass on the green grass and the road. Something like that. Everyone was in the house.

SPEAKER_03 16:14

Everybody that was in the house was a witness.

unknown 16:16

What were you gonna say?

SPEAKER_02 16:17

Mm. To some degree. Something we were probably gonna edit out anyways, so I just said, you know what, let me spare you the five minutes. When everyone's screaming, it takes you to edit it out in Christmas.

SPEAKER_00 16:26

Ambulance and these are cops in the house. They're cops. They are cops. Vehicles arrived. Nobody came outside. Most of the people fucking weird. This is yes, it starts far before the trial. This is where the fucking craziness starts. They didn't come outside. Their colleague and friend was lying dead on their front lawn. The colleague and friend that they say was never there to begin with.

SPEAKER_02 16:56

Everybody that was in the house.

SPEAKER_00 16:57

And even though they were waiting for him to arrive, but just never called and checked on him because he must be fighting with his crazy girlfriend. He's now dead on your lawn.

SPEAKER_02 17:06

And everybody's screaming outside.

SPEAKER_01 17:09

You see?

SPEAKER_02 17:11

And they're cops. So they stayed in the house. I'm in misery.

SPEAKER_00 17:16

It's insane.

SPEAKER_02 17:17

That is weird.

SPEAKER_00 17:18

Because it's insane. This is so this is where the surface is. This isn't come outside. They're colleague and friend. I don't know. So what happens? The investigation immediately focuses on one person. Everyone points at Karen Reed because remember what I've always told you. The husband always did it. In this never case, it's not the husband, it's the girlfriend, but you always start looking at the significant other. If you don't start there, that's probably oh my god, I just laughed. Of course not. Put that clear.

SPEAKER_02 17:52

But I'm not related to it.

SPEAKER_00 17:54

Don't worry. Of course it's not. I'm in misery to some degree. It's pretty elementary to look at the significant other first. But the problem here is not only they look at her first, they refuse to look anywhere else. They looked at her, they laser focused on her, they started, finished, stayed, lived there. So they don't look at anyone else. So finally, on February 2nd, because 2022, Karen Reed is arrested and eventually charged with second degree murder, manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

SPEAKER_02 18:29

Well, you know it didn't help her, right?

SPEAKER_00 18:31

Her screaming at the top of her lungs. Did I hit him? Which lands us to today's actual episode. Which is not about what happened to John O'Keefe entirely. It's pretty elementary. It is about the trial of Karen Reed for his murder. It's exactly like Reino. They started, finished, stayed, lived. Arrested by Reno. So they don't look at anyone else. So finally, on February 2nd. You're not far off at all. It's pretty much exactly what you're about to walk down. So on tonight's episode of Reno 911, we're at day one of the trial. And the prosecution presents their theory. The theory of what happened that night. Because remember, nobody really knows. We've got two different stories. So the prosecution focuses very heavily on a lot of evidence specifically. Have you ever heard you've seen the show Reno 911? Something that resembles a broken taillight that was found near John's body.

SPEAKER_02 19:36

Imagine getting arrested. John's DNA on those fragments.

SPEAKER_00 19:40

Damaged the rear of Karen's vehicle and phone data placing her car outside of the house. So prosecutors say Karen and John were arguing all night. They argued on the way to the other cop's house. They argued while they were parked outside of it. He got out of the car, she pulled out, she struck him during an argument, and left him in the snow to die. That's what the prosecution says happened. So the prosecution focused on the city. And that is when they drop this bomb. This is a law enforcement boys' club cover-up. So you already know that I was all over this fucking trial when this dropped. I was like, huh? It's like a fucking frat, is what it is. So the defense, which is two men by the way, it's not a woman, it is two men while they were with the club. Mainly the main guy Alan Love him. And during an argument, yeah, he just straight up says this is a voice club. And it's a full cover-up and a complete mission to frame Karen Reed. So Karen's attorney claims something completely different happened. The defense claims that John actually did go inside of the house. According to them, when he was in the house, a fight broke out. John was beaten, severely injured, and even bitten by the family dog. Like a fret. And then dragged outside and left to die. The claim, the group inside the house, many of them being law enforcement officers, very close to law enforcement officers, or connected to a law enforcement officer, panicked. So they stage a scene. They even introduce a controversial claim. There is evidence that John may have been attacked by the homeowner's German Shepherd. Well, photos of the injuries on John's arm showed possible dog bite wounds. And one of the defense's witnesses testifies that the scratches on his arm are not consistent with being hit by a car and are much more consistent with an animal attack. Group inside the house. Many of them. They gotta be. They gotta be. I would think so. Like getting hit by a car shouldn't look anything near the mouth of a German shepherd. I would hope so. I would hope so. So the German Shepherd's name was Chloe. And Chloe had a little problem with guests. And was known as a little bit of a biter. So she was Brian Albert's dear dog for many, many years. They loved this dog, but the dog wasn't exactly friendly. But it never stopped them from having it. They've had this dog for years. I mean the two gotta be. That's gonna be important.

