INFAMOUS: John O'Keefe Pt. 1

Summary

Podcast Summary: Clues with Morgan Absher and Kaelyn Moore — INFAMOUS: John O'Keefe Pt. 1

Date: August 20, 2025
Hosts: Kaylin Moore & Morgan Absher
Episode Theme: A deep dive into the infamous 2022 death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe, the complex investigation, and the two trials of his girlfriend, Karen Reed. The episode focuses on the tangled web of evidence, relationships, and controversies at the heart of this highly publicized case, leading up through the first trial.

---

Overview

The episode explores the mysterious circumstances of John O’Keefe’s death, the official theory that his girlfriend Karen Reed ran him over with her SUV in a blizzard, and the myriad of conflicting evidence, botched procedures, and possible conspiracies involving law enforcement. The hosts focus on the evidence through Karen’s perspective, highlighting critical forensic details, timeline inconsistencies, digital footprints, and how relationships within the Canton police and local community muddy the investigative waters. The discussion sets up the events of the first trial and lays the groundwork for the retrial covered in the next episode.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background & Timeline of the Night (05:46–12:31)

• Characters Introduced:
  • John O’Keefe: Respected Boston police officer, guardian of his late sister’s children.
  • Karen Reed: Financial analyst and adjunct professor, John’s girlfriend of two years.
• Timeline:
  • Both attended bars in Canton, Massachusetts, on Jan 28, 2022, before heading to a party at Brian Albert’s house during a major snowstorm.
  • CCTV confirms movements from bars to the party.
  • Jen McCabe, party host’s sister-in-law, invites them, but according to all partygoers, neither John nor Karen ever made it inside.
  • John is discovered dead outside the house by Karen, Jen, and friend Carrie Roberts the following morning at 6am.

---

2. Clue #1: Karen’s Alleged Confession (12:31–14:07)

• Multiple first responders testify that Karen repeatedly exclaimed, "I hit him," and "this is all my fault."
• Controversy: Karen later claims she said, "Did I hit him?"—the ambiguity fueling suspicion but also leaving room for doubt.
• Karen also floated a snowplow accident theory, suggesting confusion and panic.
• Quote – Morgan Absher (12:31):
  “It’s not so cut and dry. Karen later claimed the paramedics misheard her. She wasn’t telling them, ‘I hit him.’ She was asking, ‘Did I hit him?’ That little word did makes a huge difference.”

---

3. Clue #2: Blood Alcohol Content (16:47–21:01)

• Karen’s blood drawn over 8 hours after last seen with John—still near the legal limit (0.07–0.09).
• Retrograde extrapolation puts her BAC at the time of the incident between 0.14 and 0.28, a wide and contested range.
• Medical and personal factors (autoimmune conditions) add uncertainty.
• Surveillance footage doesn’t clearly show her as severely intoxicated.

---

4. Clue #3: Physical Evidence & Possible Mishandling (21:01–29:39)

• Karen’s SUV had a broken right tail light; matching fragments were found near John’s body, some adhering to his clothing.
• Police used questionable methods: leaf blowers and red Solo cups for evidence collection.
• Chain of custody issues: the damage to the taillight reportedly worsened between initial police viewings and its photograph at the impound lot.
• Video evidence surfaced showing Karen backing out and possibly striking something after the night in question, not during.

---

5. Clue #4: Karen’s Cell Activity & Relationship Turmoil (29:39–34:44)

• Karen made over 50 calls to John between 12:30am–6am, with voicemails full of anger and accusation.
• Voicemails suggest both confusion and suspicion—possibly contradicting her lack of memory claim.
• Quote – Kaylin Moore (29:28):
  “You can hear how angry she is … But what emotion? I want to know what you guys think.”
• Their relationship was full of recent turmoil, jealousy, allegations of infidelity, and toxic interactions.

---

6. Clue #5: Autopsy and Cause of Death (34:44–38:13)

• John died from blunt force head trauma and hypothermia.
• Multiple skull fractures occurred before freezing exposure.
• The manner of death was ruled "undetermined"—not homicide or accident.
• Debate exists as to whether his injuries were consistent with being hit by a car.

---

7. Alternative Theory: Inside Job and Dog Bite Allegations (38:13–49:45)

• Defense highlights witness testimony of a snowplow driver who didn’t see a body during multiple passes—a potential sign John was placed there later.
• Speculation John may have been killed inside the house and moved outside.
• John exhibited unexplained wounds; defense argued some matched dog bite patterns (Albert’s German Shepherd, Chloe, had a history of biting, but was rehomed soon after the incident).
• Investigators never found dog DNA; however, evidence consensus is questionable and clothing protocols were not followed.

---

8. Clue #6: Digital Evidence: Search Histories, Location Data, Phone Disposal (51:02–63:36)

• Jennifer McCabe’s Search: “How long to die in cold” at a debated time—either suspiciously before John’s body is found (2:27am) or later, after discovery (6:23am). Forensic experts for both prosecution and defense battle over timing reliability.
• John’s iPhone Health Data: Suggests movement—climbing stairs, walking—after Karen claims to have dropped him off, which could support the theory that he entered the Albert home.
• WiFi Data: Karen’s phone connects to John’s home WiFi soon after the supposed drop-off, suggesting timeline inconsistencies with prosecution claims.
• Suspicious Phone Disposal: Both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins (another friend and possible romantic interest of Karen’s) disposed of their phones just before court evidence orders.

---

9. Key Law Enforcement Conflicts, Conspiracies, and Botched Investigation (63:36–71:48)

• Chief investigator Michael Proctor’s text messages revealed gross bias and misconduct: “whack job,” “nut bag,” and misogynistic comments about Karen.
• Proctor allegedly tampered with evidence (suspicious impound lot video showing him lingering near Karen’s taillight, possible evidence planting).
• Quote – Kaylin Moore (65:41):
  “These are just, like, so wild to read the text coming from the person who's supposed to be investigating this death and be somewhat neutral about it.”
• Widespread connections between involved parties—all closely related or friendly within the local law enforcement community.
• The botchboard: Hosts continually note evidence collection failures, missing chain of custody, lost or untested key evidence (notably, John’s socks for dog hair).

---

10. First Trial Outcome and Jury Impasse (71:48–73:35)

• Karen Reed charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, and related offenses.
• After 8 weeks, the jury was hopelessly split—not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, particularly over evidence and intent for second degree murder.
• Quote – Jury statement (70:47):
  “The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only forces us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.”

---

11. What’s Next:

• Mistrial declared; Karen Reed is, for the time, a free woman.
• The hosts tease the upcoming coverage of the retrial, promising even more bombshells, new witnesses, and emerging details.

---

Notable Quotes

• On Karen’s “confession”
  “She wasn’t telling them, ‘I hit him.’ She was asking, ‘Did I hit him?’ That little word did makes a huge difference.”
  — Morgan Absher (12:31)

• On The Search History Bombshell
  “If someone Googled ‘how long to die in the cold’ at 2:27 in the morning, there’s no question in my mind what happened.”
  — Kaylin Moore (54:10)

• On Chain of Custody Issues & Conflicts
  “Four months later, they decide to upgrade Karen’s charges … Interesting that you’re upgrading her charges four months after you’ve already decided you have enough to arrest her.”
  — Kaylin Moore (38:13)

• On Law Enforcement Compromises
  “It taints the whole investigation when you have someone like this on the case.”
  — Morgan Absher (66:35)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Case introduction, crime scene setup: 04:04–05:46
• Detailed timeline & discovery of John’s body: 05:46–12:31
• Alleged confession at scene: 12:31–14:07
• Blood alcohol analysis: 16:47–21:01
• Physical evidence, car and crime scene mishandling: 21:01–29:39
• Karen’s phone records and relationship background: 29:39–34:44
• Autopsy insights and cause of death: 34:44–38:13
• Alternative theories, dog bite injuries: 38:13–49:45
• Jennifer McCabe’s search history debate: 51:02–54:34
• Location/phone data, Wi-Fi evidence: 54:34–61:13
• Conflict of interest, law enforcement bias, evidence tampering: 63:36–69:37
• Jury impasse, mistrial, and look ahead to retrial: 70:47–73:35

---

Tone & Style

The hosts blend sharp forensic and legal analysis with candid, empathetic, and occasionally irreverent commentary. They authentically voice skepticism ("I'm marking the botchboard!") and invite listeners to share their perspectives, maintaining a community-driven, sleuthing spirit.

---

For Listeners

This episode provides a comprehensive and balanced overview of the evidence and controversies surrounding the death of John O’Keefe and the first Karen Reed trial. Showcasing conflicting expert testimony, flawed police work, and possible local conspiracy, the case remains unsolved in the court of public opinion. The episode is essential listening for true crime enthusiasts interested in forensic investigation, digital evidence, and courtroom drama.

For more in-depth coverage, the hosts invite the audience to tune in for Part 2, covering the retrial with new evidence, evolving theories, and additional expert analysis.

