Karen Read: The Most Explosive Retrial EVER? What does Karen Read have up her sleeve?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Karen Read: The Most Explosive Retrial EVER? What Does Karen Read Have Up Her Sleeve?"

Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Episode Release Date: April 17, 2025
Host: Ashleigh Banfield
Guest: Caitlin Becker, News Nation's National Correspondent
Duration Covered: 00:00 – 57:54

---

Introduction to the Retrial

Ashleigh Banfield opens the episode by highlighting the significance of Karen Reed's retrial, emphasizing the intense media and public interest surrounding the case. She notes the anticipation for the opening statements scheduled for Tuesday, predicting heightened emotions both inside and outside the courtroom.

“If the past is any prelude, hundreds of Karen Reed supporters will be marching down to the courthouse and screaming their lungs out.”
[00:45]

Case Background and Charges

Karen Reed faces three primary charges:

1. Second-Degree Murder
2. Manslaughter While Operating Under the Influence
3. Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Accident

Banfield outlines the prosecution's stance: Reed allegedly hit her boyfriend, Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a blizzard and subsequently abandoned him to die. In contrast, Reed contends that internal corruption and a cover-up by fellow officers are to blame for her boyfriend's death.

Prosecution's Evidence and Defense's Counterarguments

Caitlin Becker discusses the prosecution's technical evidence, such as the SUV moving in reverse at an improbably high speed of 24 mph under blizzard conditions, and John O'Keefe's DNA found on Reed's vehicle.

“24 miles an hour sounds pretty fast to be going in reverse... It does seem very strong.”
[04:12]

Banfield brings up Reed's voicemails from the night of the incident, where she expresses extreme anger towards O'Keefe, labeling him a "pervert."

“These voicemails... she is really, really angry.”
[04:33]

Becker points out the contradiction between Reed's angry voicemails and her subsequent actions, such as performing CPR on O'Keefe the next day, casting doubt on her state of mind and intentions.

“The juxtaposition of those two leads me questioning. Was she mad enough.”
[05:52]

Key Evidence and Its Implications

DNA and Vehicle Evidence

The presence of O'Keefe's DNA on Reed's SUV and hair on the taillight suggests direct contact, strengthening the prosecution's case.

“He was the back, she hit him, she peeled out... They have her voice clear.”
[06:32]

However, Banfield introduces a possible defense angle: environmental factors like ice causing the hair to adhere to the vehicle.

“I don't have a problem with the hair sticking to the car... the biggie is the Google search.”
[06:54]

Timeline Discrepancies

A critical point of contention is the timing of a Google search for "How long to die in the cold," allegedly initiated by Jennifer McCabe at 2:27 AM, which the prosecution uses to establish a timeline inconsistent with Reed's presence.

“How long to die in the cold. It's actually how long to die in the cold. It's actually hoss long...”
[08:08]

Becker questions the plausibility of the search occurring at that specific time, suggesting it was likely conducted later, potentially undermining the prosecution's narrative.

“If the prosecution can... create that kernel... it could have been six.”
[10:14]

Investigative Misconduct and Credibility Issues

Lead Investigator's Misconduct

Banfield and Becker delve into the misconduct of lead investigator Trooper Michael Proctor, highlighting his inappropriate and derogatory remarks about Reed in text messages.

“He got rid of that phone... He didn’t just get rid of it.”
[44:15]

Proctor’s actions have led to severe repercussions, including his permanent dismissal from the force, which the defense could leverage to question the integrity of the investigation.

Surveillance Video Anomalies

A surveillance video reportedly shows Reed reversing her SUV after O'Keefe's death, which contradicts earlier evidence. The video’s mirroring issue further complicates the narrative presented by the prosecution.

“They realized, oh my God, this is reversed. We’re not looking at the side of the car we think we’re looking at.”
[30:20]

Becker emphasizes that such inconsistencies cast significant doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Jury Composition and Potential Bias

Becker shares insights from her attendance at jury selection, noting that most jurors were already familiar with the case, which poses challenges for both prosecution and defense in ensuring impartiality.

“The majority of the jurors... will have heard of Karen Reed.”
[22:53]

Banfield expresses concerns about potential "stealth jurors" who may covertly support Reed, influencing the trial's outcome.

“Stealth jurors get on juries all the time. It’s just how good they are at hiding their biases.”
[23:30]

Defense's Strategic Advantages

Proctor's Testimony and Surveillance Video

The defense can use Proctor’s discredited character and the misleading surveillance video to undermine the prosecution’s narrative, suggesting evidence tampering or misinterpretation.

“This is not what you see is what the reality is.”
[30:20]

Contradictory Evidence

The absence of a clear manner of death from the medical examiner (“undetermined”) and credible character witnesses like the snowplow driver who did not observe the body intensify the reasonable doubt.

“Cause of death... undetermined. Which leaves a massive piece of reasonable doubt.”
[52:55]

Reed's Public Statements and Their Implications

Banfield critiques Reed’s public interviews and documentary, suggesting that her demeanor and remarks could be weaponized by the prosecution to portray her negatively.

“I don't want to testify... that does not look good in front of jurors.”
[18:12]

The prosecution plans to use selective clips from Reed’s interviews to craft a narrative against her, despite her attempts to control her story.

Alternate Theories and Speculations

Banfield and Becker explore possible alternative scenarios, such as an internal dispute leading to O'Keefe's death, which Reed’s defense might present to explain inconsistencies in the official account.

“Maybe it's a couple of hours and they say let's throw him out there... make it look like she hit him on her way out.”
[42:09]

Expert Opinions and Host Predictions

Both Banfield and Becker predict a challenging path for the prosecution, given the mounting contradictions and potential jury skepticism. They speculate the possibility of another hung jury or convictions on lesser charges like manslaughter rather than murder.

Becker: “I could see another hung jury... but I don't think there is enough evidence...”
[55:05]
Banfield: “She may actually get convicted on two lesser counts.”
[57:49]

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Ashleigh Banfield wraps up the episode by reiterating the complexities of Karen Reed's case, highlighting the polarized perspectives and the high stakes involved. She commits to ongoing coverage and invites listeners to engage with their thoughts and theories.

“One woman, one dead cop, and two completely different versions of what happened that night.”
[57:20]

---

Key Takeaways

• Evidence Contradictions: The case presents significant inconsistencies between the prosecution's evidence and the defense's counterarguments, particularly concerning the timeline and technical evidence.

• Investigative Integrity: Misconduct by lead investigator Trooper Proctor casts doubts on the investigation’s credibility.

• Jury Dynamics: Preconceived notions among jurors and potential biases could heavily influence the trial's outcome.

• Public Statements: Reed’s public demeanor and statements may be strategically used against her in court, affecting jury perception.

• Possible Outcomes: The trial could result in another mistrial, a conviction on lesser charges, or, less likely, a complete exoneration depending on how evidence and testimonies sway the jury.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Ashleigh Banfield: “If the past is any prelude, hundreds of Karen Reed supporters will be marching down to the courthouse and screaming their lungs out.”
  [00:45]

• Caitlin Becker: “24 miles an hour sounds pretty fast to be going in reverse... It does seem very strong.”
  [04:12]

• Ashleigh Banfield: “These voicemails... she is really, really angry.”
  [04:33]

• Caitlin Becker: “The juxtaposition of those two leads me questioning. Was she mad enough.”
  [05:52]

• Ashleigh Banfield: “I don't want to testify... that does not look good in front of jurors.”
  [18:12]

• Caitlin Becker: “I could see another hung jury... but I don't think there is enough evidence...”
  [55:05]

• Ashleigh Banfield: “She may actually get convicted on two lesser counts.”
  [57:49]

---

This detailed summary encapsulates the critical discussions, evidence evaluations, and strategic considerations presented in the episode, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of Karen Reed's highly contentious retrial.