SPEAKER_02 22:43

Gotta be.

SPEAKER_00 22:43

So the two have defense. No, they gotta be boss that were found around John's body. Like getting looks anything. Right? Remember the taillight? So this actually became one of the most controversial points of the trial. Because Karen Reed's car after the accident was kept in a Sally port, which is a police garage, basically. It's always yeah, it's basically like it's just like where they would hold this vehicles like this, like they could be used for evidence or anything like that. However, this particular police garage had security footage. But it had chunks missing. Okay. So there were missing surveillance like minutes at a time. Footage of the trial just from this sally port. So far after the accident, it was kept in a sally port. Or a couple nights, you know, so I was gonna ask you. So this is a quote unquote secured garage where vehicles like Reed's are kept for evidence. Or anything like that. You would hope so. So the problem is evidence is not preserved. Big no no. Portions of the footage were either completely missing or not presented clearly. Because it was only shown in pieces. Exactly. So the defense argues that this is where the SUV was handled. This is where the police went in to look for potential evidence. Of course, to make it look like it was there's missing time chunks of this video. In those missing time chunks, anyone had the opportunity for evidence tampering, tail light damage manipulation, cracking, planting blood. Like you could have done anything in these hours, or nothing at all. But you can't show you didn't. So there's nothing. So there is a huge chain of evidence issue here. So this fed directly into the suspicion about the taillight evidence to begin with. Suddenly, this trial is not about murder. This is a full-blown law enforcement cover-up conspiracy, and that's not even the state's biggest problem. This is where the police went in. That missing surveillance footage of a police garage and the possibility of fake taillight manipulation is not their biggest problem. Can you only imagine where this is going? And neither can I tell you that as an attorney, I couldn't either. Like every single point the defense was putting out, I was like, okay, I think I'm fine. Nope, nope, we made a left. Like it's it's literally like I wish I'm gonna go back and show you threads of me and one of my particular friends who were just like constant, like, what the fuck? What the fuck? Like, it's insane. It's insane. So that's not their biggest problem. Their biggest problem is the lead investigator of it all. He might as well be. So the case takes another strange left fucking turn with the conduct of the lead investigator from the beginning of this issue. So Massachusetts, by the way, I'm getting really good at pronouncing that word. I really am. Okay, I think I'm fucked. Six-year-old me is so fucking proud right now. Like, oh my god, so proud. I should go back and show you. Never a very good writer, horrible speller, but I could never pronounce Massachusetts. So Massachusetts state police trooper. What's your call? God, this name like triggers me. Michael Proctor, which sounds fake, oversaw the entire investigation. During the case, though. His text messages surfaced through evidence. In them, he insults Karen Reed and makes very crude remarks about her. The defense argues that this shows extreme bias. Okay.

unknown 27:01

Like, oh my god, so proud of the colours.

SPEAKER_00 27:03

Other cops doing the investigation. Yeah. So in his messages to friends and colleagues, Proctor referred to Karen Reed using really, really rude language. Like calling her a whack job. Calling her a see you next Tuesday.

SPEAKER_01 27:21

Oversaw the cunt.