---

[Follow the discussion and join the Clues community on Instagram @CluesPodcast and YouTube @CluesPod. Part 2 releases August 27, 2025.]

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Cluminati, Kaylin and Morgan here. We're so excited to tell you about our fellow Crime House original show, Conspiracy Theories, Cults and Crimes. Every Wednesday you'll get to explore the true stories behind the world's most shocking crimes, deadly ideologies and secret plots.

[B]

So if you love mystery, madness, and diving deep into the world's most unbelievable true stories, you won't want to miss this. Follow Conspiracy Theories, Cults and Crimes now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you listen. And for ad free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House plus on Apple Podcasts.

[A]

Karen says something strange on this call. She says, quote, what if he's dead? What if a plow hit him? I know, it's crazy. If you just look at the facts of the case from that point forward, I think a lot of people would be like, oh, I know what happened.

[B]

It is about to get twisted, my friends.

[A]

I'm going to take away one botched for that because I am glad he got fired. Foreign.

[B]

Hi guys. Welcome back to Clues, where we sneak past the crime scene tape to explore the key evidence behind some of the most gripping, notorious true crime cases.

[A]

I'm Kaylin Moore and I'm going to be digging deeper into the timelines, the backstories, and some of the court files released on these cases.

[B]

And I'm your Internet sleuth, Morgan Abshur. I'm the one who's diving into Reddit forums and whatever else I can find on the Internet to look at those threads that add up or really don't.

[A]

And at Crime House, we value your support. So please share your thoughts on social media and remember to rate, review and follow clues to help others discover the show. And for bonus episodes, early access and ad free listening, join our Crime House plus community on Apple Podcasts. Okay, today we are taking the massive undertaking. We actually split these episodes into two parts, which I think is the only way to tell this story. Yeah, but this is one of the most talked about true crime stories of the year. The mysterious death of John o' Keefe and the two trials of his girlfriend, Karen Reed. John was a Massachusetts police officer who was found dead in a snowy yard after a party in January of 2022.

[B]

The cops arrested John's girlfriend, Karen Reed, believing she hit him with her vehicle. She was charged with second degree murder, but some of the clues pointing to Karen didn't add up for the jury, leading to not one, but two trials. This week, we're gonna walk you through the backstory, the Timeline the investigation and the first trial. And next week, we'll take you through the retrial that determined Karen's fate. More on this case and the clues that defined it after this quick break. Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also, yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats, and those first few ve vet visits, you've probably already dropped a small fortune, which is.

[A]

Where Lemonade pet insurance comes in.

[B]

It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy, and your claims are handled in as little as three seconds. Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens.

[A]

Get a'llemonade.com pet your future self will thank you.

[B]

Your pet won't. They don't know what insurance is. Okay, I'm gonna say this right now. I'm a little nervous for this one, you guys.

[A]

This is a big one.

[B]

It's big. You guys have been asking for it in the comments and we hear you. So we, you know, we really wanted to do this one and dive in, but this is a huge case.

[A]

Yeah, I think you brought it up, Morgan. There's like a 15 hour episode version of doing this case, but we wanted to tell the story kind of through the perspective of Karen. And there's obviously so many rabbit holes we could go into with the friends and the other cops that are involved and we're gonna get into some of those. But we really wanted to streamline the story and just tell it through the perspective of Karen, who's really at the center of all this.

[B]

Absolutely. That being said, though, we know a lot of you out there know a lot about this case, maybe even a little about this case, and we want to know what you know. So if there's a piece of evidence that really highlights the. The whole case for you, put it in the comments. Like, we want to hear what you guys are really resonating with in this case.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And if there's something we miss, like, let us know. Like, we're gonna miss stuff. This is big. It is very back and forth. It's the war of the experts, as we often see with these big media cases. So let us know your thoughts and what you really devolve from all of this information we present to you.

[A]

And a quick reminder to anyone who's watching this episode on YouTube, you're going to see some photos that are going to help really paint a picture of the scene that we're talking about. There's a Lot of assets in this one. And so if you're not watching on YouTube, you're going to be able to find those same assets on our Instagram. And that's Clues podcast. All right, today is a tricky case, not because we don't have enough evidence, but because we have so much evidence. And a whole lot of this evidence has been disputed in not just one trial, but now two.

[B]

The John o' Keefe case is a huge deal everywhere. The Internet, Reddit, TikTok. There's so many, even Internet sleuths that have like made this their full time career. Just picking apart each clue and really compiling the evidence again. We could probably spend 13 hours, a 20 part series on this case. But since we only have two episodes, we're going to cover some of the biggest and most controversial clues, the ones that we feel have been the most critical to this case.

[A]

All right, let's dive in.

[B]

Let's do it.

[A]

Our story starts on January 28, 2022. It's a Friday night in Canton, Massachusetts. Then 46 year old John O' Keefe and 42 year old Karen Reed wanted to end the week by blowing off a little steam. Now, John had been a respected Boston police officer for 16 years. At that point he was also really respected in his community. In 2013, his world was kind of turned upside down when his older sister Kristen died from a brain tumor. He stepped up and he raised Kristen's two children. It was his six year old niece and his three year old nephew. And he raised them really as his own. He just fully stepped into the dad role. Karen, the woman he was with, was a financial analyst at Fidelity and she was also an adjunct professor at Bentley University. And, and the two had dated previously and broken up for a little while and they actually reconnected on Facebook in 2020 and that's when they started dating again. They'd been dating again for two years at this point. At around 7:30pm that night, John arrived at this Irish bar in Canton called C.F. mcCarthy's where some of his friends were. And Karen joined him about an hour later. We know this because we have CCTV footage of all this. For the next two hours, the couple's hanging out, they're having a good time with some mutual friends that are also there. And then at 10:40pm they all leave the bar because they want to go to another spot. And it's right down the street. It's called the Waterfall Bar and Grill. And that's where this evening kind of starts to take a turn because at the waterfall. They run into some of John's cop buddies, including this guy named Brian Albert. And Brian's there with several of his family members, including his sister in Law, Jennifer McCabe. She's pretty close to Karen, so they're really all friends. And the whole crowd is drinking. They're drinking a lot as we've seen in some of this footage. And then around midnight, they decide that they want to take the party back to Brian's house where his son is celebrating his birthday. So at 12:14am, Jennifer McCabe calls John O'. Keefe. She has Brian's address, 34 Fairview Road. It's just a five minute drive away. So as we can see on some of the CCTV footage, John and Karen hop into Karen's black Lexus SUV and take off. As they're leaving this bar, John's wearing his long sleeve T shirt. He still has a cocktail glass in his hand. And the two load into Karen's car. They've both been drinking. We've established this. It's very dark out and it's just starting to snow and not just a little bit. This is a really heavy nor' easter that's coming into the area. And by noon the next day, Canton will have actually gotten more than 20 inches of snow, which is so I'm from Minnesota.

[B]

That's a lot of snow.

[A]

Do you get 20 inches of snow like in one go?

[B]

Yeah, we actually had a big snowstorm take out one of our like machine buildings. It was so heavy on the roof, so I know a lot of snow. That's a lot of snow.

[A]

It's like whiteout conditions. You can't even see the road as you're driving.

[B]

So hard to drive. It's slippery, it's, it's really tough.

[A]

And at the time, a local meteorologist calls it, quote, the biggest snowstorm in January in our history. It's the biggest snowstorm they've ever seen. Fifteen minutes later, at 12:31am, Jen McCabe texts John and says, pull up behind me, meaning that Karen can just park her car in the driveway right behind her car. Jen said at this time she glanced out of the window a few times and she saw a dark SUV parked in a few different locations outside. First in front of the house, then by the flag pole in the front left corner of the yard and then a bit further up from the flag pole. And maybe Jen and the other partygoers thought that Karen and John were just sitting and chatting inside of the car because according to all of them, all of the People that were inside the house that night. Neither John nor Karen ever made it inside of the house for the party. And at 12:40am Jen texts John one word. She just says hello. And then two minutes later she texts where are you? You spelled with just the letter U. Three minutes after that she sends another hello. She never gets a response from him. And around 1:45am, Jen and her husband drive home and they drop off one of their friends along the way. But then around 4:53am Jen gets a call and it's from John's niece. Which is a really surprising call to be getting.

[B]

Yeah. And she's 14 at the time, I believe. Yeah, like young.

