Karen Reed (5:31)

We are here today because John O'Keefe was killed by the actions and conduct of that defendant, Karen Reed. You will learn in this case, through facts, science and data. You will learn that on January 29, 2022, when the defendant and the searchief were funded, 34th Fairview Road, all the way to the left side in a dark corner, narrow flagpole. You will learn that Mr. O'Keefe got out of the car, got out as he stood by the side of the road after an argument with the defendant. That argument, that anger fueled by heavy intoxication rule, learned from the science and data as he stood by the side of the road. The descendants in her SUV drove away. She drove at least 35ft away. Argument was over. It had ended. But then she stopped. She stopped. She put the Lexus into neutral. And she waited. And the facts and the science and data will tell you that despite the fact the argument is over. She then put the Lexus into reverse, put her foot under. Yeah, gas pedal, and began to press. Not 25%, not 50%, up to 75% acceleration. There was a light dusting of snow. The Lexus tires spun backwards. She went backwards at least 70ft. She clipped John O'Keeffe. He fell backwards, hit his head, broke his skull. And there he lay at the corner of Sandra Fairview Road on the ground, lying on top of his cell phone. Alone. And then the defendant will later tell that when she left, he didn't look mortally wounded, yet he was. And she simply drove away. There are three charges against the defendant in this case. The first one, second degree murder. When most people hear murder, they instantly think shooting somebody, stabbing somebody, deliver a premeditation. Our honor will instruct her on the locks. I'm not going to trample in that area, but I can tell you clearly, we are not going to try to prove that Karen Reed tried to kill John O'Keefe. We're not going to try to prove to you that she intended or wanted him dead. That's not second degree murder. What we'll prove to you is she engaged in an intentional act, driving back at him at that speed, in the storm, in the darkness, knowing that he was just starting out of her Lexus. She intended that act, which could cause a plain strong likelihood of death. That's what will secondary murder. Also operating out of the influence of alcohol manslaughter will prove to you that she drove her Lexus recklessly. She hit John O'Keefe. And because she hit him and he fell back, she caused his death. The third charge is being seen. After knowingly causing death. Again, she hit Mr. O'Kee with a car. She knew he was injured. She left him behind, and he died.

Ashley Banfield (8:51)

But the prosecutor didn't just rely on forensics. He went right to Karen Reed's own words. Now, this is different from trial number one because Karen Reid didn't give interviews before trial number one. But between trial number one and trial number two, Karen talked to the press and did a docu series. And wouldn't you know it, those clips are coming back maybe to haunt her. He went right to her words. First by saying what she allegedly said to firefighters and first responders. When John's body was discovered and the firefighter was on the stand himself saying, she said, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. And then the prosecutor used Karen's own words to suggest those very words were uttered.

Karen Reed (9:36)

Like a plate. You clip one. He.

Hank Brennan (9:41)

He didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see. But could I have done something that knocked him out and. And in his. In his drunkenness and in the cold, didn't come to again? And this would have been the moment.

Karen Reed (9:54)

You dropped him off at the party?

Hank Brennan (9:56)

Yeah. Would have had to.

Ashley Banfield (9:58)

The prosecutors told jurors that this wasn't the language of innocence, that it was consciousness of guilt, that she was trying to split hairs because she knew what she had done. He also previewed some physical evidence, broken tail light fragments that were recovered from the scene, John O'Keefe's injuries and DNA found on Karen's Lexus SUV and phone and vehicle. Data that they say shows inconsistencies in Karen's story. And prosecutor Brennan made it a point to emphasize motive, jealousy, alcohol, and a deteriorating relationship, one he said exploded that night.

Karen Reed (10:44)

Ladies and gentlemen, I simply ask you to follow the evidence. Follow the science, follow the data, ignore speculation, surmise, conjecture. Stay true to the evidence. It will lead you to the truth. Then on January 29, 2022, a very intoxicated pendant was angry and arguing about the relationship with John O'Keefe. And after the fight was over, she left. But she brought the fight back to him in the form of her suv. She clipped him. He fell backwards. He broke his head. And then this man who helped a lifetime of help was left at the corner of that yard. Left to die with no help. The Facts, the data and the evidence will bring you the truth. And the defendant's own words will confirm everything you've already concluded.