SPEAKER_00 27:27

He's calling her a cunt. And refers to her continuously as a nutjob. Which, like, okay, whatever. But fine. The defense argues So these texts were sent very, very early in the investigation. Before the case had even developed, like fully developed. So they just were like, oh, the girl from Foundam in the Snow. Yeah, she's a cunt, she's a walk whack job. Like this was very, very early. The defense argues that this showed that they already decided that she was guilty. So the problem with law enforcement, I mean, besides like the obvious, the problem with them picking someone they know, quote unquote, is guilty so early on is that the evidence to be chosen to match the suspect rather than like the other way around. They use the evidence to match to the suspect rather than find the suspect. That's a big problem. So they're alleging that this guy was very biased. He also mocks her medical issues. This guy, this guy has so many issues. Like, this is just the tip of the iceberg. He's insane. Michael Proctor, very, very early. Insane. So, yes, she had some medical conditions and he mocked her, claiming one message he wrote something along the lines of quote, no serious medical issues that I'm aware of, other than she's just a whack job. No, quote unquote, is guilty so early on. I didn't mean to laugh at that. It's just it's ridiculous. Like to match the suspect. So they use the evidence to match the suspect. Yes, it was great. It was a big part. It was cinematic. It was beautiful. As a defense attorney, it was a defense attorney's dream. Also eating popcorn.

SPEAKER_02 29:08

She has medical issues.

SPEAKER_00 29:10

I'll show you clips later. Oh no, honey. Text messages come back with a different person. Those were fun to listen to. We'll get to that. So the tone of the messages suggested suggested that he believed she was exaggerating or lying about having health issues. Because apparently during the investigation, she had mentioned some health issues. Then we move into him getting a little bit more comfortable and making crude sensual comments. We all knew that's where this was going. So one of the messages that drew the most outrage was when Proctor made a rude comment about Karen Reed's body. He joked with a friend about quote searching through her phone for her news. In a text. He wrote to them to listen to. Which by the way, why are you texting a friend about how you're gathering evidence? That alone is a problem. What do you mean he was texting his friend about the evidence he was going through? That's fucking weird, but whatever. So he wrote to his friend, no nudes, no nudes, no far so far. So yeah, he was taking this really seriously. The message was particularly controversial because it was sent like while he was actively holding her phone as evidence. So he's like going through the pictures and texting his boys, like, I still haven't seen her boobs, like, because he's 12. He's fucking 12, apparently, and can't control himself. So of course he is. He said that. So the message was obviously weird, and the jury visibly reacted when he had to read it out.

SPEAKER_02 30:44

Seriously, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 30:46

It's funny because I love when fools get fucking hung out to dry. It's like, no, please, can you read that louder again? Like it's great. So far, I should take this really seriously. Okay, so we can sideline about Karen Reed's face real quick because Karen Reed's face was its own character in this trial. I can't believe you just said that. Karen Reed is famously known for having the most classic resting bitch face, like what I strive for when I stare at people. She looked like such a raging bitch through her whole trial, so she wasn't likable. That was part of the problem. She had a very unlikable face. Personally, and I'm just saying that was the general opinion in social media and like in everybody's like comment section.

SPEAKER_02 31:35

I mean, it's personally but I can only imagine. I never had an issue with her RBF. He's reading it.

SPEAKER_00 31:41

Resting bitch face. Because look at the fucking shit she had to sit through. I don't think I'd be looking very pleasant either. Listening. I can't believe you just said that. Really? When he's supposed to be clearing my name because I didn't fucking do this. Like, I would have a resting bitch face too. Are you kidding me? I'd have an active bitch face. I'd make sure everyone knows I'm mad at them. So yeah, her face was its own fucking character. I thought it was great. I admit I could see how she wasn't very likable, but I still thought it was great. So personally, I never had an issue with her. Yes, I mean, can you imagine like having to listen to somebody like talk about how he was sharing like pictures and like saying, like, oh, I can't find any nudes, like ew, gross. No, no, but she had this face for the whole time. Because I'm saying in general, having to sit through all this is like you've got to be fucking kidding me right now. So when he's going through her phone, that was supposed to be pretty weird.

SPEAKER_02 32:40

Yeah, he's supposed to be.