[A]

So Jen is like, what's going on? She picks up the phone and John's niece says that Karen told her to call Jen. Karen was panicking because Jon never came home last night. Karen says that they actually got in a fight when they left the bar. So when they were outside in front of the house, that's maybe when they were having a fight. But she was so drunk she actually doesn't remember all that much from the night before. And that's when Jen informs Karen that John actually never came to the party that night. So Karen has this conversation with Jen and they hang up. And then Karen calls another friend, Carrie Roberts, who was actually not at the party that night. She was not at the Alberts house. And according to Carrie, Karen says something strange on this call. She says, quote, what if he's dead? What if a plow hit him? And Carrie tells her to calm down. She offers to go help look for John. They're gonna go drive around and try to find him. So Carrie, Karen and Jennifer McCabe all meet up that morning and they just start driving through town. They want to retrace their steps from the night before and try to find John somewhere in this blizzard. And finally they don't find him on their way to the bars. They don't find him around the bars. So they decide to go back to the Alberts house. And that's when they arrive at 34 Fairview around 6 in the morning. But before the car even comes to a stop, Karen starts screaming. According to Jen, she's kicking the door and she's yelling quote There he is. Let me out. Karen races over to the flagpole that's in the Albert's yard. And John is laying there partially covered in snow. And that's when Karen calls 91 1. The EMTs arrive just a few minutes later and they find all three women huddled over John's body and performing CPR on him. And a few seconds later, Karen is frantically running back and forth in shock. And we have this account coming from, you know, during the trial, a couple people testified about this, but one Canton police officer said that Karen was heard saying at this time, quote, this is all my fault. I did this. And the ambulance takes John to the hospital after that point, where he is later pronounced dead at 7:59 in the morning.

[B]

Which kind of brings us to clue number one here. Karen's alleged confession. Katie McLaughlin, a Canton firefighter and paramedic, was one of the first people to approach Karen at the scene that morning trying to gather information about John. McLaughlin said Karen appeared, quote, distraught. And when she asked if there had been any significant trauma that preceded this incident, Karen responded by saying, quote, I hit him. I hit him. A police officer nearby apparently heard this and asked, quote, you what? And Karen allegedly said it one more time, quote, I hit him. Anthony Flamatti, another firefighter and paramedic, later said he also heard Karen say the words, I hit him. Officer Steven Sarah heard her say, quote, this is all my fault. This is all my fault. I did this. As you mentioned, Kaylin, but it's not so cut and dry. Karen later claimed the paramedics misheard her. She wasn't telling them, quote, I hit him. She was asking, quote, did I hit him? That little word did makes a huge difference. Obviously. Karen also apparently repeated to the first responders that John might have been hit by a snowplow, which seemed plausible and could indicate that she simply didn't know what happened. Still, this so called confession made police zero in on Karen as a suspect pretty much immediately. And so when they smelled the alcohol in her breath, they wondered if that was the reason for John's death.

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Mint Mobile. You know what doesn't belong in epic summer plans? Getting burned both by the sun and by your old wireless bill. While you're planning beach trips, barbecues, three day weekends, all that fun stuff, your wireless bill should be the last thing holding you back. That's why people are making the switch to Mint Mobile. Mint Mobile gives you unlimited talk, text and high speed data on the nation's largest 5G network for just a fraction of what the big carriers charge. And right now, they're running a limited time offer. 3 months of unlimited premium wireless service for just $15 a month. Setup is also super simple. You get to keep your phone, your phone number and all of your contacts. And this is without any contracts, no store visits, and no surprises when your bill finally comes. The best part of signing up for Mint Mobile, at least on my end, was definitely being able to keep my phone and my phone number, which is not something that you're always able to do. This year you can skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mint mobile.com/clues that's mint mobile.com/clues upfront payment of 45 required equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and these extra cement mobile for details One of our partners this week is Function Health. People choose function because it's the only health platform that gives access to most data that people never see and the insights to actually take action. I mean, when it comes to my health, I'm not just curious. I want clarity on things. And with function you can test over 160 biomarkers from things like hormones and heart health to toxins, stress, inflammation. You can even access multi region MRI and CT scans. And this is all tracked securely in one place so you get a near 360 view of your health over time. That's why top health leaders like Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Andrew Huberman are all in on function. So there's actually a gene called MTHFR that helps your body use folate and folate is critical for things like making neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine very important. Variants in this gene can raise inflammation, it can impact energy, and it even plays a role in anxiety and depression. And function makes it really easy to test for this. Their genetic testing add on can show you exactly how your MTHFR gene is functioning and what you can do to support it. That way you don't have to guess anymore if you want to actually understand your body and your brain, function is the exact place to do it. And you can learn more and join using our link visit www.functionhealth.com backslash clues.

[B]

Which let's get into clue number two. Karen's blood alcohol level. As we mentioned, they had quite a few drinks that night. So at 9:08am, about eight and a half hours after John was last seen alive, Karen's blood was drawn at Good Samaritan Medical Center. The results showed her blood alcohol content was somewhere between 0.07 and 0.09. We do have another report though that says and this is coming from Knowles who was Like a provider at the hospital, that her blood alcohol level was actually 0.093%. And just so everyone's aware, like, Massachusetts legal limit for driving is 0.08. And this is the morning after.

[A]

This is hours after she had her last drink. Yeah, because the last drink was around.

[B]

Midnight, somewhere around there.

[A]

And they're doing this at 9:08 in the morning. So you've had nine hours to come down, and it's. You're still hovering around the legal limit.

[B]

And so the police do dig a little deeper in all this footage that they have from the bars. They start counting how many drinks she really had. They conclude, like, six drinks at C.F. mcCarthy's and another two at the waterfall. You know, you see a clear glass, though, and a shot being poured in.

[A]

Right. There were questions about how many shots were actually being drank.

[B]

So it's like, how many shots are being drink? Was it water in one? How strong? Where the drinks are? Like, there's so many variables that can be accounted for here, but either way, like, that's quite a few drinks in three hours. And so prosecutors actually hire a forensic toxicologist to do what's called a retrograde extrapolation. Basically, they worked backwards to estimate what Karen's blood alcohol level would have been earlier that night.

[A]

And this is kind of an imperfect science. It sounds like.

[B]

Yeah, it's feeling kind of new. And there's so many factors.

[A]

You have to think about how tall someone is, how much they weigh, are they a man, are they a woman?

[B]

Their metabolism.

[A]

Their metabolism. Are they used to drinking that many.

[B]

Drinks, how hydrated they were before they started drinking?

[A]

I had that many drinks, I would be drunk, I think, for a few days. I really. My tolerance is so bad.

[B]

I'm 31. Two glasses of wine kick my ass.

[A]

Right, Right. So they're doing this, but it's kind of a take it with a grain of salt type of. Exactly.

[B]

So according to their analysis, at 12:45am around the time Karen supposedly dropped John off at the house, her blood alcohol content could have been between 0.14 and 0.28, which.

[A]

That's a huge spread.

[B]

Which is double. Yeah, huge spread. And if it is on that higher side of the number, almost four times the legal limit to drive.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

Like, that is high. At that level, most people would be severely impaired, stumbling, slurring their words, having trouble with basic motor functions. So definitely not someone you would want behind the wheel of an SUV in a blizzard in the highest snowfall in January history. And I just want to Say, like, there's a lot of discussion online about this blood alcohol content, and some people do think it's unreliable. It's not the perfect science. And there's a lot of other, you know, reasons it could have been different, altered or different for Karen. She's got ms, and that affects it. She's got Crohn's.

[A]

Okay, so she has autoimmune issues that can affect your blood alcohol content.

[B]

That's what everyone is talking about.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

Okay, so again, we're just saying it's unclear the exact level here. And when we look to the surveillance footage, it also kind of casts some doubts about the test, because if you look at Karen walking, she's walking pretty normally, not stumbling, seemingly able to walk and get into the car. Okay, so there's all that context. Nonetheless, using this blood test, the two lead detectives that are put on this case are Trooper Michael Proctor and Sergeant Yuri Buchnik. And they start putting a theory together. They knew Karen was driving under the influence. She was the last person to see John, and by her own admission, she could have hit him with her car. Her car did have some visible damage, so. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's. It's kind of looking like it could be Karen right now.

[A]

I know it's crazy. If you just look at the facts of the case from that point forward, I think a lot of people would be like, oh, I know what happened. And it gets so much crazier from this moment on.

[B]

It is about to get twisted, my friends. So let's look at Karen's SUV. Clue number three is driving in around 4:30pm On January 29, the cops went to Karen's parents home for a more formal interview with Karen. When they arrived, they noticed Karen's Lexus SUV in the driveway, and they claimed that the right tail light was broken. Pieces of red and clear plastic were missing, and there were even scratches on the back bumper and a dent in the trunk tailgate. They immediately had the car impounded. Meanwhile, back at the crime scene, investigators had spent a couple of hours clearing snow with leaf blowers to try to get to any evidence underneath.

[A]

Do we mark it as botched? Yes. I think we're gonna really fill up this botchboard today.

[B]

Were they electric leaf blowers? Were they gas leaf blowers? Either way, doesn't seem very. They're just blowing all that away, blowing it all around. And they didn't find much of a car taillight, but they did find a broken cocktail glass. And the snow, which was still coming down at this point, made this search even more complicated. So they gave up. But after the snow stopped, a different forensics team comes back in around 5:30pm and starts again. And this time they discover plenty of evidence, which I do just want to point out here in our timeline. This is after Karen's car has been impounded.

[A]

Important to note.