Ashley Banfield (11:42)

Well, when it was turned for defense attorney Alan Jackson to stand up and give his opening, he told the jury this was all fiction, that Karen Reed is not a murderer, that she is instead a scapegoat. And that a big piece of ammo for Karen Reed's lawyer. Something that was notably missing from the Commonwealth's opening statement. That's any mention of the lead detective in this case, a man named Trooper Michael Proctor. Or should I say former Trooper Michael Proctor. So Alan Jackson took the opportunity to tell the jury why he is a former trooper and why he's not being mentioned. And Alan Jackson was slick.

Alan Jackson (12:26)

We'll establish above everything else, three points. There was no collision with John O'Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision. John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle. Period. The facts will show that. The evidence will show that. The data will show that. The science will show that. And the experts will tell you that you'll learn that the Commonwealth has pinned its entire case on a brazen and a flawed assertion that is untethered, unconnected to the facts and to the evidence. And their assertion is contrary to science. Because at the end of the day, folks, there was no Collision with John O'Keefe. So how did we end up here? How does Karen Reid end up sitting in that chair on trial for something, for an event that literally never happened? Well, the evidence is going to explain it. And it can be summed up in the following text message. At the very beginning of this investigation, a text message of a now fired Massachusetts State Police officer named Michael Proctor. He was the lead investigator on this case and he was talking about a fellow officer, a fellow cop who owned the property where John Okeefe's body was found. Text message with a buddy, question, is the homeowner going to catch any shit? Nope. He's a Boston cop, too. That quote defines the lack of integrity of the Commonwealth's entire case, its entire investigation and this prosecution. What you'll see and hear in this courtroom in the coming weeks is not just a story of a tragic loss. And make no mistake, John O'Keeffe's death is and was a tragic and tragic, tragic loss. But the story you'll hear is about an investigation that was riddled with errors from the beginning. A rush to judgment, conflict. Afflicted and corrupted from the start, corrupted by bias, corrupted by incompetence. And Corrupted by deceit. Finally, it was corrupted by a deliberate effort to avoid and to cover up the very truth that you are seeking. You'll find when you hear the evidence that the Commonwealth case is the literal definition of reasonable doubt, they won't be able to talk their way out of it. They won't be able to explain their way out of it. They won't be able to excuse their way out of it. And they can't meet their extreme burden of proof, which the court will tell you is beyond any and all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Members of the jury, Karen Reid found John O'Keefe dead on the front lawn of a Boston police officer, Brian Albert, at 6am on January 29, 2022. Picture the scene. Blood curdling screams, ambulances, emergency lights on, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol cruisers, police officers, first responders, firefighters, all swarming all over Brian Albert's lawn, literally feet under his bedroom window. Yet Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder himself, never came outside, never went outside to see what the chaos was about, never went outside to see if he could assist a man in need, never walked outside his house to see if he could help a fallen fellow officer on his own front lawn. More shockingly, you'll learn that lead investigator for the Massachusetts police, Michael Proctor, never set foot inside Brian Albert's house that day. You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy, one that has spread through the investigation, it's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor. Now, you didn't hear his name in the prosecution's opening statement, not once. And I suspect that was probably by design. But make no mistake about it, the evidence will show in this case that Michael Proctor is the very definition of the Commonwealth's case. And he's also there, Achilles heel. He was the lead investigator on the case, the case officer, the architect of the entire prosecution. You'll learn there's not a single part of this case, folks, not a single part that he didn't touch, that he didn't direct, that he didn't orchestrate personally. Every single bit of it has his fingerprints on it. You'll learn that Michael Proctor was a longtime family friend of the Alberts and he's been disgraced by his own agency, not by us, by the Massachusetts State Police, Investigated, suspended and fired. The evidence will show that Massachusetts State Police found him guilty, found Michael Proctor of bringing dishonor to the department for his conduct. Not in some other case, not in some tangential case. In this case, conduct that included bias in favor of his friends, the all powerful Albert family, and bias against my client, Ms. Reed, the outsider. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a state trooper to get fired? Well, the evidence is going to show that Michael Proctor earned it. Every bit of it.