SPEAKER_00 32:41

Then he wrote comments that really got him in trouble. Texting his friends, suggesting that he already basically solved the case. Yeah. In one of these messages, he wrote, quote, she's fucked. Like he knew it. The implication was that the investigators already believed that Karen Reed was going to be convicted. They decided they weren't going to look at anyone else. The defense used this to argue that investigators focused on proving a theory instead of investigating objectively. So, like I was saying before, it was more a case of making the evidence fit who they wanted it to rather than looking at the evidence and following it. Pretty weird. So big issue. Believe it or not, there was more that he was texting. Texting his friend, suggesting that they are. Same guy. We're still fucking talking about Michael Proctor. The lead investigator.

unknown 33:37

Who is he texting?

SPEAKER_00 33:38

All his boys on the on the fucking squad. Is that what they're called? What's a group of police? Precinct. Precinct is an office. It's like where they all congregate. Like a molehill. Just like they congregate there. And then like I was saying before, it was more than a few. I don't know. He texts his friends. You know, the j uh the O'Keefe family want justice. Right. So and it wasn't controversial like all by itself. But the defense argued that it showed that he had a very heavy emotional involvement. Is this the same guy? We're still fucking talking about who's going to be able to do that. Who is this guy on the other end? Look at the evidence.

SPEAKER_02 34:17

I know it's the lead investigator, but who is he texting?

SPEAKER_00 34:20

So that the O'Keefe family's office ex. Right. And also it was his boy. Like they're all cops together. So I don't know why he was allowed to investigate his friend's death, but that's neither here nor there. Like, look where it got you. Jurors were shown the actual messages on a screen while lawyers questioned Proctor about them line by line. I'm not fucking joking. It was like a PowerPoint. Like, can you read that line out loud? Yeah, I'm gonna start doing that to you when I have questions. I'm gonna be like, can you read this for me? But the defense argued that it's insane. So when confronted with the messages on the witness stand, Proctor admitted to the court that he believed his text messages were unprofessional, that he should not have written them, but he insisted they did not infect his ability. In fact, they did not affect his ability to investigate. So the defense strongly disagreed with that last part. It was only one of the most dramatic moments of the entire trial. I'm not fucking joking. Yes. These text messages were a central theme to this to the strategy of the defense, right? They showed already that the investigation was rushed, had complete tunnel vision, sloppy, sloppy chain of evidence and evidence handling, and overall a huge bias against Karen Reed. In a case filled with controversy, the text gave the jurors a reason to question the integrity of the investigation. And that's all you need for reasonable doubt. Because remember, she's on trial for second-degree murder. So if you can create or at least make them think of reasonable doubt, they can't convict. That alone to me is enough for reasonable doubt, but you know, speaking in hindsight, anyone can say that. So after that the investigation, there's even more evidence. Is weird. So the major turning point in the trial comes when the experts of the prosecution and the defense start a full-on science battle. In a case film in the trial. Every expert's saying something different. It's literally our worst nightmare. It's like reading four medical journals on the same topic that say totally different things. That alone to me is enough for reasonable doubt. I would pay so much money to watch that. What were the science experts arguing?

unknown 36:53

After that.

SPEAKER_00 36:54

Or better said, what were they analyzing? They were analyzing the injuries to John O'Keefe's body and the cause and manner of death. Because remember, we still don't fucking know what happened. And the defense, so that's the question. So what the prosecution's experts said were that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma from a car from a vehicle. And the key points to find this out were head injuries could come from impact with the SUV or ground. Got into like a body positioning was consistent with being struck and falling, and hypothermia contributed, contributed after he was incapacitated. So the prosecution experts' conclusion was that he was hit by a car and left in the snow. That's what they said they see in his body. Defense experts said the injuries were not consistent with a car strike. They pointed out there was a lack of classical vehicle strike injuries, which include like certain fractures, especially based on his height and like the height of the car. She had a mid-size SUV. Body positioning was consistent. So being struck at the case. He was missing these certain fractures that they classically look for when someone gets hit by a vehicle at this speed. So also his arm injuries looked more like scratches and possible bite marks. So remember Chloe the dog. Yeah. The doggy, yes. Chloe the doggy. So their conclusion, these injuries look more like an assault, not a collision. So it looks like someone beat the crap out of this guy. Or a couple people beat the shit out of this guy. And then he was bit by a dog. Which includes like certain fractures, especially based on his height and like the height of the car. Well, the taillight was broken, but no one can prove when it was broken or how it was broken. He was missing these certain fractures that they classically look like. We get into the car reconstruction. Yeah, there's a there's a whole thing with the car and paint. It's weird. So the next experts are possible crash reconstructionists. So they analyze the vehicle damage, body mechanics, and scene evidence. Again, prosecution experts say it was physically possible that Red Red Reed reversed her SUV into John O'Keefe.