[B]

Important to note here. So near the flagpole where John was found, they noticed shards of a broken taillight. They also found John's missing shoe upside down in the snow. Later, they'll also find microscopic fragments of red and clear plastic on John's clothes. When they compared the plastic pieces to Karen's vehicle, it looked like a perfect match. And on the surface, all of this evidence is again still pointing to like, okay, Karen must have hit him with her car. Karen backed into John, taillight exploded on impact, and the fragments were left behind as evidence. Case closed. Right. The problem is a lot of things about this crime scene felt a little sus. They're just off. Especially with the way police were collecting evidence.

[A]

Yeah. Because weren't they picking up. They were scooping up snow that had blood in it. With red solo cups.

[B]

Yep. So we thought leaf blowers were wild. The team actually used red solo cups to scoop up evidence. In one source I saw, they got them from a neighbor. Like, they didn't even come from the house that John was found outside of in front of. They came from a neighbor's house. Random red solo cups. And let's get back to the tail light for a minute. Okay. Because there's a lot of conversation about how that evidence evolved over the day as well. Police Sergeant Nicholas Barros was one of the first people to see Karen's SUV when they questioned her at her parents house that day. And he said that the taillight had a hole missing from it that was about the size of a dollar bill. But by the time police actually snapped a picture in the impound lot, the whole taillight was completely shattered. And you guys are going to see a picture of it. It's shattered. Shattered.

[A]

Yeah, definitely.

[B]

So what happened to it? Why the difference in taillight over a toe to the impound yard? So at this point, it's seeming like cops kind of ignored this chain of custody because that whole first day, it's hard to say who collected what evidence and from where. At the crime scene, they didn't take pictures of the taillight pieces before touching them. No one wrote down where each piece was even found. And supposedly they didn't even find all the pieces. Until February 4th, almost a week later, which, okay, again, a lot of snow, but they were using leaf blowers. And to make things even more complicated, we have a video, a video that was taken as Karen was backing out of the driveway to go look for John that morning.

[A]

And this is something that came out later.

[B]

This came out later. They didn't know this footage existed right away. This video shows Karen backing up, and you see John's car behind her, and you see what appears to be a bump. And the tail light, the side of the car that would have been hit was the right tail light.

[A]

Yeah. So it would have made sense that maybe this cracked tail light came from that impact. And that was the morning that she went to go look when she was going to go look for driver.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Before she went back to that scene, you know, that happened. We're gonna put a little piece of the video clip in here, you guys. Let us know in the comments what you think about it. Are we seeing things? You know, it is snowing. It's a grainy video, but, like, let us know what you think in the comments. Okay, so you've seen the clip. Can't wait to see your thoughts. Some people think that this was an intentional hit on Karen's part. Some people speculate that she did this to maybe cover evidence of something else.

[A]

Is that. Where is that coming from? Is that just people on the Internet speculating?

[B]

Yes, it's my. My lovely Reddit people.

[A]

Well, because that's interesting to know where it's coming from, because I don't think she was thinking that clearly, from everything we've heard about her, just how panicked she was.

[B]

Also, let's consider the blood alcohol level we still have hours later. Yeah, right, right. So there's that. Karen, on the other hand, says she doesn't remember how the taillight broke. So already on day one of this investigation, we have some physical evidence that's been tainted and a bunch of he said, she said, and also, like, a lot that's kind of missing at this point.

[A]

Yeah, I was going to bring that up because you can learn a lot from what's at a crime scene, and you can also learn a lot from what's not at a crime scene. And one thing that wasn't at the crime scene the morning that John's body was discovered was the homeowner. Because think about it. This one always, like, really stands out to me. Inside the house is Brian Albert. He's a cop. He's a cop with John. And outside the house are three women they're all screaming. Then you have ambulances arriving. You have fire trucks arriving. The homeowner never woke up during any of that.

[B]

Well, and this group of friends, this group of people is very convoluted. We might have to make a web for you guys to demonstrate all of the relationships here. But one of the women outside screaming was the homeowner's sister in law.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

So it's very weird that no one's checking on the homeowners. Even, like, there's a man out.

[A]

She's not texting him or calling him to be like, get out here. Someone's dead in your yard.

[B]

Do you have plastic bags?

[A]

Do you like, do you have red solo cups for me to get evidence in? Like, yeah, there's none of that.

[B]

It's very strange. But at this time, investigators really thought they were seeing Karen's true colors come through. They weren't considering or looking at anyone else.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So let's get into Karen's cell phone records. This kind of brings us to clue number four here. The first alarming thing was that between 12:30am which was about when Karen said she dropped John off, and 6am she called John's phone more than 50 times, which is quite a few phone calls. John never answered a single one of those calls. But it was what Karen said in her voicemails that was looking pretty bad to investigators. The first voicemail came at 12:37am and she was seething. She said, quote, john, I effing hate you. And we're going to play a couple clips of her voicemails again. Let us know what you guys think of this.

[A]

You can hear how angry she is.

[B]

You hear it. You hear a lot of emotion here. But what emotion? I want to know what you guys think.

[A]

John, I'm here with you kids.

[B]

Nobody knows what the why.

[A]

Pervert.

[B]

Yes, one in the morning.

[A]

I'm with your niece and nephew, you pervert. You're a pervert.

[B]

These calls go on. Twenty minutes later, she says, quote, It's 1am I'm with your effing kids. Nobody knows where the f you are, you effing pervert. Then 20 minutes after that, quote, john, I'm going home. I cannot babysit your niece. You're effing using me right now. You're effing another girl. You're a f ing loser. F yourself. Now, obviously, there's a lot we can infer from these calls. To some, they may sound like a worried, angry girlfriend. They may sound like an alcohol fueled rant. But what's interesting about these calls. Karen should have known where John was, right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

She dropped him off.

[A]

Usually when people know someone's dead, they don't try to call them 50 times.

[B]

That would be what I would assume. And while Karen said she was so drunk, she didn't remember much from that night at first. She does later change her tune and says she does actually remember dropping him off at the party and watching him go inside. She sent him in without her to make sure the party was still happening and that they were still welcome there. Because when they pulled up, it kind of looked like things were shutting down. All the lights were off and didn't really seem like anything was happening. When John didn't come back out to get her, that's when she drove away and she claimed she was pissed with him for the rest of the night because of it. So there's a lot about these phone calls that appear confusing and just don't really line up with what Karen said at first. But they also are kind of hinting at something deeper. Jealousy, dysfunction, little bit of toxicity in this relationship, which then gets investigators scrolling back through their relationship, all the text messages kind of leading up to this. And this is when police learn way more about their relationship and where all of this distrust may have come from. So when John and Karen first started dating back in 2020, they seemed really happy. But towards the end of 2021, they were fighting more and more. They actually took a trip to Aruba over New Year's Eve in 2021 and had a huge blow up. Marietta, one of John's friends, joined them on this trip, and she remembers bumping into John in the lobby of their hotel. She hadn't even met Karen yet, but her first encounter was hearing Karen screaming John's name from across the room. Apparently, Karen thought she saw John kissing Marietta, which Marietta denies. She said she always saw John like an older brother. But Karen held on to this belief she had and carried it throughout the trip. At one point, it escalated into a screaming match in front of John's niece and nephew. And by January 2022, they were fighting a couple of times a week. John's niece actually remembers him telling Karen that same month that their relationship was over. Despite that, though, they didn't actually break up. And if you look at the text messages, even from that day, there's a lot of accusations being thrown around. There's a lot of like, well, I don't make you happy? Why? Like, why are we doing this? Like, that very day, you know, before they went out. Clearly relationship is going through some turmoil. And Karen did ask that day, is there someone else? So to then have all these voicemails, you're effing someone else. Earlier that day, the seeds were already in her head.

[A]

Yeah. It adds context to why she was thinking that way already. Yeah.

[B]

But Karen also had some other texts that were really interesting. Karen was actually texting one of John's friends, Brian Higgins, who is an ATF agent. And wouldn't you know it, Brian was at the Alberts house the night that John died.

[A]

He was also at the waterfall. And when you look back through the CCT footage of that night, knowing that she was texting Brian Higgins, it starts to kind of seem a little different because in the CCTV footage, they're not talking at all. Karen's not talking to Brian at all. They're like almost avoiding each other.

[B]

On purpose, it seems.

[A]

On purpose, it seems. And Brian and John start wrestling just in the middle of the bar. Yeah.

[B]

It seems like there's some sort of beef happening between them. And there's a lot of gesturing, outsider looking in. I don't know, I'm not someone who would wrestle their friend at a bar, but it doesn't seem 100% playful. But again, it's just me observing footage.

[A]

I'm curious if anyone's seen the footage. What you think in the comments. Let us know.

[B]

Let us know. They had started texting in January of 2022. The very first message was Karen telling Brian that she thought he was hot. Brian hesitated a little, but soon enough he was flirting back with Karen. And at some point, rumors swirled that the text scene had escalated into a real life kiss.