Transcript

[Ashley Banfield]

Foreign Hi, everyone. Welcome back to Drop Dead Serious. I'm Ashley Banfield and this week is a big week, especially if you're Karen Reid, because the headline screams it is on. They've got their jury and they've got their start time. And if you haven't yet made plans for Tuesday, take the day off, true crime fans, because opening statements in her retrial are going to be epic. Not just inside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom too. If the past is any prelude, hundreds of Karen Reed supporters will be marching down to the courthouse and screaming their lungs out. They'll be wearing pink and hoisting homemade signs demanding justice for Karen Reed, which in their estimation is an all out exoneration. They believe she is being railroaded by crooked cops who are trying to pin their dirty work on her. Meaning they think the cops want her to take the fall for the death of her boyfriend, a police officer named John O'Keefe. Karen Reed's theory has those officers killing her boyfriend at a late night house party full of cops and staging a big cover up for reasons I'm gonna get to in just a minute. But the cops and the Commonwealth, their theory is that she killed him with her suv, that she was drunk and angry, and that she used her vehicle as a weapon to mow him down and leave him to die in the snow outside that party. And now, after years of courtroom mayhem and headlines and protests and a full mistrial, the Karen Reed saga is officially on track. And there is no sign that this case has cooled down. If anything, the temperature is rising. Today we're going to break down where the case stands as they get ready for court, what to expect as the retrial begins and the ammo that each side has as they walk into that courtroom. Because whether you believe Karen Reed backed over her boyfriend in a drunken rage or if she's the scapegoat in a cover up involving law enforcement, there is no denying this. It is a vexing mystery and one of the most explosive trials in America right now. Karen Reed's first jury was deadlocked and a mistrial was declared Last July after 10 weeks of testimony and five days of deliberations, including a last minute Allen charge urging the jurors to come to a decision which of course, did not work. So now it's time for round two. I want to start with the basics of this case. Karen Reed is facing three charges. Second degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. The Commonwealth says she hit her boyfriend with her SUV in the middle of a blizzard and then left that Boston police officer to die in the front yard of a fellow officer's home. But Karen Reed says that house, 34 Fairview Road, that house holds all the answers and that the people inside that house, including cops, are the ones hiding what really happened to FELLOW Officer John O'Keefe. So what do the prosecutors have on Karen Reed, and what does Karen Reed have up her sleeve? Let's set the table. Joining me now is Caitlin Becker, News Nation's national correspondent, who is on the ground in Massachusetts covering the case. And, Caitlin, I'm so excited to have you on the program because nobody knows this case better than you, and I'm really thrilled to dig into a lot of these nuggets with you. I want to start with the Commonwealth and the ammo that they have built in their case against Karen Reed. Caitlin, it does not bode well that the state has experts who say that Karen Reed's SUV went in reverse, I think, at what, 24 miles an hour for about 60ft that night.

[Caitlin Becker]

24 miles an hour sounds pretty fast to be going in reverse. I mean, if you're reversing, you're usually going four, five, pretty slowly, considering the conditions that were on the ground that night. It was blizzarding and the fact that she had had a lot of drinks. And add that together with that, those few numbers, it does not bode well at all.

[Ashley Banfield]

No, I think that's. I think that's strong in the state's calm. And. And then this is a weird one. The voicemails that Karen Reed left for John o. For John O'Keefe that night, man, they were bad drunk dials, right? She's screaming, you pervert. You pervert. I'm looking after these kids. What the hell? She's really, really angry. So it definitely does. It does kind of put one up in the States column that she is mad as hell at this boyfriend.

[Caitlin Becker]

It puts it, like, really does play into this narrative that she was barking mad that night, so angry with him. They had been having problems, that this culminated this night after a night of drinking. And I know. I know. I've been there before. When you're drinking and you're mad about something from earlier and it all comes out this. They have her voice. They have it clear as day. Well, not that clear because she's very kind of slurry in there, all those expletives. Fuming. She was fuming mad. So, yeah, it does. It plays into this narrative that she was pissed and upset, and she dropped him off and she peeled out of that driveway and didn't look back. But then you hear the 911 calls, and then you hear that she did CPR the next day. And then you hear it just.

[Ashley Banfield]

It.

[Caitlin Becker]

The juxtaposition of those two leads me questioning. Was she mad enough?

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, and I'll tell you what, in a little bit, once we get to Karen's column and all the ammo she's got, I'm going to bring these voicemails back because I have a personal feeling about a woman scorned. And I think any woman of the jury's be like, damn, girl. Yeah, I get that. I'll explain that in a hot minute. But let's start. Let's start here with John's DNA, because this is also, I think, very strong for this date. His DNA is found on the tail light, and a hair of John's is found on the car.

[Caitlin Becker]

It's her car. They rode in that car. Is that a way that you can kind of write that off? Maybe the taillight?

[Ashley Banfield]

How.

[Caitlin Becker]

I don't know how else someone's DNA would get on a part of a vehicle like that if they didn't have contact. It just seems like they had to have contact with that part of it in order for that to have transferred.

[Ashley Banfield]

You're.

[Caitlin Becker]

It does seem very strong. And you add that together with the fact that they had both been drinking all night, the fact that she shouldn't have been behind the wheel, the fact that she was really angry, and then you put all of those together with really bad conditions, visibility could be low. Maybe she wasn't even looking. Is it plausible?

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, guess what? As a Winnipeg girl who grew up in minus 40, and often as a dumb, you know, early driver, forgot to put the stick with the scraper and the brush in the car, and I'd have to use my hands. I often would use my hands to scrape the snow and ice away from the headlights or the taillights. So I'm wondering if John O'Keefe may have done the same thing. And I'm wondering if the defense attorneys might even think of that because Alan Jackson's, you know, a California boy, they do have local council, and it is, you know, nasty weather in Massachusetts. But that. And by the way, I would have.

[Caitlin Becker]

Thought of that really.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, where are you from?

[Caitlin Becker]

I'm from South Jersey, so it snows there, but it doesn't snow too much. And it just doesn't seem like. I've never had to. I've never seen Snow so piled up that you would actually have to peel it off of the back of your tail lights. I didn't even consider that.

[Ashley Banfield]

I have many a time, you know, my gloves are in my purse and I'm in a hurry. I'm like, ah, dang it, I'll just use my. And your hands freeze and they hurt. And the ice hurts like it burns. Yeah, I have done that. So I could see that being one of the defenses. But the thing about the hair, everybody said, hell no, a single hair is not going to cling to the side of a car where the impact zone might have been for the 60 miles that she drove, however far she drove after the party and then later the towing. And to that I say, have you ever seen what blizzard conditions do to the side of your car? Like that ices stuff on the side of your car. Well, then the hair might have been iced up against the side of the car for that. All the driving and the towing. So I don't actually have a problem with the hair sticking to the car. But the biggie, okay, the biggie. There's evidence of a Google search. How long to die in the cold? It's actually hoss long to die in the cold. Hos as opposed to W. I've made that typo lots. How long to die in the cold? It's allegedly made at 2:27am I'm talking about the prosecution's column here. And that does not fit in the prosecution's column unless and until you hear their explanation for that, they say it.