SPEAKER_02 39:22

I was gonna ask. Oh no, this sounds a little wishy-washy to me.

SPEAKER_00 39:37

Like their testimony sounded very like, yeah, it could happen. It's like I could be a fucking astronaut, but like I don't want to. So, you know, it sounded very much like all of it was possible. But again, reasonable doubt can't be possible. Reasonable doubt had to have happened. Like you have to show me it happened, not that it could have happened. Anything could have happened. So the crash scenario, reverse, their their conclusion is the crash issue that works. Like the evidence works, that's what the experts say basically. The defense says the physics don't make any sense. The body could have landed pretty much where it was fast. Yes, and the angle and force of the vehicle versus his height and body positioning don't match the injuries that he could be a fucking astronaut, I guess, took. Like the injuries on his body don't match physically to like the car lineup. The body's position did not align with a vehicle strike. So the way he was laying in the snow doesn't make sense to be hit by a car backing up and fall in that position. So damage to the car also did not match what the prosecution was describing as the impact. So the defense conclusion, or the defense experts' conclusion, was that the case scenario the crash scenario, it was kind of unlikely or even impossible. The angle and force of the case. So we've got it could have happened and it probably didn't happen. That's your two expert opinions on this one. So this one alone is a fucking disaster. So this one should have been thrown out to begin with, but whatever. You choose the jury gets out of line with a vehicle strike. So the way it was pretty much, and the jury's only job is to determine facts, not law. The lawyers present law and the jury determines which facts are true and which are not. That's the whole point of a jury. So when you can present two different experts to say completely different things, 99.8% of trials include two experts that are gonna say two different things. Kind of unlikely or even impossible. They say they weren't bites, they were scratches from the car. Remember? So like they're saying, no, no, no, those are car strikes. And the other guy's like, dude, these are teeth. Whatever. And they're like, no, it's not. You're gaslighting each other, is basically what's happening. It really was watching professional gaslighters up there. So it was great. The lawyer's presentation. Now, my favorite, and the forensic evidence, experts. So they focus on, like you asked, the tail light fragments and evidence on the scene.

SPEAKER_02 42:16

So the prosecution's expert's position is the tail light pieces were found near the box and connected to the SUV directly to the scene.

unknown 42:26

They said they weren't bites.

SPEAKER_00 42:27

I said that incorrectly. Connected the SUV directly to the scene. No, no, those are car shreds. The argument is the physical evidence ties her car to the victim and where he ended up. The defense's expert's position says professional gaslight. There's a question as to when the pieces were found, how they were they were collected. There's no record of how they were collected, and they suggested possible contamination or mishandling. So they can't present any evidence showing the broken taillight at the scene. The taillight. The photos came after the car was already at the Sally port. The fragments came after all that camera footage was missing. You know, it's questionable. Well, that's what I'm saying. That alone was enough reasonable doubt, but you gotta go through a whole trial. There's a question as to when the pieces were found, how they we they were collected. Well, no, how they were collected. And they suggested possible contamination. So they can't present any evidence showing the broken tail light at the feet. She had Alexis. Um I know, I'm joking. So Sally Fort I agree. The fragment after all. Okay, so quick side note, legal side note. That's the point. I put on the footage thing, isn't it? They're always gonna transfer each other out there. Never going to agree on anything. There's no fucking point in doing that. And who the jury believes part though comes down to one thing? And it's not the information. It's credibility. Right? It's likability.

SPEAKER_02 44:12

The bite marks are bite marks, man.