[A]

And we're gonna get into these texts in the second part. We are diving in the second trial. We really dive in.

[B]

We dive in. So if this episode comes out and you're like, get into the text.

[A]

We do.

[B]

I mean, my friends, it's coming. But regardless, some people think Karen was just trying to get back at John. We don't know if she ever told John about Brian. But when cops read those messages, they think they have a pretty clear motive for murder. Okay, but let's get back to some more hard evidence because we have John's autopsy report, which is clue number five for us. When the investigators first examined John at the scene of the crime, they noticed cuts on his face, long scratches or abrasions on his arms, a gash on his head, and his eyes were also black and blue. After the doctors at Samaritan pronounced John dead, they sent his body to the medical examiner, she determined that John's cause of death Was blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia. The head injury consisted of multiple deep fractures in the back of John's skull. She also found a subarachnoid hemorrhage and contusions on the front of his brain. In other words, there was bleeding and bruising inside of his skull. John's pancreas was also a dark red color, Indicating that hypothermia was a contributing factor, but maybe not the cause. And something that stands out as especially important. The examiner concluded that the significant blunt force trauma injuries Occurred prior to John becoming hypothermic or being exposed to the cold. And they could determine this from just different hemorrhaging in his body, like his pancreas and stomach.

[A]

So it's believed that he received the head injuries and then was in the cold, and that was. Yeah.

[B]

However, again, like, there's other medical examiners that do come in and start to kind of poke at this a little bit down the line.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Again, follow up to come. But the key detail here, that really threw everyone for a loop. She listed the manner of John's death as undetermined. Not homicide, not accident, undetermined, which, as we kind of know, it's medical examiners speak for, like, we can't be certain what happened here. Without a doubt. And I will say some of the sources do mention that there was some pressure to flip that cause and make it homicide. But the examiner did not change her findings. All she could say is that he was hit in the back of the head on something hard. Whatever it was broke his skull, and he bled into his brain While slowly freezing to death. When asked directly if John's injuries were consistent with being struck by a vehicle, the medical examiner who conducted John's autopsy said they, quote, could be, but she couldn't say definitively what happened.

[A]

Even still, her report seemed to be enough for the police to feel like they could close this case. And they felt like they had everything they needed. Motive, opportunity, Even the murder weapon being Karen's SUV. So on February 2, 2022, less than a week after John's death, the police arrested Karen and charged her with manslaughter, Motor vehicle homicide, and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle collision, causing death. But then, four months later, they decide that they're going to upgrade Karen's charges. And this is something that always kind of baffled me. Like, when I first read about this, I was really surprised.

[B]

It's an interesting choice A lot of.

[A]

People had the same reaction of oh, interesting that you're upgrading her charges four months after you've already decided you have enough to arrest her. But these charges were upgraded from manslaughter to second degree murder which adds intent. Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without the premeditation or deliberation that's required for first degree murder. So could have been the heat of the moment she decided that she was going to kill him. Then she's also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. Karen insisted that she was innocent and she hired a well known LA based attorney who had defended people like Kevin Spacey. It's this man named Alan Jackson. Alan Jackson talks about getting Karen's email. He says that he gets lots of emails, lots of people want him to defend them. And there was something about the email that Karen sent him where the second he started poking around inside of her case he saw all of the threads that were starting to come undone and he knew that there was something much bigger happening here. So he decides to take her case. But to do this, Jackson decided that he needed to find an alternate explanation for how John could have died. If it wasn't Karen hitting him with her car, what could have possibly happened? And he starts noticing all these little things that just aren't adding up like some witness testimony that he goes through. Again he says he read the testimony of this snowplow driver who said that they plowed the road in front of the Alberts home multiple times between the hours that Jon was supposedly dropped off and the time that John was found dead. I don't think we've gone over exactly where Jon was found in the yard but this flag pole is much closer to the yard. It's. Although if you're looking at the house it's all the way on the left hand side on the opposite side of the yard from the driveway. And it's pretty, it's like 12ft off the curb. It's like much closer to the front of the yard. So you would think that someone who was driving a snowplow would notice a dead body of a man lying in a part of the yard that like makes no sense for someone to be lying in. And the snowplow driver is this guy named Brian Loughran and he was working for the Canton Department of Public Works at the time. And he's actually going to come up later on because he becomes a bigger deal in the second trial, and he claims in his witness testimony that he never saw a body lying in the yard. So Alan starts wondering, is there maybe a chance that John was placed in the yard early that morning?

[B]

And a lot of people try to poke holes in this snowplow driver. You know, Brian Lucky, he kind of goes by Loughran's testimony, and they point to, like, oh, the snowplow wouldn't be able to see him. Snowplows have very bad coverage of, like, visibility and blah, blah, blah. But Lucky does say his plow was kind of like this Frankenstein plow. And the seat was raised so he was able to see clearly into the yard. On top of being familiar with the home, he knew the homeowners. Small town vibes. Very convoluted crew we have here.

[A]

That's all. Just a side note. Kind of scary knowing that snowplow drivers don't always have flowers. Like, total visibility of where they're driving.

[B]

It's not great views up there, I guess.

[A]

No. Wow. But. So if that was the case, if John was placed in the yard, it would align more with the version of events that Karen said happened. She said that she dropped John off at the party. She watched him go inside. And if that was true, Jackson starts wondering, was John actually killed inside of the house and then moved outside to cover it up? Was everyone at the party just lying that he never came in? Did they all maybe tell each other? We're just gonna say he never made it into the house because that's an easy lie to keep up. And is it because they didn't wanna be implicated in this crime? While some of the answers to these questions you would be able to find in an autopsy report, at least you would think, like you said, Morgan, the medical examiner marked John's cause of death as undetermined. So it feels like anything is possible. Almost. But if you take what the cops said about Karen hitting John with her car, it doesn't make a lot of sense once you start, like, really pulling out these threads. For starters, all of John's injuries were above the waist, aside from a small scrape that was found on his knee. If Jon was standing up when Karen supposedly backed into him, Karen's taillight would have been somewhere around his hip area. And it could have been that maybe he was on his knees. We talked about this. Maybe he was kneeling down and that's how he got hit. Or maybe Karen knocked him over and he hit his head on something when he fell. But the cops are never able to show what that could be. There Weren't any objects outside that seemed to fit the bill of something that John would have hit his head on.

[B]

And so because they can't figure out the head injury, really, they start looking at other injuries John has. Which kind of brings us to clue number six. The scratches on John's face and arm. When Karen's defense experts saw the wounds, they didn't think the injuries looked like they came from a car. They thought they looked more like dog bites or animal injuries. So they reached out to Dr. Marie Russell, a forensic pathologist and retired emergency room doctor who often treated animal bites. From the photos, Dr. Russell agreed that John's injuries looked consistent with a dog attack. The scratches were grouped together in a pattern that looked like teeth or claws. And wouldn't you know it, the Albert family owned a German shepherd named Chloe who was known to bite people.

[A]

I'm sorry, but if you're a cop and you have a German shepherd that bites people, that's on you.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Like, there's. I'm a believer that there's no bad dogs. There's just bad owners. Especially German shepherds are so trainable.

[B]

I've literally. We've only ever owned German shepherds. I've had three of them.

[A]

There's German shepherds in the police department that they work alongside. That's just like, it's devastating to hear. But, yes, this dog was known to bite people.

[B]

Yes. And, like, I've had a reactive dog. Like, I had a German shepherd with bad breeding. And like, we did a lot of training, and sometimes, like, there's only so much you can do. But then if, you know, your dog bites people, like, when people come over, the dog goes in a bedroom or, you know, you make accommodations.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Well, not only did they have this dog, right, that was known to bite people, the Alberts also got rid of their dog Chloe, shortly after John's death. Bye bye rehomed because they claim she attacked another dog in 2022. Karen's team used this to create this alternative theory about what really happened. John did go into the house that night where the party was underway, and Karen went home. Inside the party, John got into some sort of altercation, and Chloe attacked him. Either he fell and hit his head or someone hit him intentionally. Then he was dragged back out into the snow to try and cover this whole accident or incident up. And at this point, I know all of you out there listening, and all of our cluminati are like, okay, well, what about dog DNA on John? What about DNA? You talk about DNA, you could Just swab the.

[A]

The wounds. Right. And you would find dog DNA.

[B]

Yeah, well, from the sources I saw rehashing trial footage, I've never seen anything in regards to swabbing the wounds. Investigators did swab John's sleeve after they took custody of his body. They did not find any dog DNA on the clothes. They did, however, find pig DNA, which is a little odd.

[A]

I actually went into a little bit of a rabbit hole on how they found pig DNA. So he had some vomit on him?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

He was seen eating potato skins on the CCTV footage of the waterfall. So they think maybe it was like bacon and that's how pig DNA wound up on his clothes.

[B]

Yeah. It is really interesting. And I know some sites, especially Reddit, likes to kind of assume, like, maybe the pig DNA came from dog food or treats.

[A]

Yeah, right, because there's so much pig in pork and dog treats, so I.