Ashley Banfield (19:05)

The defense told the jury that John O'Keefe couldn't have been hit outside of 34 Fairview Road because something instead happened inside that house.

Alan Jackson (19:15)

John and Karen had made plans to meet up with friends for drinks. It was a happy and normal life for a normal night for them. They were affectionate, they were loving, they were in good spirits. Nothing out of the ordinary. They started a local watering hole called CF McCarthy's. You've heard that name before and you'll hear it again. And eventually they made their way over to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, another bar where they ended up. When they got to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, the Albert family was already there, already heavily drinking. You'll learn that this was no ordinary family. The Alberts. The Albert family was a well known Canton family. Some. Some might even describe them as a very powerful Canton family. Brian Albert was there at the waterfall. You'll hear that he's a longtime Boston police officer. His wife, Nicole Albert was there with him. His brother, Chris Albert, a powerful Canton politician. He sits on the Select Board. The Select Board actually governs the police department, the Canton P.D. he was there. His wife, Julie Albert was there. Their daughter, Caitlin Albert was there. His sister in law, Jennifer McCabe, was there. Her husband, Matt McCabe, was also there. They were all there drinking before John and before Karen ever arrived. You'll learn that a man by the name of Brian Higgins, also a law enforcement officer and longtime friend, longtime pal of Brian Albert, he was also there. And the two of them, the two Brians had been drinking most of the night together. You'll learn that Higgins had romantic designs for Karen. That becomes important. Brian Higgins had engaged Karen in flirtatious texts. But days earlier, she had put a stop to it. She had ghosted him, in common parlance, in other words, just ignored him. The evidence will show that the first time he saw her and was in her presence after being rejected by her was when she walked into the Waterfall Bar and Grill along with her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, at 11.58pm, just minutes before John ultimately arrived at the Albert residence. You'll see a video at the waterfall of an unsettling interaction, troubling interaction between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe. And unlike the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, in this case, you won't ignore that evidence. As the bar was closing around 12 midnight, the Alberts invited everybody back to their house for a get together to keep the night going. And you'll learn that Karen and John ultimately pulled up to the house. They got out of the SUV to make sure they had the right address. You see, neither John nor Karen had ever been to 34 Fairview. They weren't even sure they were with the right address. And the evidence will establish that John got out of the SUV and went into the house. Let me say that again. The facts, unequivocally, the data, the science, the witnesses will all unequivocally establish that John O'Keefe went into the Albert home that night. But the doctor will tell you something more just as important. She'll tell you that John O'Keefe did not suffer from hypothermia, as the Commonwealth will undoubtedly allege. His body showed no signs of it. No frostbite, no cold induced injuries to his organs, no damage based on cold or frost. Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific evidence and the medical evidence will establish that John O'Keefe had to be injured somewhere else, somewhere warmer. And his body had to have been moved out into the cold. You will learn that John did not have a single injury consistent with being hit by a car. Let me say that again. The evidence will establish that John did not suffer a single injury on his body consistent with having been hit by a car. Not one. You'll learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms, his hips, his legs, his knees, his ankles, his feet, all of them. No broken bones, no fractures, no contusions, no torn ligaments, no internal injuries, not even a bruise. Nothing consistent with a car accident, despite the Commonwealth's contention that he was slammed into by a 6,000 pound SUV. Not a bruise.

Ashley Banfield (23:58)

Alan Jackson argued that John O'Keefe was assaulted inside that home, possibly by other people attending the party, other cops who were there, and that the assault clearly went too far. He told the jury that those partygoers then dumped John outside in the snow to make it look like what happened to him was an accident.

Alan Jackson (24:18)

Dr. Lapasado will also tell you that the injury to John's head was not the result of falling backward onto a flat lawn, cold or otherwise. Rather, Dr. Lapasada will tell you with medical certainty that the injury pattern to his scalp was produced by an impact on from a raised or ledged surface, a surface that does not exist on Brian Albert's front lawn, where John was found. The medical evidence will establish no hypothermia, no injuries from a car strike, no collision with a motor vehicle, and forensic analysis of John's cell phone. Mr. Brennan mentioned that in his opening statement. The commonwealth's own expert will ultimately support the exact facts that I just told you, including the temperature data. John O'Keefe was injured someplace warmer and he was moved. That alone is reasonable doubt, but there's much more.