SPEAKER_00 44:13

So that's why the first hour of a fucking expert's testimony is all the same. The guy has bite marks.

SPEAKER_02 44:18

There's no way to do that. They have to talk about all their education. They have to leave foundation.

SPEAKER_00 44:22

Their specialty in this particular topic because it's all to build credit.

SPEAKER_02 44:26

You know what I mean? I know I'm joking.

SPEAKER_00 44:27

So at the end of the day, it just comes to what expert presents better. Sadly. But most of the time to the jury. Quick, okay, so quick. So legal side note. The defense asks the questions when the hell did you get that, basically. Because nobody knows. It just shows up and then remember. And this was my issue. Who would the jury believe? You're telling me this man was found under accumulating snow, like a ton of it. And you found tiny pieces of tail light fragment near him. So that's why the first hour of a fucking expert's testimony. When he was hit six hours before, before the blizzard started. So like you know what I mean? Like, so there's like a foot of snow, and you're telling me, like, oh, look, right next to him, there were these four tiny pieces of glass, like, or plastic. It's like sadly. They just like, yeah, they're just they just like kind of just walk over that one. So the defenses experts actually take a better position. They don't say the forensics say this didn't happen. They say you can't trust this evidence. They don't bother saying it doesn't match the shape, it doesn't match the this, it doesn't match the that. They straight up say, I can't rely on this evidence as an expert because there's a question to how it came to be. Like, how did this evidence show up? What does it have to do with anything? When was it collected? I can't form an opinion because I can't trust this evidence. So you shouldn't trust this evidence either to determine any factor of this law. I mean of this issue. Yeah, you understand? Yeah, so they, in my opinion, the defense presented this actually question of evidence better than the prosecution did. The forensic they're saying. It could have been. That's what they seem like. They're saying it doesn't match the shape, it doesn't match the this, it doesn't match the that. They straight up. So these people that I can't rely on testified next, they are timeline and environmental experts. So they're not often or always labeled as expert testimony, but they are very crucial testimony. So the key issue in this case was how long was John O'Keefe outside. Prosecution says he was outside long enough to suffer severe hypothermia. That's crazy. And the timeline fits the theory of being struck around 1220 and leaving and leaving him there until six in the morning. Right. The defense says that the timeline is unclear and inconsistent. By saying that suggests he may not have been outside the whole time, which completely supports their theory that he wasn't outside the whole time. He was inside the house for a couple hours and thrown out later. So they're not all think about being in a blizzard for six hours. I feel like you'd be frozen solid. But whatever. So the reason this was so important is because it wasn't just a disagreement, it was a complete contradiction. The two sides had not conflicting stories, like different stories entirely. So we're talking about the same evidence but showing an accident versus a physical assault. The same car, and we're talking about an impact causing taillight damage and no impact ever happening. The exact same physical evidence, one side is saying the physical evidence is very reliable, while the other one is saying you should probably question this. It doesn't make any fucking sense. So for the jurors, this created a really, really central problem. If the experts can't agree to literally any fact, then how could we know? The two sides have you know, how was 12 stories like jury, you know, people of your juries of your peers, so normal, everyday blue-collar people, white-collar people, blue-collar, like everybody gets called a jury duty. You want them to understand the science behind all this, and the experts are literally sitting up there saying, We can't figure this out because it's all a mess. Yeah. One side is saying the jurors were left with these questions. They had to decide what expert was more credible, like I said.

SPEAKER_01 48:31

Isn't this so for the jurors? This created a really central problem. If the experts can't agree to go literally, yeah, this is all civil procedure.

SPEAKER_00 48:42

You're talking well, this is criminal procedure, actually, for this. That's all determined determined pretrial. Motions and limiting, it's a whole thing. I'm not gonna get into it. Normal, everyday blue collar people, white-colored people, blue collar, like everybody. Well, no, because remember, while there's testimony, there's objections, and the judge gets involved. Why are you objecting? Sustained, overruled. The judge actually does not have complete power in a case. The judge is there to keep order. But they cannot get in the way of the attorneys. They cannot tell them you're not presenting the correct evidence, or maybe you should present that a different way. Like they can't.