[B]

Know that comes up a lot on the subs, but, yeah, no dog DNA found on John's clothes. But, yeah, regardless of how this pig DNA got there, no mention of swabbing any wounds.

[A]

That feels like a botched. I'm gonna mark it.

[B]

I think so. But the prosecution took that as proof that Chloe wasn't involved. No dog DNA, no hair, nothing. Chloe's out. They again said the injuries were scrapes from John hitting the ground or being dragged by Karen's suv, but that was just one test. And given how a lot of the other evidence was handled, a lot of people are not trusting this. And I will say, in regards to evidence and autopsy and clothes, this is a huge rabbit hole on this case. And a lot of people talk about John's socks. So if John would have gone into the house that night, he probably would have taken off his shoes. And all you pet owners out there, you know what's usually on the bottom of your socks when you walk through your pet home? Hair.

[A]

Yeah, dog hair.

[B]

Dog hair. Especially if you own a German Shepherd. Cause let me tell you, those little cuties shed. Doesn't matter if you have that fur brush, vacuum. They shed and so on John's autopsy report, the socks are noted, but the socks were never really taken into evidence. They were never tested. If there were dog hair on the socks in the picture you see from the emergency room, the socks are on John's feet, but they're on the wrong feet. You notice this based on the socks having a logo that's supposed to be displayed on the outside of the ankles. And a lot of people conclude that because of the type of person John Was he would not have worn his socks on the wrong feet. Again, this is common chit chat.

[A]

So is the theory that his socks were taken off and someone put them back on?

[B]

That is correct.

[A]

Maybe all the clothes came off and then were put back on.

[B]

I mean, you do see a lot of his clothes on the floor in the emergency room in pictures. Because obviously they're. They were doing chest compressions.

[A]

They have.

[B]

They have leads on him. They were trying to get him warm and resuscitate him.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So again, it's kind of this. This chain of command and how the evidence was handled. Like it's not going to be perfect when you're trying to resuscitate someone and save their life.

[A]

Of course.

[B]

Of course. So. But the socks. We don't have socks are.

[A]

The socks are a big question mark.

[B]

Socks are a big question mark.

[A]

I haven't heard that interesting.

[B]

Yeah, that's like something like I feel like everyone has really latched onto from what I'm seeing on my side of the black hole Internet. Regardless, Karen's lawyers argued that if John was attacked by a dog and Chloe was kept in the house, Jon must have gone into the house. They didn't speculate about what might have caused Chloe to bite John. But if this was the case, then that would have meant that 10 or so partygoers inside the house were there to see John. Many of whom, including the homeowner himself, Brian Albert, were police officers, which would not look good for anyone involved. Which is why many people, including Karen's lawyer, really started to believe that there was a bigger conspiracy unfolding here. And Karen Reed was nothing more than a scapegoat.

[A]

This week's episode is brought to you by our friends at Thrive Market. You know what's more stressful than a packed calendar? Realizing that you're out of coffee 10 minutes before a meeting. That's why I stocked up during this Thrive Market market's back to school sale. And even if you're like me and you're not necessarily heading back to class, this time of year just feels like a fresh start. In general, Thrive Market makes it super easy to reset with high quality pantry staples, snacks, vitamins, even skin care without running all over town or squinting at every ingredient label. I just got a big box of Thrive Market goodies. I got these jalapeno chips that were delicious. I got these Italian wedding cookies that were grain free. They are so good, I ate the whole bag in just one sitting. And Thrive Market actually has these filters that make it really easy to shop by diet or lifestyle. I also love their Healthy Swaps tool. It helps me upgrade my usual picks with zero stress. Honestly, I love to use Thrive Market. You should too. It'll help make your grocery game way less chaotic. And now is the best time to try Thrive Market. You'll get up to 25% off select items and new members get 30% off their first order plus a free gift. Go to thrivemarket.com clues to start saving. The sale ends on August 31, so don't miss it which let's get into.

[B]

Some of the other people in this little web that we have here. Let's look into Jennifer McCabe's search history so Jen was the person who invited Karen and John to the house in the first place. Again, that was her sister's house. Brian Albert was her brother in law after drinking at the Waterfall Bar. Also the person that helped Karen search for John that morning. It turns out the defense learned that Jen did a search on her phone the morning that John o' Keefe died. The phrase she searched for quote Hoss long to die in cold. The word hoss appeared to be a typo for how, which would have made it how long to die in cold? But the timestamp of this search is what's really important. There's a timestamp that this search was done at 2.27am on January 29, hours before John's body was found in the snow. The timestamp was discovered by a data expert hired by Karen's defense team. The expert, Richard Green, also claimed that Jen tried to delete that search from her phone after the fact. Except it's not so straightforward. In addition to this Hoss Long search, Jen also had two other searches that night. One was about a youth sports program and the other was for a song quote It's Raining Men by the Weather Girls. Now it would be really weird if Jen thought John was dying in the snow and then decided to look up this song. And so two data experts hired by the prosecution had a good reason for why they think this actually happened. So they concluded that Jen's phone didn't record the actual timestamp of the search. It only tracked when new tabs were opened or closed. In other words, if Jen did a search for It's Raining Men by the weather girls at 2:27 and then use the same tab later after finding John to Google quote how's long to die in cold? It would still read 2:27am Even if the search was made at 6:23am about a half an hour after John's body was found, which is what the prosecution is claiming. They're claiming there's actually two of those searches. Right.

[A]

And the defense brought in an expert who said that's not how it works.

[B]

Again, we have this battle of the experts. And, I mean, if you have an iPhone, you. You kind of see how tabs work. If you hit the bottom right on your phone, all of your tabs expand. You can easily click in and out and exit one. It's interesting. There would be an attempt to delete that search from 2. 27. And again, I don't understand how it gets there at 227. I. I think, you know, if it is there again at 6:23, it's kind of intentional to have this explanation. That's my maybe hot take for the day. I don't know, what do you guys think on the texts? But again, war of the experts. Both sides are claiming opposite things about the very same data. And this just kind of continues this, this war.

[A]

That, to me, is the biggest thing in this entire case. If someone Googled how long to die in the cold at 2:27 in the morning, there's no question in my mind what happened. Yeah, but the fact that this is so debated, it could have happened at 6:23 and it would have been a totally normal surge. It's just. I guess it's still up in the air. But this, it's just the one thing that I keep turning over in my head on, like, why would someone Google that at 2:27 in the morning?

[B]

It's too big of a coincidence. Yeah, I agree. Too big. The other thing that's really, really confusing in this case is this next clue, which is all of the location data we have from all of these people's phones. So the one thing that might indicate whether John went into Brian Albert's house that night was his Apple location data. Location data has come up a lot in some of our recent cases, and it tracks everything, including when you walk, when you stop, when you go up or down flights of stairs, unless you go out of your way to disable it. In the health app, it's tracking, where's my phone?

[A]

I feel like I need to disable that.

[B]

So the location data on John's iPhone showed two specific things. First, his final interaction with the phone was at 12:32am it said that he took 36 steps, which is roughly 84ft, suggesting that he may have moved away from the car to the house. A lot of people discuss that. This is about the distance of the car to the front door. But one thing investigators also note is the phone remains by the flagpole, not moving for several hours. Prosecutors claim that this is when he stepped out of the car and was run over by Karen in her suv. But Karen's lawyers pointed out that the phone also showed him climbing stairs 10 minutes earlier. Earlier, right.

[A]

It was like three sets of stairs.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's how. From the basement. That's how many flights of stairs the Alberts had. Right? It was like three. Three flights of stairs.

[B]

Exactly. And there is a person online that goes by Sleuthy Goosey, and this will be linked if you guys want to do a deep dive yourself. Like, I've gone through this data, and this person has gone above and beyond taking John's data, Jen McCabe's data, and really comparing and kind of speculating, like, what all this data means, given the timestamps. And if you really want to get lost in the sauce, check this out. So there's a lot to gather, but again, it's kind of like, well, it's logged at that time, but it might not have been that time. And so investigators are really trying to figure out the exact timeline with all of this data.

[A]

Does Sleuthy Goosey say anything definitively about, like, what she thought happened based on looking at all of the data?

[B]

So a lot of people take the data and make commentary on it.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

A lot of people think that this walking was to the front door around the same exact time. Jen has one step on her apple watch data going up a step to greet John at the door. So there's a lot of videos that, like, step by step, break this down. That would be an episode for us in itself, I think. But essentially what Karen's lawyers are thinking based on all this data is that the prosecution's whole timeline could be wrong. If she had actually dropped john off at 12:22am this would be proof that he went into the house and went up or downstairs, wherever they were, and he stayed in the house for another 10 minutes before walking or being carried out.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Because that's when his phone stopped working. Was that 1232? There's no activity on the phone after that.

[B]

Exactly. And there's a. Again, a breakdown on the Google Doc that Sleuthy made about, like, when was face ID used to unlock the phone? When was the side button used to lock the phone? And so the last time John used his phone, it was manually locked with the side button seemingly very intentional.