[Caitlin Becker]

Didn'T actually happen at 2:27 in the morning. They say it actually happened after the body was found, something after 6am around 6am when they're questioning where he could be. Could he be out there? That certainly plausible. But if there's data that the defense can show that shows it was googled at 2:27 in the morning. And mind you, this is Googled by Jennifer Me McCabe, who was in the house. The last person to talk to John O'Keefe that night before he. Whatever happened to him outside of that house or inside of that house, she was the last known communication. Why would someone in the house be googling something that spec. I google some weird stuff.

[Ashley Banfield]

I googled something specific.

[Caitlin Becker]

Oddly specific considering what happened. And the hos. You're so right. I've done that too. And you do it when you're rushing. You do when you're rushing. You do it when you're. When you're not really paying attention. You just need the answer to Something that maybe you're not typing in so clearly or maybe you've had a few drinks or maybe it's really late. So if they can actually convince the jury that this was done at 2:27, I don't know how you justify that. But if the prosecution can, almost to your point, create that kernel of. But it could have been six, just like, well, it could have stuck to the car, the hair could have stuck to the car in the ice, then is that enough to be like, well, it's plausible.

[Ashley Banfield]

It's called the reasonable doubt. Like, how much do you need to build for it to be reasonable? Right, Your doubt needs to be reasonable. You gotta build up enough of that doubt for it to be reasonable. Not beyond a shadow of just hear the reasonable, you know, and everybody's reasonable factor is a little different. Right. We all have a different radar inside us. So for one guy it might be. That's why you get a hung jury. So interestingly, you know, her argument is that, hell no. I got an expert who says this Google happened at 2:27am which means it was not, not me. Jen McCabe did it, she did it after I had long gone. And then, you know, Jen McKay or the state's expert says if she opened a window at 2:27am and who among us doesn't in bed, you know, open a Google window at some point and then made the search hours later, I think at 6:27am it would appear to be the, the time of the Google would appear to be when the window was opened.

[Caitlin Becker]

So I have open on my phone right now, I literally have one and I have so many other tabs because I went to look something up earlier, earlier, and it's just sitting here. I have no idea what time that would read when I Google something later.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, when you have two different experts and that's what they did in the last trial, then the jury's left with, well, damn, I don't know which expert to believe. So out that goes, you know, it could either be strong or it might not be anything at all. If they have to, you know, ditch it because it's even Steven on both columns. Let's talk about the taillight fragments. If you only hear that the state has broken taillight fragments at the scene where John's body was found and a broken taillight on Karen Reed's suv, it sounds like open and shut case.

[Caitlin Becker]

Absolutely. It sounds like, how can you get one thing without the other? And who ends up in the crosshairs? The person who got hit that's exactly what that sounds like. It almost sounds too easy. As you said, open and shut. If it's that simple, it's okay. Well, there you go. She did a three point turn out of there. She. He was behind there, she hit him, she peeled out of the driveway and didn't. And that was it. And the tail light fragments were, were there and case closed. It's not that simple, though.

[Ashley Banfield]

It's not that simple though.

[Caitlin Becker]

It sure is not that simple. Especially because it was a blizzardy night. And I know that they were using the next day when they found this or when they were finally discovering these things. They were using leaf blowers to blow some of the snow out of the way to uncover the evidence. Some of the bloody stuff was put in solo cups. So evidence collection was all over the place. But her side says it doesn't matter because it was planted.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, and I'll tell you what, these cops are under the microscope for a lot of behavior that has nothing to do with Karen Reed. Other cases that has been really sketchy. And so for Karen Reid to say in the documentary, all it would take is them to sprinkle some pieces and there you go, it's there, it's on the scene, and the cops, you know, have planted evidence. It's such an easy thing to do. It's, you know, you're less likely to believe that stuff if you haven't heard of dirty cop work before in the community. So I could see these jury, these jurors, jurors of her peers, thinking, okay, I might believe that. And there's plenty coming up in our conversation that will show that that is plausible. Not just a guess, not just a random thought that the cops are dirty. Their stuff. And we're going to talk about that in a hot minute because I think it's really important, the business of the taillight. Interesting that the police only found the tail light fragments many hours later, not at the time that they found the broken cocktail glass and John O'Keeffe's blood and all the rest in the snow. They're leaf blowing away and they see all that stuff. But then the red lights, the red tail, which should have been like glowing in white snow, those weren't found hours and hours and many days later, which is, you know, your spidey senses. Get going there. Okay, let's talk about Karen Reed's interviews. I love the documentary so much, I watched it twice and I'm like, total nerd, right? But I also watched it twice because I wanted to take notes because After a while, I started to see things that she was saying that I thought were important. And as it turns out, the state thinks so too.

[Caitlin Becker]

What did you make of her demeanor? For me, her demeanor said at first I was like, okay, she's kind of just whatevering it.

[Ashley Banfield]

This isn't.

[Caitlin Becker]

This is still someone that you cared for, that you love, that you cared enough to fight with that night, that you had a relationship with. And even though time has passed and even though she had been through so much, did she seem a little flippant at times? And then I was looking at that when the same sort of tone when she was taking with. I. I was drunk. We drank a lot. I was drunk. And I'm like, yeah, you were. And you just. You went home. I can kind of buy it.

[Ashley Banfield]

I felt a few things. First, she was not the person I thought she looked like. She was really kind of rough around the edges. You know, that's the first implication that videotape gave me in terms of her, you know, sitting for an interview. The next thing is, she was very matter of fact about everything. But I know from working in this business that after you have been up against a prosecution for years, you are hardened. You have now boiled this down to a science. You are fighting for your life. You're no longer the grieving girlfriend. You've become something far more than that. And then on top of that, this was a boyfriend. This wasn't a husband. They didn't have children together. She didn't lose her life with him. This was a guy she was dating. And even then kind of seemed like they were on the rocks. So I could see that there wasn't a whole lot of love there anyway. And then, damn it, this guy I was fighting with now is ruining my life. I could see that being part of her hard shell. Do you know what I mean?

[Caitlin Becker]

Yeah, absolutely. I think I see some of that demeanor at court because I've been here. I'm. I'm in. I'm literally in a residence inn in Dedham, Massachusetts right now, because I was at a hearing and I'm going to be there for opening statements. And I saw Karen just a few hours ago. I asked her a couple questions. I was able to talk to her outside of court, but she. I see some of that exact same behav every time she walks in and out of the courtroom, she addresses the media because she feels like she has something to say and she is fighting for her life. And even inside of the courtroom, it's much of the same behavior she's just trying to kind of get through the day. We saw that first day when jury selection. You said it on the show, you should walking in, eating chips. She had her chips on her way in today. It was granola bar. She has her snacks very much. She's treating this like, I need to get through all of these things today in order to get to the next day, to the next day, to the next day, which will hopefully end with my freedom. And you can feel that energy from her in person. But she said she was really tired today. She's more tired than she was last time. That's what she told me.