SPEAKER_02 49:18

Doesn't she have to make like some order? Let's go off order. We're probably going off topic here.

SPEAKER_00 49:23

They're also this poor normal jury is left to determine whether the science is convict convincing enough and whether it all created enough. So this is a bottom line, expert testimony didn't clarify shit in this case. It actually took the story and split it completely in two. So, like where there was a question of like, could it have happened? Now we've got complete straight up we've got two solid theories that have evidence behind them now. Instead of one that can't withhold. Technically got evidence on both sides.

SPEAKER_02 49:59

Right. Okay, let's see.

SPEAKER_00 50:01

So the prosecution is saying science proves she hit him. Defense says the pri the science proves nothing ever happened. Whether this key controversies during the trial include the taillight evidence. When exactly did it break to begin with, and were the pieces found immediately after or later. This question comes up with a bunch of fucking witnesses, and like nobody can answer. So, like where there was a question of like could it have happened? Now we've got straight up. Yeah, probably, probably, because there's no record of them fucking finding them. So it's probably exactly how it went. There's major timeline gaps. Time between John O'Keefe exiting Karen Reed's car and his body being found, and lack of any clear eyewitnesses. No one's ever seen him. No one saw him come in, no one's seen him got out, no one saw Karen Reed pull in. During the trial. Like this is all speculation. The taillight evidence. People inside the house. Why weren't they investigated more aggressively? Yeah, and no, and they were never investigated. They barely were questioned.

unknown 51:05

Nobody can answer.

SPEAKER_02 51:06

I'm imagining like a bunch of things. I guess that's the problem. People on the yeah on scene going, hey, look, I found another one. You know, listening.

SPEAKER_00 51:14

I don't know. They weren't they weren't questioned is the problem. Like there was no investigation for them to like know how to do. Like they didn't, they were never investigated. So closing arguments come around. Karen Reed's car. Both sides have presented their evidence, presented their witnesses. Prosecution gets up and focuses on three things. Reed's intoxication, her statements at the scene, and the physical evidence. The defense gives a closing argument and says, quote, if this case feels confusing, that's because it is. And that is reasonable doubt. Aren't they okay? Beautiful. Sit down. Sit down. At that point. I don't know. They weren't closing. Sit down. Because at the end of the day, for criminal for second-degree murder, you need reasonable doubt. And he's right. If you're fucking confused, that is reasonable doubt. That is the definition of reasonable doubt. I think it's it was great. So he focused on his close. That wasn't his whole closing argument. I'm saying he could end it at that, and it's like, fuck, you're right. So he then focuses on reasonable doubt, obviously. Corruption and incompetence of the Boston Police Department and the alternate suspect theory. So you can present sometimes, you're allowed to present the evidence that someone else did it. I don't know who did it, but someone else did it. For a criminal. That gets tricky sometimes. But the defense did present that if you're somebody obviously did something to John O'Keefe. It wasn't a car, it looks like a physical assault, and it wasn't fucking Karen Reed. Can't tell you who it is. There's no evidence pointing to anyone else. They didn't say a name or anything in trial one. They were just like, somebody else did this. So finally, the jury gets to deliberate. And after weeks of testimony, they begin. And they are tasked with deciding multiple charges, including second-degree murder. Who did it, but someone else did it? Manslaughter, and leaving the scene. So this alone is gonna make deliberations more complex, right? Because they're not just deciding, are you guilty of murder? Yes or no? They have to decide all three. Was it fucking careful? They have to decide is she guilty of second-degree murder? Is she guilty of manslaughter? And is she guilty of leaving a fatal scene? So somebody else did. Already at the beginning, we have very early signs of trouble. Not long into deliberations, the jury begins to send notes, include including confusion over legal instructions, difficulty evaluating evidence, and disagreements among the jurors. And this is not a great sign. So they questioned the judge, Beverly Cannone, which we'll talk about later. Received multiple notes asking for clarification on the definition of reasonable doubt. Great sign for Karen. I would love to be the defense and hear that question. So guidance on how to weigh the conflicting evidence. So what you asked, basically, like how the hell do they figure this out and help understanding the legal definitions of the three charges. So this showed that they were struggling with both law and fact. So their only job was to figure out fact and how the law applies, like how those facts apply to the laws that they're given. And they can't figure out either one of them. Like they're having a hard time all around. And I don't blame them. This evidence was a spider web of just craziness. So finally, guidance on how to weigh the conclusion. They tell the judge they can't decide. How the hell do they figure this out? And the judge tells them go back inside, take a minute, take a breath, take some time, and try to come to a conclusion. This showed that they were struggling with both law. Pretty much she tells them what we tell our kids when they start tattletaling each other. Go back in the room, take a deep breath, and work it out, okay? Like literally. Do not make me tell you again. It's basically what the judge said. Spiderweb. Just craziness.