[A]

Right, right. It's not like oh, you were hit by a car and you stopped using your phone because you weren't able to. It's like you closed the phone.

[B]

Yes, that is what the data is concluding. But again, there's kind of always an alternative explanation for everything in this case because investigators looked at more than just location data, they also combed through John's apps. They discovered that John had the Waze app running at the time and it showed him moving between 10 to 20 miles per hour down a different road at 12:21. Based on this data and the data from the Apple Health app, the prosecutors claim that the stairs John supposedly climbed were up and down movements of the SUV as Karen drove him to the house.

[A]

I saw some people online talking about how if you move your phone to your ear and down or if you're picking up your phone like that might register as a step. But there's a lot of debate over if that's actually accurate.

[B]

I feel like for me, like I used to have an Apple watch when I worked at a hospital and I was doing steps all the time. Like it's not super accurate but like.

[A]

Right.

[B]

It was still pretty on it for me and my experience with how it tracked steps. Like I would try to like fake my data to like close my rings.

[A]

Could you like wave your wrist around to like get more steps for the day?

[B]

It knew it wouldn't. Like I would try to close my rings. Like I got in that phase, you guys. And it just like it was harder to make it like fake the data essentially is what I'm trying to say.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

All with a grain of salt. Prosecution is saying that the only steps he actually took was when he got out of the car at 12:32am seconds before he stopped moving forever. One thing I do want to note here with all of this location data and the timestamps, something really interesting that we haven't touched on is Karen does go back to John's house and connects to his WI fi. Okay. And so the WI fi timestamp records at around 12.36am so given where the Alberts house was to where John's house was, it's a six minute drive in normal conditions. Worst blizzard ever happening outside. So a lot of people are like, how did she connect to the wi fi if 1232 is the last time she's driving away from the Albert's house.

[A]

Yeah, she's leaving at 12:32. It's six minutes, it's not four.

[B]

It's not even with good weather.

[A]

Right. And you have to get out of the car and go in and your phone has to connect. So, like, it's like seven minutes, maybe eight minutes.

[B]

So again, I just want to note that, like, that's kind of a hole with all this location data and wi.

[A]

Fi and aligns way more that she dropped him off at the 12:22 time that she was suggesting, essentially.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

Yeah. The why. And I'm like, WI fi data like that. I don't think you could fake. Like you have to physically have the device present to record that sound. No.

[A]

And it's not like it could have connected far down the street. Like one when she was still two minutes away.

[B]

No.

[A]

Connected. Yeah.

[B]

Again, blizzard conditions, Alcohol level presumably high.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

At least 0.14.

[A]

Taking her a while to get there.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

A note for us all.

[A]

No, that's an interesting note. I actually hadn't seen that about the WI fi data.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Good find. So the thing about all of the digital forensic data that we have just on its own, nothing is a smoking gun. Nothing shows us exactly what happened that night. There's a lot of data we can extrapolate from it, but as we've talked about, it's just becoming the battle experts. Every expert is saying something different about this data. But between Jennifer's Internet search, all of the mishandled evidence, I feel like I need to be marking the botchboard as I go. Jennifer's Internet search, the mishandled evidence, and the fact that so many of the people involved. Involved were cops, either friends of the people involved, friends with each other, related to each other, married to each other, working for the police department. There's so many conflicts of interest within this friend group. It is mind blowing.

[B]

It is so messy.

[A]

Karen's lawyers, when they look at all of this, they make a pretty convincing argument that something shady was going on. If we don't have a definitive answer as to what was happening, we have all these questions about the people involved and these, like, shady searches that were going on. We can't definitively point to Karen and say she killed her boyfriend in cold blood. At least that's what Alan Jackson is arguing. And he says that there's other evidence that points to something shady going on as well. For example, Karen's lawyers never got to examine Brian Albert's phone. Remember, he's the homeowner who did not come out of his home when there was someone dead in his yard. And the reason that they weren't able to examine his phone is because it had been traded in a day. One day, one calendar Day one, business day before the court gave him an order for him to preserve the phone so they could look at it for evidence. He says when he was asked about it that it was just a coincidence. There's a lot of coincidences in this case. And also, who's going to know that the order is going to be given the next day? Besides a cop.

[B]

Sounds like a tip off.

[A]

Then there's also how he gave away his dog months after John's death. And also, we didn't even touch on this yet, but he put his house on the market. 10 months after John died. 34 Fairview went up on the market. And that wasn't the only Brian that got rid of his phone. Mind you, in this case, because remember, there's also Brian Higgins.

[B]

Brian Higgins, the one that is texting Karen. Karen's calling him.

[A]

Hot ATF agent who's getting texts from Karen. He threw his phone away at a military base where it could not be retrieved.

[B]

And when asked, they were like, well, what did you do with your SIM card? And he goes, I don't know. I must have snapped it and threw it away too.

[A]

Taking the SIM card out of the phone, snapped it and threw it on a military base. Yeah.

[B]

Again, I think a day before an injunction came through for him to preserve the phone so investigators could look through it.

[A]

It was down to the wire on that one, I believe as well.

[B]

Yeah. Something I do want to note too here about Brian Higgins that we'll get into a bit more on the night, early morning hours of this incident. At 1:40am Brian Higgins made a phone call while at the Canton Police Department. So everyone was at the bars partying. And 1:40am Brian is back at work making phone calls. Yeah.

[A]

Brian goes back to the office.

[B]

Just a note for everyone here.

[A]

Yeah. Which we're not going to ever really know much about those calls because the phone was gone.

[B]

Military based dumpster.

[A]

And one of the biggest bombshells in this whole case had to do with the way that the officers handled this case. Because during Karen's first trial, it came to light that Michael Proctor, the co lead investigator that was looking into John's death, was totally compromised.

[B]

Totally.

[A]

Michael. There's so many things about this man. But Michael was required to read text messages that he sent to fellow officers where he called Karen a whack job. C word. I can't say this word on YouTube. He also called her a nut bag. He made all these crude comments about her looks, her health conditions. And at one point he even said he hoped that Karen would die by suicide. Horrible text to read. These are just, like, so wild to read the text coming from the person who's supposed to be investigating this death and be somewhat neutral about it. Yeah, this was all going on while he was investigating Karen, and he was literally going through her phone at one point, and he stopped so he could text a group chat that he was in. No nudes so far. And that was like, regarding the contents of her phone.

[B]

He was sending a lot of these messages to his boss, which not super professional, like, no nudes.

[A]

No nudes at all. He was looking through her phone for nudes, didn't find any, and was texting the group to make a funny joke about it.

[B]

Yeah, this group, again, intertwined, convoluted. Like, Proctor's wife was also friends with Jen McCabe. Like, oh, yeah, everyone in this group knows each other. And so it's like Karen was like, kind of this easy one on the outside.

[A]

She was on the outside. And I have here, too, that Michael was also drinking buddies with Kevin Albert, who was Brian Albert's brother. And that was a huge conflict of interest as well. And immediately after this trial, Michael was suspended pending an internal investigation. And he was later fired for inappropriate conduct and drinking on the job. I'm going to take away one botched for that because I am glad he got fired. We can all rest easy tonight.

[B]

I mean, it just like it. It taints the whole investigation when you have someone like this on the case.

[A]

And this kind of brings us to really, the biggest scandal in this whole trial involving Michael Proctor.

[B]

I got the chills.

[A]

And that is the taillight.

[B]

It's called the tail light.

[A]

Back to the taillight. So, remember we talked earlier about Karen's car being impounded once it was decided that the taillight was cracked, it was sitting in the driveway, they saw the taillight was cracked, and they decided to impound the car. Well, who was in charge of looking over the car while it was impounded? Michael Proctor. And, Morgan, you've really spent time, like, watching this video. Talk about the video that comes out of Michael Proctor and this vehicle.

[B]

So during this initial trial, police submit a video of Karen's car getting dropped off and being pulled into, like, an impound garage. In the garage, there's another vehicle. So Karen's lawyer actually sees this video and starts to notice that's backwards. The writing on that other vehicle, it says police, but it's inverted. It's flipped. So when this video was handed over, they flipped it. They inverted it so it looks like Proctor who is going around this car never went by the right tail light.

[A]

And that's the one that's broken.

[B]

Yes, the broken one. So this video is flipped. It looks like he's just standing by the left taillight. No, because it's flipped. He's actually by the right tail light. And he spends a lot of time by this tail light. And you can't see.

[A]

Right, you can't see because it's obstructed.

[B]

The way that the camera shows, you only see the driver's side of the vehicle and you can't see the back tail light.

[A]

And what's he doing there? I mean, some people argue that you could be measuring the taillight or looking at pieces or trying to gather evidence. Other people say that he was busting the tail light. Because we've gone over this in the timeline. But remember that second group of people at 5:30pm show up to the house and that's when they find all of the taillight evidence. And this is happening right before that. Like the car was impounded and Michael Proctor's looking at this car before that happens.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So there is a theory that he punched out the taillight, collected the glass and had it sent over to the the crime scene. And that's when they found all of this taillight.