[Ashley Banfield]

I could totally see her having a demeanor of I need to get my done, period. That's what this is about. I need to get my done. But let me just add a few other things to the statements that she made in her documentary that I think the state is going to play, like at 11. The fact that she said, I don't want to testify, so this interview is my testimony because I don't want to testify. That does not look good in front of jurors because, of course, testimony is under oath. Tv, you can lie, you know, you, I don't. You and I don't get convicted on tv.

[Caitlin Becker]

She can say whatever she wants.

[Ashley Banfield]

You know, it's not illegal. You and I do not lie on television. It is not illegal to lie on television. Therefore, the state could easily say, how convenient. Karen Reed, you can say what you want to say any way you want to say it because you're not under oath and you're not perjuring yourself on television. That's not, it's not going to look good for a jury. Then the other thing that she said in the doc that I also think they will play at 11, and I don't mean o'clock. I mean, you know, turn it up to 11. Dialed up. Yep. I think they're going to say. I think they're going to play her words where she says, I don't know, like early on, I don't know if I hit them. Like, maybe I did. I'm asking myself, I'm not sure. You know, I'm meeting with my lawyers. I'm like, I don't know, maybe I did hit them. I think they're going to use those words to say, you didn't seem to know back then, so proximate to the incident, but you sure seem to know now, years later. Do you know what I mean? I think that's, that's powerful as well for the State.

[Caitlin Becker]

They have an arsenal of clips that they're going to play today. It was, the defense said that they were given a list of 44 different clips that they were given 44 different clips that they were given as possibilities by the prosecution because they put all these motions to say they're gonna, they're going to play these clips. And outside of court, Karen said, bring it on. I would never have said it if I didn't stand by it. Let's go. But you're right, clipping it up, taking it out of context, couching it in a different way, that she is not controlling the narrative is going to look a lot different. And I do know that in opening statements they're going to play roughly 15 second clip. So it sounds a little bit, as you're saying the parts that stood out to you, like the one that said, I don't know, maybe I hit him, I don't. That sounds, seems like a good 15 second clip there. Reed's team does know what the clip is. She wouldn't tell us what it was outside of court. But I know that there's going to be a, I know, a 15 second clip, but 44 possible Karen Reed clips. So if she chooses not to testify, they will use the words that benefit them in those 44 clips to almost create her testimony for them.

[Ashley Banfield]

It's going to be, well. And I wonder if Alan Jackson and team, her defense attorneys, will use clips from the documentary as well, although I don't think they can. I'm trying to remember, if they do, does that open the door where she might have to testify? I don't know. They might be able to. No, they might be able to.

[Caitlin Becker]

My understanding though is if the prosecution opens the door to play, they can probably do whatever they want, then they.

[Ashley Banfield]

Can do what they want. But I'll tell you something, no matter how, and Alan Jackson's super good at his job, by the way. I have followed him for 20 years. He's very, very good at what he does. And he's. Don't, don't think for a moment he didn't okay this project with investigation discovery. Right. They wanted the jury pool to know who she was for the retrial. They wanted to get ahead of it and let the jury pool know about the whole circus, including the bad behavior of the cops and all the rest. So in that regard, it's smart. But as a lawyer, you're not the mouth of the client when the client's being interviewed and the client can say things that you as a lawyer realize, oh, she doesn't realize how that will be used against her. To her, it sounds normal, but as lawyers, we know how to twist it. That's the stuff. I think maybe Ellen Jackson thought Karen was smarter than she was. I think Karen's smart. But I do think that certain things she said in the documentary were suicidal.

[Caitlin Becker]

And then allow it. And they didn't fight. They're not fighting it either. They're not fighting the use of these clips. So you can't. It's. Yeah, it seems like they're opening up the door.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah. You give a media interview, that is all fair game. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You do not get privilege when you stand in front of a microphone. That's for sure.

[Caitlin Becker]

And to your point of the. They wanted the jury pool to know about this case. The jury pool does know. I, following jury selection, I was there for some of it. The majority of the jurors who walked in that door said, yep, I know exactly about. I know everything about this case. I've heard of this case. I have at least heard of Karen Reed. I'm familiar with it. That was never an issue, at least for the judge or really either side. They both went into this retrial with the understanding that the majority of the people who will walk in that room, the nearly hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of prospective jurors, will have heard of Karen Reed. It was, of course, the ones that had been formulated an opinion or knew a witness or they were the ones that were booted off. But everyone's starting at a much different level in this playing field. As a juror, as you get that with a traditional trial or even with this first trial, it's just. It's a totally different ball game.

[Ashley Banfield]

I. I honestly believe in my heart there are stealth jurors everywhere. And I would not doubt for a hot minute that there might be someone on that panel who might have worn a pink T shirt out front of the courthouse had they not had jury duty. And they answer the questions like they think the prosecutors want to hear. Of course I can be fair and impartial. Of course, yes, I've seen the media, but yes, I can be fair and impartial when they aren't planning to be. That happens all the time. Stealth jurors get on jur juries all the time. It's just how good they are at hiding their biases.

[Caitlin Becker]

But wild to think of.

[Ashley Banfield]

It's wild. Right. And they might want to write a book. There are all sorts of reasons you might want to be on A jury. You might want to, we might want to write a book, you might want to do a documentary. You might want to stealthily get someone off a case. Let's, let's talk about what is, what's in Karen Reed's column, because I think she has an enormous column coming into this trial that does not bode well for this prosecution at all. Let's start with the lead investigator in the case, Trooper Michael Proctor. Take it from there.

[Caitlin Becker]

This guy, the lead investigator on the case, talking, texting, disparaging the person he's investigating in this case. He said some vulgar, heinous things pretty publicly to colleagues, co workers, friends, chat group, chat group about Karen Reed. I mean, it's investigation kind of 101 that you don't talk smack about the people you're investigating if you want to try to secure a conviction at some point. It's almost silly what he admitted to saying about her and texting about her on the stand was wildly inappropriate. And Michael Proctor, after the mistrial was suspended from his job. He was sent to a board review for his behavior and he's been kicked off the force for good. They took permanent disciplinary action against this man. And now he will get up and he will read these comments again and he will testify again. And I'm guessing the defense will have the ability to say, and what do you do for a living right now, not be a trooper? So that's how you to find out that this man lost his entire career because of how he acted investigating the person who's on trial? I just, it's gold for the defense.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, I don't know that the prosecutors will call him. I mean, I know that the prosecutors wanted to have like a proxy to come in and, and read statements, et cetera. And I'm guess maybe for Trooper Michael Proctor so they don't have to get him up on the stand to answer under cross.