Ashley Banfield (25:21)

And Alan Jackson added that the medical examiner. The medical examiner did not say this was a homicide. As for the supposed confession that Karen Reed made, both on videotape and to the firefighters who responded as EMTs and first responders, Alan Jackson told the jury that when Karen was overheard by the firefighters at the scene saying, I hit him, I hit him, she was actually just distraught and confused and searching for answers like, I hit him. That she had been out looking for John and that when she found his body, she panicked.

Alan Jackson (26:00)

You learned when she woke up and he still wasn't home. She was just racking her brain for what could have happened to him. And she was worried about possibly the worst. He had gotten out of the car. He'd walked to the house. She was confused. And later, when she found him at 6am on the lawn, when she last saw him going toward the house, her mind started reeling. Oh, my God. Did a plow hit him? Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? What could have happened to him? And that video clip that you saw out of context, when she said the words, he did not look like he was mortally wounded. She's not talking about at midnight. She's talking about at 6am when she found him. That's what she was talking about.

Ashley Banfield (26:43)

But no matter what you believe in this case, it is hard to ignore the fact that Alan Jackson's opening sounded like a masterclass in harnessing a courtroom. It was spellbinding. But after lunch, the Commonwealth called its first witness, Timothy Nuttall, a firefighter and paramedic with the Canton Fire Department. Nuttall described arriving at 34 Fairview just after 6am on January 29, responding to a 911 call for an unresponsive man in the yard. He testified that when he got there, he saw John O'Keefe lying on his back in the snow, unresponsive, cold to the touch, with blood around his nose and his mouth. And then the key detail he said Karen Reed, who was at the scene, kept repeating the words, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.

Timothy Nuttall (27:35)

When you looked up and saw that person and asked about any background, what.

Karen Reed (27:42)

Did she say to you?

Firefighter Nuttall (27:43)

I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.

Timothy Nuttall (27:48)

How clearly do you remember her words saying to you, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.

Firefighter Nuttall (27:55)

I remember it very distinctly.

Timothy Nuttall (27:58)

You've been to a lot of calls over the years and since.

Firefighter Nuttall (28:01)

Yes, sir.

Timothy Nuttall (28:02)

Would you say hundreds or thousands?

Firefighter Nuttall (28:04)

Thousands.

Timothy Nuttall (28:05)

Do you remember all of them?

Firefighter Nuttall (28:08)

I remember aspects of various calls, but not all of them. No.

Timothy Nuttall (28:14)

Do some stand out more than others?

Firefighter Nuttall (28:15)

Yes, sir.

Timothy Nuttall (28:17)

Did this particular moment stand out more as compared to your typical or most calls that you've been to?

Firefighter Nuttall (28:24)

It did, just because of the setting. I mean, it was, it was the weather, it was the unknown factors, and it was the attempting to try and get information and not really being able to glean anything from that.

Timothy Nuttall (28:37)

After the defendant said to you, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Did you ask any follow up questions?

Firefighter Nuttall (28:44)

I really didn't get a chance to because following that, the, the individual just kind of walked away or just kind of went in a different direction. I wasn't able to ask any follow up questions.

Ashley Banfield (28:55)

But on cross examination, Karen's attorney, Alan Jackson was questioned. The firefighter's memory.

Alan Jackson (29:05)

So now after Mr. Brennan asks you a few questions, now you remember her saying, I hit him a bunch more times, correct?

Firefighter Nuttall (29:16)

I remember hearing it in the background several other times.

Alan Jackson (29:19)

Really?

Firefighter Nuttall (29:20)

Yes, sir.

Alan Jackson (29:21)

Never mentioned that on direct examination, did you?

Firefighter Nuttall (29:23)

I don't remember being asked about it, sir. I remember saying what was asked to me.

Alan Jackson (29:29)

You were asked, did you ever HEAR the defendant, Ms. Reed, say anything about I hit him? And your answer was? She said to me, in answer to my question, I hit him, I hit him. I hit him three times. And that's it.