SPEAKER_02 55:47

So finally.

SPEAKER_00 55:50

Yeah, she's gonna.

SPEAKER_02 55:51

You're telling people that first they tell the judge. We can't figure it out. They can't decide. And the judge tells them.

SPEAKER_00 56:00

Yeah, it's insane. So the judge cannot push the jury to make a decision. Like they can't force them. They can like imply it. Go back inside, figure it out. I don't like it, but it can be done. It's fine. So they go back in the room. Go back inside breath. And they deliberate. Okay. And they come back out and they're like, yeah, no. It's not gonna happen. We cannot reach a unanimous decision decision because nobody's moving. Karen Reed is and now the judge. I'm so nervous at this point.

SPEAKER_02 56:30

It's a person's life at stake here. You're telling you that.

SPEAKER_00 56:36

We can't figure this out.

SPEAKER_02 56:37

There's just so many holes in the story.

SPEAKER_00 56:39

It is a hung jury that's a very good thing. Get back in there and figure it out. And now we have a mistrial, meaning that Karen Reed is now not convicted, but she's also not acquitted. They can like imply it. Goes back to jail. Well, I think she's out on bail. But at the end of the day, she's still walking around not sure about the rest of her life. And they delivered it. Because we gotta start this over. It's like this first trial never happened.

unknown 57:03

We cannot read.

SPEAKER_00 57:04

And it all starts over. But before with no choice but to declare a mistrial. Right. On a hung jury, right? So the mistrial is declared, and we move on to part two. Because of course, when you're granted a mistrial, you're allowed a retrial. That's if the prosecution still presses the charges. Sometimes the prosecution gets the fucking hint and is like, there's not enough evidence to do this, and they drop it. But of course, this prosecution did not stop the charges. They went after Karen Reed again, and they want another bite at the apple. Which you don't usually get. And if you pass criminal law in law school, you know what I mean by that, because it's like a big thing. But this time, they get the second bite of the apple. And Karen Reed has to come back to the court to trial all over again. You're allowed a to listen to all this evidence all over again. Yeah, it's not fun. Which you will hear all about on part two. Yes, so part two is not going. No, so part two is not gonna be as evidence-heavy. It's just gonna be focusing on what both sides did differently and where this case landed. But join us next week for part two of Karen Reed's trial. And I swear to God, I'm doing this. I warned you last time this was gonna be a two-parter. If I tell you about trial two, this is gonna be like a three-hour podcast. I can't do it.

SPEAKER_02 58:59

Ew.

SPEAKER_00 59:00

Okay. You will hear all about. Now Isaac can go eat his pizza, and we hope everyone has a wonderful night, and we'll see you here for part two.

SPEAKER_02 59:12

Record that bad boy right now.

SPEAKER_00 59:19

Okay, what both sides did differently and where this case landed. But join us next week for part two of Karen Reen's trial. And are you really doing this?

SPEAKER_02 59:31

I swear to God, I'm doing this.

SPEAKER_00 59:33

I warned you last time this was gonna be a two-parter. If I tell you about trial two, this is gonna be like a three-hour podcast. I can't do it. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 59:42

Okay. I get to enjoy my pizza.

SPEAKER_00 59:46

Now Isaac can go eat his pizza. And we hope everyone has a wonderful night, and we'll see you here for part two. Karen Reed's second trial. Bye!

SPEAKER_01 1:00:00

Bye.

unknown 1:00:01

Okay.