[Caitlin Becker]

He's on the defense. He's on the defense list.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, well, I would call him if I were the defense, you know, but then the bummer for that is that, that the state gets to cross as well and get a lot of his, his work in there. But here are some of the things that he, lest our listeners may have missed it in, in round one of her trial. And if you have sensitive ears or you're, you know, God fearing Christian, this isn't for you. This is X rated. This is dirty, dirty, dirty. All right, so Michael Proctor, within hours, honestly just within hours of this investigation beginning, is chatting with his, you know, colleagues On a group text calling her a whack job. A quote, C U N T. I'm not going to say it, but spelling it's bad enough. Quote, no nudes so far. That's what he says as he's going through her phone. He says, quote, hopefully she kills herself. To his sister, he texted about Karen, quote, she's a bitch. Quote, she's f'd. And he used the expletive, not the F. And there was a whole bunch more too. But like you said, he got the boot. So I don't know how he's gonna be involved in this case. I mean, it's good for the defense to have it, but not good if the prosecutors get to cross examine and bring out all the good stuff that he found in his investigation. Let's talk about the surveillance video at John O'Keefe's home. I love this because it's such a twist. Remember when I said just a few moments ago, wow, it's like open and shut. If you see red tail light pieces at the scene of the dead body and she's got a broken tail light, case closed, right? Bum, bum, bum. There's surveillance video outside of John O'Keeffe's home at 5:30 in the morning. That is many hours after John O'Keefe is presumably killed and left in the snow. And that surveillance video has Karen Reed backing up her SUV again after John O'Keefe is already dead in the snow, she's backing up her suv. And what happens, Caitlyn?

[Caitlin Becker]

The video's kind of blurry. It looks like she taps a car behind her.

[Ashley Banfield]

100%.

[Caitlin Becker]

That's what it looked like to me the first time I saw it. And I was like, am I seeing this right? Is that. Is that hurt? But also, I mean, that doesn't bode well for her driving skills, for having a car in the still, I mean, probably at 5:00 in the morning. Absolutely. But that's what it looks like. It's this slow turn back. And you know, I hate to. We don't lie, me and Ashley. Don't lie to admit that I myself have backed my car up and tapped into a parked car and you kind of see no damage was done in my case. Thank goodness. I'm a very good driver. But you know that when you hit something and you see the car that you kind of wiggle because it's not. And you see that and then you see the car pull out.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah. John O'Keefe's not great. Yeah. John O Ke's vehicle definitely moved when Karen Reed's vehicle hit it. And I'll go one further here. Karen's car made contact with John O'Keefe's car where the passenger tail light. The tail light of record. Yeah. The questionable. The rear passenger side tail light hit John O'Keeffe's car and caused John Okeefe's car to wiggle and move. So I think if you show that to a jury and say, do you think this might be where her taillight broke? Do you think maybe the taillight pieces broke inward into the casing and that's where they were held. That brings me to my next point. And that is when her car was taken by the police and towed into the Sally Port. That is where you would assume an officer would inspect that rear passenger side taillight. And what did we see? We saw an image of nothing happening at all, like nobody stealing pieces from inside the rear passenger taillight. Until what did we learn about the image that we were looking at?

[Caitlin Becker]

The Sally Port image, it's mirrored, it's reversed. It's not what you see is not what the reality is. It's the switch side. So when they see it in court the first time around, they're saying, look, look at this. It's that side. It's the right side, not the left side. But it's the left side, not the right side. So to find out that the image that was being used in court to explain away this damage, this is where it is not actually accurate.

[Ashley Banfield]

That's right.

[Caitlin Becker]

And the defense also was accusing prosecutors or investigators of not having all the footage saying that they gave them the Sally Port video piecemeal that they're not giving them the entire thing. They're getting bits and pieces. I think they use the word dribs and drabs in a court document. So they're saying that we're not even seeing everything that happened along the time that this car was in custody of the police department.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, it's real shifty. It's real shifty that that image was mirrored. And. And but for an eagle eye that spotted a cruiser in the foreground with the words police backwards, they realized, oh my God, this is reversed. We're not looking at the side of the car we think we're looking at. So that changed everything for me as well.

[Caitlin Becker]

Michael Proctor on the stand was the one who said, look, that's the taillight. It's over there. It's. This is the one that would have hit him. And it's the reverse of literally Everything he testified to, it's the opposite. It's not that one, it's this one. And he was this questionable investigator saying questionable things. He even went after poor Karen Reed's Crohn's disease, mocking her for that. At some point, he's the one that's going to tell the jury, no, no, no, this is what you're seeing. And now we find out it's the opposite. Does not look good.

[Ashley Banfield]

The other thing I think is, is odd in this case, and I think Karen Reed makes a good point of this in her column, is that the homeowner, Brian Alpert, who is a police officer, right, never stepped foot outside that home. There is a cacophony of activity on his front lawn. There are lights going, there are EMTs, there are police, there are women screaming. Never once as a police officer steps foot outside that home and says he never even heard the screaming going on. I'm sorry, what?

[Caitlin Becker]

The fact that the reports of what Karen Reid sounded like during the 911 call was his. She's hysterical. That's the word that were used that was being used and thrown around by the people on the scene, the first responders who were there. She's hysterical. When someone is hysterical, they're screaming basically bloody murder. I know you and I are the two of the nosiest people around. If you see police lights on your street and you see a ruckus happening, we're out the window. If it's not even our house, if it's happening on your property, how don't you hear? How did no one there knock on the door and check and see who is home? On top of that, he is a first responder. Your literal career is to be the person who gets called to come to things like this. How is the first thing you do not run out of the house to see what is going on? And they were there for a while. It's not like it was a quick drive by and they left. I don't know how long that all of this was happening on the scene that he just didn't. He didn't. I refuse to believe he didn't hear anything.

[Ashley Banfield]

I have a tough time believing it because I'm not a police officer and I would have been out there saying what is happening? What's going on on my lawn? And that's a non police officer. Yes, I'm a reporter, but any person who's got a bunch of cops on their lawn at what, 5:30 in the morning and a woman screaming, you're not sleeping through that and you are going to be opening your front door and saying, good God, what's happening? But it is awfully curious.

[Caitlin Becker]

And how can I help that?

[Ashley Banfield]

How can I help?

[Caitlin Becker]

How can I. What's going on? How can I help?

[Ashley Banfield]

How can I help? I mean, it is nuts, you know, to think honestly that had a police officer heard nothing, saw nothing, slept all through it. Okay. The other thing. John O'Keefe had no broken bones and no injuries below the waist. The last time I stood next to an suv, if I got hit by it, the bumper or the side, I feel like I would have damage low down, I wouldn't have a crack on the back of my head. I would have damage to the rest of me. Certainly the kind of accident that you know, leads to your death. You know, it seemed very weird, but he also had all these really strange scratches all over his arm and they sure looked to me like dog bites and dog scratches.

[Caitlin Becker]

They. They definitely look to me like scratches. I don't know if I see the bite as much as the scratch. The. There was a German shepherd in the home.

[Ashley Banfield]

Chloe.

[Caitlin Becker]

Chloe was brought up today in court in these last pre trial motions about whether or not they are going to be able to get a mold of Chloe's bite. And it needs an overlay in the science. They're going to argue this pretty minute, very much granularly in this trial. Chloe. Chloe was rehomed. So Chloe's not.

[Ashley Banfield]

Wow. Yeah, there's that. Chloe was Chloe the German shepherd. Right. Chloe the German shepherd who belongs to Brian Alpert in that party home that the home in question suddenly gets rehomed months later.

[Caitlin Becker]

Yeah, that does that to me. Doesn't look great. The execution explanation of the. The scratches. Because it's the defense's contention that something happened in the home and somehow the dog got involved and so there were scratches and bites. I will. Okay, so playing. Playing sort of the other side here, Ash, what do you think about. I had my own little like theory of. Okay, so let's imagine a world that. That Karen Reed accidentally hits him. She doesn't know. How does that explain the injuries only being to basically the back of the head and not none of the lower body or the torso. What if he was bent over?