[B]

Yes. And that also goes back to the testimony we have from Steven Sarah, one of the initial officers on the scene, that when he saw Karen's taillight, it was not shattered in the way it was then later at the impound lot.

[A]

Right.

[B]

It was a small dollar size piece missing, cracked like it was not this. Wow, this taillight is messed up. It's completely destroyed.

[A]

Right. It all circles back.

[B]

Yeah. I've seen on some sources that there was also unknown glass found with this tail light. Some people online are speculating that this could have been from like the butt of a flashlight. That is kind of standard issue for police. Oh, but that's a real big rabbit hole. That's like, again, like that's very conspiracy theory.

[A]

Well, I know there's a lot of questions over. Right. Because there was other glass found at the scene too. And they decided that was the waterfall cocktail glass. But the way that you actually figure out where a piece of glass came from is really complicated. It's very science. That's above my pay grade.

[B]

Okay. I'm like, I don't know.

[A]

But I mean, you're looking at things like the thickness of it, the way the light shines through it. You're trying to match that piece of glass exactly. To just a nondescript cocktail glass that came from the waterfall. So they aren't entirely sure that that's even where that glass came from.

[B]

Basically a lot of speculation on it.

[A]

And everything we talked about and obviously so much more was covered at the first trial, which began in April of 2024. And after eight weeks of testimony, remember everything that we just talked about, all of the conflicting evidence, the battle of the witnesses, the battle of the experts, all of it was told to a jury. And the jury had to deliberate for five full days talking about this case. And it really is clear that they were as confused by some of this evidence as we were. And remember, this is also a second degree murder charge. Like, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Karen decided in that moment she wanted to kill John.

[B]

That's someone's life on the line, essentially.

[A]

It's a big weight, and it's just not convincing to the jury because twice they ended up sending a message to the judge that said they couldn't reach a decision, but the judge just kept sending them back and was like, keep trying. And finally when they returned for the third time, they gave the judge this message and it said, quote, despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only forces us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.

[B]

Powerful.

[A]

Really well put. Too.

[B]

Very.

[A]

And it seems, at least from this ABC article, that I found that four jurors have since come forward and said that the jury basically agreed that she wasn't guilty of second degree murder. It was really the manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence charge that they couldn't agree on. Seems like they actually did kind of agree that she wasn't guilty. But yeah, there were other charges like kind of lopped in with all of that that they just couldn't agree on.

[B]

Yeah, and I have seen her lawyer file a of bunch appeals to kind of be like, well, double jeopardy, like we. We shouldn't even be going to the second trial because.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You could have decided on those two.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

So this. That came up quite a bit. Right.

[A]

And because they didn't decide it was double jeopardy. It meant that this was going to be a mistrial and that Karen Reed was a free woman, at least for now.

[B]

Next week, Kaylin and I are going to get back into this case and give a bit more of a play by play of this explosive retrial. The strategy changed the second trial. More witnesses were brought in, more expert witnesses. Less of like, I don't want to say goon squad, but like this crazy friend group.

[A]

They did not have the goon squad come back.

[B]

They did not have a lot of these people come back. And I know a lot of you are like, well, what about Jen McCabe's text? And like all these other messages? We're gonna get into it a bit more on the second one. The hard part. I, I think with me, it's like there are texts from this group when there was a reporter at, you know, Albert's restaurant that he had saying, just tell him that the guy never came in the house. Exactly. Said the response. There's a lot of those messages out there. Again, that kind of sows the reasonable doubt. But Karen was the one on trial, right? Not the group of friends.

[A]

Which is even interesting that Alan Jackson came forward and had this, the dog theory. Because they don't have to prove what happened. Karen's team does not have to prove that he was killed by a dog. They just have to sow enough doubt that it wasn't second degree murder. So he brings up the dog theory, but he didn't necessarily have to. That was all strategy on his part.

[B]

Strategy. And I don't know, we'll find out if it's a good one in the next episode. But I definitely shocked jurors when they were like, okay, well, you know, we want to see the dog. Where'd you re home the dog to?

[A]

Right.

[B]

And Alberts are like, we don't know. We don't know where the dog is.

[A]

Oh, we forgot, we forgot where we sent the dog.

[B]

So if there's something you're waiting for us to talk about, it's probably going to be in part two. Put it in the comments. We want to see, we want to see what you're, what you're itching to get into in part two because it, it shifts a little bit in this retrial.

[A]

Right, right. Because they have to come in with new strategy, essentially. Because the first time it didn't work.

[B]

Didn't work.

[A]

So you have to come in with a whole new, like, set of strategies.

[B]

So, yeah, crash reenactments. We're getting into, we take field trips.

[A]

To the crime scene with the jurors.

[B]

More DNA. We are getting into it on this second one. So stay tuned, my friends. Put all of your thoughts in the comments. What's, what's the biggest piece of evidence that has stuck with you so far?

[A]

We have some breaking news for the Cluminati here. So you can join US on Wednesday, August 27th at 3:00pm Pacific, 6:00pm Eastern to actually watch the second installation of our Karen Reed trial series.

[B]

Yeah, we, we told you guys part two. We are getting into it. And this is such a big case. So much comes out at this second trial. All these loose ends kind of get tied up. But we want to go through it with you guys live.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So we will be on the YouTube premiere in the chat with you guys, really going through it, answering any questions you might have, maybe talking about things we didn't highlight.

[A]

We want to hear all of your thoughts, all of your theories. So definitely join us on YouTube. August 27th, 3pm Pacific, 6pm Eastern. We'll see you there.

[B]

See you there, guys.

[A]

Bye.

[B]

But on that note, we have our Missing person of the week.

[A]

So for this week, we wanted to highlight Nikki Chang Saly McCain, who was age 39 when she disappeared. She would be 40 now and she's been missing since May 17, 2024. Nikki is described as female, Asian, brown hair, brown eyes. She's 4 foot 11 and weighs around 110 pounds. Nikki is also described as having a floral tattoo on her left forearm. Nikki's last contact was when she communicated with her sisters via text. She told them that she was heading to her mother in law's property on Reading Ranchiera in Shosta County, California. And that is a Native American reserv that's in Shosta County. She was reported missing on May 22, 2024 after her family hadn't heard from her for a couple of days. Now, this investigation was initially handled by Reading Police. It's now being handled by Shasta County Sheriff's Office. And it actually was this year classified as a potential homicide that happened on March 14th of 2025. And that determination was based on evidence, interviews and a lack of contact since May 18, 2024. Now, some additional context on this disappearance. But Nikki was set to appear in court on June 3, 2024 for a settlement conference related to domestic violence charges against her husband, Tyler McCain. Tyler faced four felony charges from an alleged domestic violence incident against Nikki in December of 2023, and he pled not guilty. All Charges against Tyler were dismissed on July 5, 2024, because of Nikki's absence that prevented her from testifying. Shasta County D A stated that dismissal allows refiling of charges if Nikki is located or if further evidence is obtained. So it's really important that if she is alive, she is found. Now, one thing aside from any tips on Nikki's whereabouts is authorities are also requesting help identifying the driver of a red truck who possibly picked up a male adult near Highway 36 in western Tehila County. And that was between May 18th and 25th of 2024. There's a combined reward of up to $30,000 offered for information leading to Nikki's location. And anyone with information is urged to contact the Shasta County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Unit, that is mcuastacounty.gov or you can call 530-245-6135.

[B]

It feels eerily similar to another case we will be covering soon. And the power of social media really changed that one. So if you guys know anything or even if you don't know anything, we make infographics for these missing people on the Clues podcast. Instagram. Go out and share them. Especially, you know, if you're located in California or have any connections to this area. Yeah, we might be able to find this driver of the red truck. So check out our socials, share these infographics we make of these missing people. Like we really want to get the word out there. And if you know anything, you know who to call.

[A]

Yes. And that is all we have this week for our episode of Clues. Don't forget to tune in next week for more information on the second trial of Karen Reed. And we also want to hear from you guys, your thoughts, your theories, your feedback. All of that makes this community so.

[B]

Special in the comments, guys, because at Crime House, we really value your support. Share your thoughts on social media and remember to rate, review and follow the show. Follow Clues so other people can discover our show. And if you're hungry for even more content, we've got you covered. For more exclusive content, monthly bonus episodes, early access and ad free listening, join our Crime House plus community on Apple Podcasts.

[A]

All right, and we will be back next week with more information on the Karen Reed trial. So tune in and we will see you then.

[B]

Buckle up. Until then, guys. Bye guys. Bye.

[A]

If you are loving Clues, check out our fellow Crime House original show, Conspiracy Theories, Cults and Crimes.

[B]

For the world's darkest truths, Follow Conspiracy Theories, Cults and Crimes now. Wherever you get your podcasts and for ad free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House plus on Apple Podcasts.