Firefighter Nuttall (29:45)

To me, you didn't clarify that.

Alan Jackson (29:48)

Oh my God, she's running around like a chicken with her head cut off. She was. And I hit him. To everybody else under the sun.

Firefighter Nuttall (29:55)

It was again, it was behind me in the background as I was providing patient care. That was not my focus.

Alan Jackson (30:03)

Okay, so you didn't really hear her say anything in the background because you weren't focused on that, right?

Firefighter Nuttall (30:08)

I remember hearing a generalized commotion in the background, but again, that was not our focus.

Alan Jackson (30:12)

So generalized commotion is very different than hearing her say I hit him to other people, Correct? You'd agree with that?

Firefighter Nuttall (30:21)

Yes, sir.

Alan Jackson (30:21)

So what you actually heard was the chaos and the commotion of a chaotic scene. Correct. In the background.

Firefighter Nuttall (30:30)

In the background as you focused on.

Alan Jackson (30:32)

Your patient care, Correct?

Firefighter Nuttall (30:33)

Yes, sir.

Alan Jackson (30:34)

Okay.

Alan Jackson (30:35)

Not specific words coming out of my client's mouth, Correct.

Firefighter Nuttall (30:39)

To the question that I posed. Do you know him?

Alan Jackson (30:42)

Right. We're off.

Alan Jackson (30:43)

That question.

Firefighter Nuttall (30:44)

Okay.

Alan Jackson (30:44)

That question I got.

Firefighter Nuttall (30:45)

Yes, sir.

Alan Jackson (30:46)

Triple I hitters.

Firefighter Nuttall (30:47)

Correct.

Alan Jackson (30:48)

But with regard to what Mr. Brennan just asked you, the generalized commotion, to use your phrase, in the background, you didn't hear any specific words coming out.

Karen Reed (30:55)

Of my client's mouth, did you?

Firefighter Nuttall (30:57)

I heard. I hit them. But again, it was in the background, and it was not my focus.

Alan Jackson (31:03)

Well, why didn't you say that on direct? That's kind of an important point. That's why you're here.

Firefighter Nuttall (31:07)

Again, if. If it was neglected on my part, it was not intentional.

Alan Jackson (31:13)

Not intentional to neglect that part for the jurors on direct examination?

Firefighter Nuttall (31:16)

No, sir.

Alan Jackson (31:16)

Certainly not intentional to neglect that part of your testimony on cross examination?

Firefighter Nuttall (31:21)

No, sir.

Alan Jackson (31:21)

But you decided to bring it up on direct. I'm sorry, recross examination when Mr. Brennan.

Alan Jackson (31:25)

Is asking you questions again, correct?

Firefighter Nuttall (31:27)

It was asked of me.

Alan Jackson (31:28)

And it was after, of course, that your. Your new statement that you've never testified to before ever, is this generalized commotion included a bunch of items in the background.

Firefighter Nuttall (31:43)

Correct, sir.

Alan Jackson (31:45)

And that comes after you saw the video that clearly shows that when you describe having heard this statement, my client was nowhere around you. Correct?

Firefighter Nuttall (31:57)

That segment of the video that you showed me.

Alan Jackson (32:00)

Yes.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:00)

That was not the time frame in which she said that to me.

Alan Jackson (32:03)

Well, that was the time frame when Flumati was giving cpr. Correct.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:08)

He was doing CPR down prior to that as well.

Alan Jackson (32:13)

Really?

Firefighter Nuttall (32:14)

Yes, sir.

Alan Jackson (32:14)

Well, you just testified that you saw him standing up in a big yellow jacket and then kneel down and start giving cpr.

Karen Reed (32:23)

We just watched that video.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:25)

But again, the clip of the video that you showed me. That you showed me.

Karen Reed (32:29)

Right.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:30)

That was not the segment in which she said that to me.

Alan Jackson (32:33)

Well, that's what you're saying now, but what I'm asking is you described a very distinctive scene, a very, very specific scene.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:40)

Yes, sir. I remember it vividly.

Alan Jackson (32:41)

She said the hi, hidden phrase. When Levani was down giving cpr and you were kneeling down, giving airway support, and he was doing rhythmic cpr. Just impressed.