[Ashley Banfield]

What if the.

[Caitlin Becker]

That's why the cocktail glass was there? Like he puts the cocktail glass on the back of the thing. Maybe he slips, maybe he drops his phone, maybe he ties his shoe. He's bent over. Maybe he's not seen. So the car backs up, hits him this way. And then you'd presumably either fall forward or maybe he tried to crawl away. But that would explain why there are no injuries to his lower body. That doesn't explain. Explain the scratches. But if he was found face down, maybe that would explain that. But we don't have any images of how he was found.

[Ashley Banfield]

I have some. I have some theories here. Photos. They didn't take pictures. I love. I love how you think. First of all, there's a million things I love about you, but I love how you think when it's about forensics and when it's about true crime. I'm going to bring my Winnipeg back, okay. Because I grew up in Blizzard's, as you know, par for the course. And if you try to make some quick maneuvers, your footing ain't good. And I could see him, let's just say, if Karen's coming back at him 24 miles an hour, 60ft, and he's like, holy shit, trying to backpedal or get out of the way. He's also loaded and he's holding that cocktail glass. I could see him wiping out, losing his footing. Up come the feet, bang. Car hits him, maybe spins him over. Maybe he gets scraped by something on the car. The ice that's built up on the side of the car, maybe that would make a pattern. Possibly. But I also heard somebody say something super wild and crazy. Let's just say he didn't get his arm scraped with that, but he did get clocked because of the. Lose your footing, up come your feet. You're now, you know, almost parallel. Car hits you in the back head, sends you flying. This area is sort of remote, and it's apparently dense with foxes. Oh, and you know what? I misspoke. I don't think it's foxes. I think it's coyotes. Yeah, I think it's coyotes. So let's just say John is now dying in the snow, and someone, one of these little coyotes, comes along, one or two, and starts scraping at him. But he's not dead. And he's able to fend them off in some way that would account for the scratches on them.

[Caitlin Becker]

I also wonder if it's. If it is, in fact. Chloe, where do you. Did they. Were they a family who let the dog out to pee in the front yard, or were they a family who let the dog out to pee in the backyard? Lights are off. Maybe it's the middle of the night, you let Chloe out. That's a good.

[Ashley Banfield]

That's.

[Caitlin Becker]

If I was laying in the snow, my dog would come over and probably try to pull you and rouse you like that, to me, actually makes a lot of sense. I. If I were on questioning someone on the stand, I would ask Brian, Albert and everyone else who owned Chloe at the time, late at night, did you let her out front or did you let her out back?

[Ashley Banfield]

That's right.

[Caitlin Becker]

Because maybe nobody saw him.

[Ashley Banfield]

You know what? I hadn't thought of that. Did Chloe. Was Chloe let out front? Not. People don't typically let their dogs out in the front yard unless they have an electric fence. I don't know if they did or if they didn't.

[Caitlin Becker]

And. But when I tell you there's no driving traffic on this road and it's a big front yard, you have to imagine also there's a house full of people. Maybe someone was leaving. Let's let Chloe out to go.

[Ashley Banfield]

Good point.

[Caitlin Becker]

And if the body is kind of in the corner off of where the.

[Ashley Banfield]

Driveway is, 50 yards away from the front door. Right.

[Caitlin Becker]

Totally reasonable. And the front door, and then there's the driveway and the garage. And so it was to the side of that. So I don't think it's completely impossible to think they let Chloe out.

[Ashley Banfield]

And Chloe pod.

[Caitlin Becker]

Probably pawed at what.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, John O'Keefe had to wake him up. Yeah, that's a really good point. I. I keep coming back to, okay, if Karen's right, and since we're in Karen's column right now, with. With all the things she's bringing to court and into the trial, he, John O'Keefe, as she describes it, gets out of the car with the cocktail glass, and she sees him go in that middle door of the house, the one that's just off to the right of the front door. Breezeway. I think it's sort of considered. And he's met in. He's met in the breezeway by, let's just say, Brian Higgins. Brian Higgins is a friend of Brian Albert's. Right. And he's also law enforcement. He's federal. I think he's atf. And he's been sexting with Karen. Right. Secretly, Brian Higgins is at the party. He's been sexting with John O'Keeffe's girlfriend. And maybe, just maybe, John O'Keefe found out about it and there are words. And maybe they go down to the basement right away with him, with John O'Keefe. And the words get heated. The dog is there. They start scrapping. The dog attacks him. He falls back, hits his head. Then it's like, holy shit, what do we do now? None of this was supposed to happen. And that's the COVID up, perhaps. Maybe that's the fight that, you know, led to an accidental death that led to a cover up. If you're Karen Reed, could you, though.

[Caitlin Becker]

Fathom a world where all of those members of law enforcement would do this and discard the body on his property?

[Ashley Banfield]

Yes, and I'll say. And I'll tell you why. Number one, if he came into the breezeway, it's very possible a lot of people at the party didn't even know he had arrived.

[Caitlin Becker]

Right.

[Ashley Banfield]

Because the breezeway is separate, I think, from the house. It's not simple to see. Could have come in immediately, gotten into words and said, enough down here, I have words with you. And down they went to the basement. And this all could have happened without everybody knowing. And then the idea is what, what to do about it. Well, Karen just dropped him off. Let's get the body out there and make it look like she hit him on her way out. She was hammered. It could have been a drunk driving accident. She could probably beat it just as a drunk driving accident. You know, she. She might be able to beat it because they don't. They don't have her drunk on the scene. By the time, you know, they find the body in the morning, she won't be drunk anymore. That might have been the thinking. We'll just make it look like the person who dropped him off was so hammered they didn't even know that they'd hit him.

[Caitlin Becker]

That was my initial thought when this whole story kind of broke years ago. That was my initial thought that she had at least nine drinks. She was really drunk. She never should have been behind the wheel of a car with a police officer who has an open container, a cup of alcohol in their hand. Like nobody should have been driving that night, let alone in these conditions. Yeah, it sounded totally plausible to me that that would have been the initial thought process. It is. That's interesting. The breezeway. Nobody probably even knew he was there.

[Ashley Banfield]

It's possible. And then. And there you have the. Not everybody is in on the conspiracy. They really believe what they're saying. Do you know what I mean? They have plausible denials.

[Caitlin Becker]

Yep. Because how do you can. How do you convince a jury of, at this point, 18. Because they. This is an enormous jury. There's 12 and a ton of alternates. How do you convince them that 18, that many people have to be in line, agreed to the same story the same way for years now, not deviating it. Deviating from it in enough for Anyone to raise any sort of alarm bell.

[Ashley Banfield]

I will say. I will say this. It worked at O.J. it will. Because this jury in O.J. thought that so many different law enforcement entities were all in cahoots forever on planting blood. And it's like, are you kidding me? You can't even get them to file a report together?

[Caitlin Becker]

Yeah, yeah, I had to agree on dinner.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, but the jury believed it. No, Jay, the jury believed that hundreds of these people must have all worked in a cahoot. So you can get some juries to believe. But I'm with you. I don't think a jury reasonably would believe that all of those people.

[Caitlin Becker]

Thirteen people. Yeah.

[Ashley Banfield]

Would have perjured and done all this and believed it and not changed stories and not leaked it somewhere. But they may not have known. I think that's the easier way to come to that.

[Caitlin Becker]

Yes, all that.

[Ashley Banfield]

So now let's talk about what Brian Higgins did with his phone. Because he's got all this prior sexting, right? With. With. He's flirting with Karen Reed, who's got a boyfriend who he knows, and he now knows that all those text messages are on the phone, and it looks like he's got motive, right?

[Caitlin Becker]

So, well, you got to delete them.

[Ashley Banfield]

Delete. And then what?

[Caitlin Becker]

Well, did he delete and then delete the deletes?

[Ashley Banfield]

You know what he did? He got rid of that phone. He didn't just get rid of it. He destroyed the SIM card. And then he threw the. He threw the phone away at a military base that he had to drive through to get. I don't know. For some reason, I think it was on a path. That doesn't look sus.

[Caitlin Becker]

At all.

[Ashley Banfield]

Not at all. He's not even part of the military, but he goes to a military base to throw the phone. Look, I. I have lots of old phones. I don't destroy the SIM card and find an incinerator or some kind of permanent destruction vehicle also.

[Caitlin Becker]

Was it not. Did it not. Again, these are people who work in law enforcement. Does it not go through your head that these messages went to someone else? So there's another phone out there, another record of the other side of this conversation.

[Ashley Banfield]

I mean, that's where they got them, right? They got.

[Caitlin Becker]

Like, how did he think that? Yeah, like, if I throw my computer away right here, no one's gonna read these emails? Well, yeah, I sent all the emails to other people who are the recipients.

[Ashley Banfield]

And there's a cloud and, you know, I guess. Look, some people, right, think they're smarter than the average bear. And they out to be nowhere near. But maybe, maybe that was it. I, I, he can't explain why he threw the phone out at the military base. You know, it's, it's. And then let's, let's go.

[Caitlin Becker]

Strange choice too.

[Ashley Banfield]

I mean, what a crazy thing. And how guilty do you look? Right?

[Caitlin Becker]

Yeah.

[Ashley Banfield]

Let's talk about butt dialing, because there seemed to be an epidemic of butt dialing going on in this community real late at night. Let's start with Jen McCabe. She says that she was butt dialing the victim, John O'Keefe, in this case, sometime around, I don't know, after 1:00am I think it was between 1:00am and 2:00am Two. Right. So that, that's weird. But there is a theory as to why she might be calling. His. If you're Karen Reed, there's a theory as to why you might call.

[Caitlin Becker]

She called him earlier.

[Ashley Banfield]

She had.

[Caitlin Becker]

He was one of the last people she called or was texting with in the communication because he said, hey, I'm here, I'm coming in. And he never did did for me. If that were my friend, I would have called a bunch of times to be like, hey, where are you?

[Ashley Banfield]

That's good. That's the state.

[Caitlin Becker]

But then I wouldn't say it was a butt dial.

[Ashley Banfield]

I wouldn't say it's a butt dial.

[Caitlin Becker]

He didn't come in.

[Ashley Banfield]

I called him.

[Caitlin Becker]

You said you were in, at. In my driveway and you never came in the door. I would be like, hello, where are you?

[Ashley Banfield]

And that would be a legitimate, again, reasonable thing to say. I, I talked to him when he was in the driveway, and then hours later, he hadn't come in and I called to find out where he was. That's not what she said. What she said is, oh, it must have been a butt dial. My calls later to John O'Keefe's phone must have been a butt dial. To which Karen Reed says, you know what those were. You dialed over and over again to find his phone because you might have been part of this conspiracy to get rid of him and you needed to know that his phone wasn't somewhere around. That sounds plausible.

[Caitlin Becker]

What do you do too, when you butt dial and you realize it, you text the person and you say, I'm sorry, it was a butt dial. If I accidentally call you and I hang up real quick, or I do it a bunch of times, I say, ash, I'm so sorry. That butt dial. My, I was sitting on my phone or the phone was under someone else's butt because the butts were dialing.

[Ashley Banfield]

Wait, unless you don't know that you butt dialed till later that morning and you're like, oh, look at me, dumb, dumb last night. But who knows?

[Caitlin Becker]

But we're to believe that she didn't realize that she butt dialed him a bunch of times and that two other people in that house were also butt dialing each other and nobody sent a. Nobody sent a text to say oops.

[Ashley Banfield]

Nobody said it. Yeah, nobody said the oops text. Okay, so the second set of butt dialing again, epidemic that night is between Brian Higgins. This is the ATF cop who is at the party and has been having sexy talk, you know, via text with Karen. With Karen Reed and Brian Albert, the owner of the house. And one dials the other and the other one dials the other one back. And they talk for I think, 12 seconds or something. Something like that. And what do they say when they're asked about what they were doing calling and dialing each other at 2 in the morning?

[Caitlin Becker]

Because what dials?

[Ashley Banfield]

Butt dial, butt dial, butt dial.

[Caitlin Becker]

Also, if it's a 12 second. So the butt dot, you butt dialed and you butt answered like you were like 12 seconds, like the call went through. So it's just you butt dialed and butt answered someone in the same place as you and nobody noticed.

[Ashley Banfield]

That's Caitlin. We need T shirts. We need T shirts. I butt dialed. He butt answered answered.

[Caitlin Becker]

Like this doesn't make lick of sense, like at all.

[Ashley Banfield]

It doesn't. It doesn't. Okay, now I want to get to something that I teased earlier, and that is the woman's scorn stuff. I have my theory about being a woman scorn. Because like, come on, who among us hasn't been a woman scorn at some point? So Karen's voicemails to John O'Keefe screaming, John, where are you, you pervert? I'm here looking after your kids. You know, I have terrible bosses, an accent. But she's screaming at the top of her lungs. She is so angry at this guy. She is resentful that she's having to look after his kids. She's at his house, she's dialing him over and over and leaving these angry voicemails, which the prosecution shows. Look how angry she is at him. She definitely had the anger. Enough anger to drive into him at 24 miles an hour. To which I say, if I was so angry that I drove into someone at 24 miles an hour, bump, bang. It had to be a big bang because that was a big injury and it killed him. I am not using that tone of voice later at night. I am not screaming that he's a pervert, which is a weird choice. I am angry if I'm using that tone of voice and that choice of words because I think he's cheating on me with someone. I think he went into that house and he's cheating with another girl and he's not coming home and I'm having to babysit his damn kids. That's the tone of voice that I hear from her. I do not hear a woman who is, like, just hours, you know, having knocked him out with her car. I hear an angry woman who is pissed that he is with another woman.

[Caitlin Becker]

That's such a good point. If you did something violent out of anger, why would you then make it very clear in a recording that you were pissed?

[Ashley Banfield]

Right.

[Caitlin Becker]

Furious.

[Ashley Banfield]

Why would you call him a pervert?

[Caitlin Becker]

And the.

[Ashley Banfield]

Why would you.

[Caitlin Becker]

But at the same time, like, that's such an odd, like, tone and term to say to someone unless you had reason to believe he was being some. A perv in some way. Yeah, that's that.