Firefighter Nuttall (32:53)

Yes, sir. That's what happened.

Alan Jackson (32:54)

And then I showed you that very scene, didn't I?

Firefighter Nuttall (32:57)

Yes, you showed me that. That clip. Prior to that, I showed you the.

Alan Jackson (33:02)

Very scene that you described where Lamani gets down and starts chest compressions and never stops until the gurney is taken off the the frame of the camera to the. To the end. Isn't that what I showed you?

Firefighter Nuttall (33:16)

That is.

Alan Jackson (33:17)

And that's exactly when you described your vivid memory from three and a half years ago. That's exactly the scene that you described when my client supposedly said, I hit him to you. Correct.

Firefighter Nuttall (33:31)

Again, the clip that you showed me, that was not when it was said that. That segment that you showed, that was not when it was said. It was said prior to that, when the three of us were together.

Alan Jackson (33:43)

So was not giving chest compressions then.

Firefighter Nuttall (33:45)

He was. The CPR was a continuous effort throughout the resuscitation.

Alan Jackson (33:48)

But we saw him start it. Officer Firefighter Nuttall. We saw him start it. We saw him walk into the frame, kneel down, and begin the chest compressions, didn't we?

Firefighter Nuttall (33:58)

We did.

Alan Jackson (34:00)

And at no point at that time or after did my client even approach you, did she, in that clip?

Firefighter Nuttall (34:07)

She did.

Alan Jackson (34:09)

What?

Ashley Banfield (34:11)

Next up was Carrie Roberts, a friend of John O'Keefes. She testified that in the early morning hours of January 29th, she got a panicked phone call from Karen Reed. Now, that call came in well before John's body was ever found in the snow. But she says Karen was already screaming frantically that John was dead and that, quote, a snowplow must have hit him.

Carrie Roberts (34:39)

Karen called and was the first thing she said was, kerry, Kerry, Kerry, John's dead. And then she hung up? Yes. The second time she said, I think something happened to John. I think he got hit by a plow. He didn't come home last night. Kaylee was home. He would never leave her by herself. And I was not supposed. Supposed to stay at the house last night. So I know. I think something happened to him.

Ashley Banfield (35:06)

Carrie said that after the call, she rushed to help Karen search for John and that she was with Karen when they eventually found his body in the snow at 34 Fairview Road. The prosecution used her testimony to support their timeline and to show that Karen was already acting as though she knew John was gone and that they'd find him in the snow. Now, from many, many years of covering trials, I can tell you this. When you are in the prosecution's case, and the prosecution's always, like, at the start, things look like hell for the defendant. Right. And that's what I was thinking when I was watching these two witnesses testify for the prosecution, it really kind of looked like game over. They're not going to be able to come back from this. These witnesses are strong, especially Carrie Roberts, saying John's dead well before they'd even found him and I think he got hit by a snowplow well before they ever found him in the snow. But like I say, you have to wait. In trial coverage, you've got to be patient because it's supposed to look like this, right? It's supposed to look strong. When the prosecution comes out swinging, you gotta hear what the defense has to say. You've got to hear all the cross examination, you've got to hear the defense witnesses, and you've got to hear the summations at the end, the closing arguments, right? And in this particular case, Karen Reed has a very strong defense case. Many times defendants don't even put on a case if they don't think that the prosecution has met its burden. They don't even bother getting up. Because why screw up a good thing? But mark my word, why? When you hear the defense case, you will start to feel the pendulum swing back. You will feel all of the air coming out of the tires that were pumped up today. But that's how round two began. A jury that has already waded through the headlines now tasked with sorting through the facts. A prosecution promising science and data and Karen's own words And a hotshot defense attorney ready to expose what her team calls corruption, bias, and a rush to judgment. What really happened outside that house in Canton, Massachusetts? Did Karen Reed back over John O'Keefe? Or is she the fall guy for something much darker that happened inside that house? One thing I can tell you for sure, I'll be back tomorrow. To recap day two, I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget to subscribe so that you don't miss any new episodes on this case. Plus so much more. I do lots of bonus episodes and I drop them on a whim and I don't want you to miss them. And please remember this, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.