[Ashley Banfield]

To me. To me. Those voicemails, play them again in your head. And listener, if you are thinking this through, even if you're a dude, trust me on the woman scorned. The tone of voice, the choice of word, the screaming, the constant calling. That is someone who is assuming he's with another woman and he's not coming.

[Caitlin Becker]

Home and she wants to be heard.

[Ashley Banfield]

And I'm looking after your damn kids. You're using me. She even says it. You're using me. She's so angry. You're using me. I'm looking after your kids, you pervert. She thinks he's with another guy. She doesn't think I knocked you out. If that were the case, she should be saying, just let me know you're okay.

[Caitlin Becker]

Yep.

[Ashley Banfield]

Damn it. Let me know you're okay. You're making me crazy. You're making me scared. Now I'm really getting worried. But she doesn't say any of those words. It's. You pervert. You pervert. You're using me. Yeah, and I.

[Caitlin Becker]

And the texts, too. She was also. It wasn't just voicemail. She was calling. She was leaving voicemails. She was sending them really angry texts all at that time. Now, if the timeline was reversed, if all of this happened and then she dropped him off. Oh, I can see it. But you're right. Why would you do that? And then call and call and call. So angry.

[Ashley Banfield]

Right? You wouldn't.

[Caitlin Becker]

That. Yeah, that does Unless you didn't know you did it. Unless you did accidentally, like you said, like, and like we both kind of talked about. Unless she didn't potentially see him. She's backing up, he slips, he's on the ground. That's why he doesn't have the injury. And then there you go.

[Ashley Banfield]

But then that could be manslaughter. And that's not, that's not happy time behind bars either. But all I can say is that even if I were absolutely three sheets to the wind, drunk, and I hit someone at 24 miles an hour intending to back up into them 60ft, that bump is loud and it jars your car, you know. You know you have hit a 200 pound thing, a deer, a person, whatever. You know it. So you're not going to black out on that either. That, that was a huge moment.

[Caitlin Becker]

Hear it in the house too.

[Ashley Banfield]

Not if there's music and yelling and partying and stuff going on. Who knows?

[Caitlin Becker]

That's true. That's true.

[Ashley Banfield]

You know, they didn't. I don't know if they heard the screaming and yelling and the arguing between them. Who knows? Right? Okay, big one. Medical examiner. The medical examiner has the cause of death. Blunt force trauma and hypothermia. I get that.

[Caitlin Becker]

Yeah.

[Ashley Banfield]

But manner of death, undetermined. They do not say homicide. They do not say suicide. They do not say accident. They say undetermined. Which to me leaves a massive piece of reasonable doubt for a juror if.

[Caitlin Becker]

The person investigating the body itself can't tell you how the manner with which they died. Yeah, that's a big question. That is a huge question. Of course, blunt force trauma and hypothermia makes a ton of sense. You can see it. He was in the cold, his head had an injury. Absolutely. To at this point not have been able to determine that this was a homicide or an accident is troubling for the prosecution for sure.

[Ashley Banfield]

Big time. You know what else is troubling for the prosecution? The snowplow driver. Apparently he's like a hero, entirely loves this guy, this snowplow driver. He's driving by at 2:30 in the morning again. This would be long after John would have been dead and lying in the snow. And he is driving right by the home and his side lights are on, his front lights are on. He says everything was operating just fine. He knows his business. He's like the quintessential committed snowplow driver. I grew up in Winnipeg. They exist. They're amazing people. And he says, I absolutely saw the area by the flagpole. And there was no body there. There was no mound there. I would have seen it. I would have noticed it. Don't talk to me about a big blizzard covering them in snow. Yes, that can happen. But you would see a mound. Not for another many hours of snowfall like that. Might that mound have been obscured at 2:30 in the morning? The mound would not have been obscured. The body might not have even been covered at that point. And that snow plow driver was certain.

[Caitlin Becker]

That's roughly 10, 15 minutes after how's long to die in cold was Googled.

[Ashley Banfield]

That's right.

[Caitlin Becker]

So you've got a potential timeline there. If I'm the defense saying this happened inside, they're figuring out what to do with this guy. Snowplow goes by. We know they're questioning whether or not to die in the cold. What's the answer? Maybe it's a couple of hours and they say let's throw him out there because he wasn't dead right away. He wasn't dead when they got on the scene. He lived a little bit longer. I mean CPR was done on the scene. We also don't know what the body looked like when it was found because we don't have photos. So they would have been able to say to the snowplow driver, did you see this?

[Ashley Banfield]

Right.

[Caitlin Becker]

And he could have said yes, no, absolutely not. That is not what it looked like. So we're just going on the fact that if he probably would have seen something, he would have called 91 1. But the timing of the Google search and the driver driving by it, it sticks out to me.

[Ashley Banfield]

Let me ask you something as we wrap what's your over under? Do you think that she'll get off? Do you think there'll be a conviction? Do you think there'll be another hung jury?

[Caitlin Becker]

I think there's going, I, I could see another hung jury, I really could because every time I talk about this case I come to a different conclusion. I think that if they would have charged Karen Reed with involuntary manslaughter, it was an accident, you didn't know you did it, oops, she would have pled out and this never would have been a case. But because they're going after her for such a serious charge and saying that she did this maliciously with intent, she knew it and she left him for dead, I don't think they're going to get a jury to believe that. But I also don't think there is enough evidence of this like third party of it was definitely this person for the defense that the jury is going to be able to see it the other way. So I could potentially see another hung jury. What about you?

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, at first I thought another hung jury and that they would try her a third time. I did. Listen, my. My godmother was murdered, and I'm only, like, laughing because her husband, my dad's best man, was tried for her murder. And it took three trials. Yeah. So I know it can happen. Three trials. The first one he's convicted, it was overturned because the police did ugly stuff. The second one he was. Was hung jury, and the third one, he was convicted. So, yeah, so I. I do know that it can happen, but the more I look into all of it, the more I think it's possible that this jury will say, she sure as hell did not intend to do it, because I think those voicemails tell you everything. Right. But I think she was drunk. She backed up. She didn't realize she'd done it, or she was too drunk to realize that bang was a person, not a, you know, something else. And she left the scene of an accident. She left the scene of a deadly accident. So I think she may actually get convicted on the two lesser counts. I think she might. I do not think she's going to be convicted of murder, though.

[Caitlin Becker]

I agree. I definitely agree with that one.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah. Well, we'll have to see. You're amazing. Will you do this again?

[Caitlin Becker]

Absolutely. Anytime.

[Ashley Banfield]

Love you, Caitlin. Thank you for this. And so here we are, one year after the first trial collapsed into a mistrial. We are right back where we started, and things are even more heated. Karen Reed's team says this was never about her car. It's about what happened inside that house at 34 Fairview Road. It's about power and protection and a blue wall that does not crack. The Commonwealth says it's about a drunk and angry woman who acted on impulse and killed her police officer boyfriend. And now, with a fresh jury and an expanded defense team and cameras watching every single move, the rematch is on. One woman, one dead cop, and two completely different versions of what happened that night. I'll be following every moment of this trial. Let me know in the comments on YouTube or in the reviews section of the trial recaps and in the coverage of this case. If there's something that you'd like to hear more of and always love to know if you like or hate what I'm doing. I read the comments and I take them into account, and I appreciate everything you say. Thanks so much for listening, everyone. I'm Ashley Banfield. And please remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.