Karen Read Trial Day 3: Vodka Tonics & A Relationship In The Toilet?

Summary

Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield

Episode Summary: "Karen Read Trial Day 3: Vodka Tonics & A Relationship In The Toilet?"
Release Date: April 25, 2025

---

Introduction to the Case

In this gripping episode of Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield, host Ashleigh Banfield delves into day three of the high-profile retrial of Karen Reed in Dedham, Massachusetts. The case centers around the tragic death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer found dead in the snow outside a house party three years prior. The prosecution alleges that Reed struck O'Keefe with her car following a night of heavy drinking and arguments. Contrarily, Reed maintains her innocence, claiming O'Keefe died during the party and suggesting she is being framed by the true perpetrators.

---

Day Three Highlights

A. Relationship Evidence: Text Messages and Media Clips

Text Messaging Turmoil:
The cornerstone of today's proceedings was the presentation of text messages exchanged between Karen Reed and John O'Keefe on the final day of O'Keefe's life, January 28, 2022. These messages unveiled a tumultuous relationship, rife with insecurity and conflict. For instance, at [22:55], a message from Reed reads:

"I'm not the same as everyone else. Most of the time I try to do what is healthy, smart for them. More importantly, I try to support you in what you need. You just lashed out at me and said terrible things."

Media Interview Meltdown:
Jurors were also exposed to clips from Reed's media interviews where she openly discussed her alcohol consumption. A particularly damning moment occurred at [02:12], where Reed was shown mocking the grieving mother of O'Keefe:

"He looks like you got hit by a car."

Banfield critiques this segment, emphasizing its negative impact on Reed's defense:

"You never want to be seen mocking anybody's mother, right? It might have been more powerful had it been played yesterday... But it did happen today where it wasn't very good." [02:21]

B. Witness Testimony: Daniel Kelly

Emergency Response Account:
Daniel Kelly, a Canton firefighter, was cross-examined regarding his testimony about Reed's behavior at the crime scene. Under direct examination on day two, Kelly asserted that Reed was "hysterical and distraught," repeatedly saying, "I hit him." [06:04]

Defense's Challenge:
Reed's defense attorney, David Yanetti, aggressively questioned Kelly about the accuracy of his statements. The defense aimed to undermine Kelly's credibility by suggesting potential inconsistencies in his recollection of Reed's words. For example, at [07:02], Yanetti probed:

"Was that the first time that you testified under oath that Ms. Reed said or asked about him sitting outside?"

Through this rigorous cross-examination, Banfield highlights the defense's strategy to cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative.

C. Witness Testimony: Michael Camarano

Personal Connections and Alibi:
Michael Camarano, a close friend of O'Keefe and father to children who interacted with Reed, provided a personal account of the events leading up to O'Keefe's death. At [11:06], Camarano detailed:

"We were going to meet up after I got out of work... Did you spend time at CF McCarthy's? Yes... I had probably about four [drinks]."

Camarano described the evening as seemingly harmonious, with no apparent signs of discord between Reed and O'Keefe. He recounted their affectionate interactions, such as:

"You saw them kiss, right?"
"Yes. They seemed happy to see each other... Like a normal couple." [21:19]

Defense's Inquisition:
The defense scrutinized Camarano's testimony to identify any underlying tensions or conflicts that might contradict his portrayal of Reed and O'Keefe's relationship. Banfield notes Camarano's emotional recounting, which contrasts with the prosecution's evidence of strife.

D. Text Messages Presented by Prosecution

Evidence of Strife:
The prosecution introduced a series of text messages that painted a picture of a strained relationship. These messages demonstrated Reed's insecurity and O'Keefe's expressions of frustration. Notable exchanges include:

• 9:22 AM: Reed to O'Keefe:

  "You have really hurt me this time."

• 10:02:56 AM: Reed to O'Keefe:

  "I'm not the same as everyone else... You just lashed out at me and said terrible things."

• 12:33:33 PM: O'Keefe to Reed:

  "Things haven't been great between us for a while."

Banfield analyzes the potential impact of these messages on jurors, considering varying perspectives on alcohol consumption and personal relationships.

E. Karen Reed's Media Interviews on Drinking

Alcohol Consumption Detailed:
Reed's interviews revealed her drinking habits on the night of the incident. At [38:18], Reed described:

"I had one vodka tonic about every 40 minutes at the bar... Each drink was being counted as a double."

She further explained:

"I felt fine to drive. I was fuzzier than I would have been if I had had no alcohol, but I wasn't driving recklessly by any measure." [39:03]

Banfield's Insight:
Ashleigh Banfield discusses the implications of Reed's admission to drinking while driving, emphasizing the jury's potential interpretations based on personal biases toward alcohol use.

---

Court Proceedings Update

Early Dismissal and Jury View:
As the day concluded, the court session was adjourned earlier than scheduled because the prosecution exhausted its list of witnesses. Judge Beverly Kanone reassured listeners that this delay would not disrupt the trial's overall timeline. She also announced an upcoming jury view, an opportunity for jurors to visit and examine the crime scene at 34 Fairview Road. Banfield underscores the significance of this viewing in shaping jurors' understanding of the case.

"I'm going to continue to follow this trial closely, bringing you detailed recaps so you don't miss a thing." [38:42]

---

Ashleigh Banfield's Analysis and Conclusion

Throughout the episode, Banfield offers incisive commentary on the unfolding trial, highlighting the strategic maneuvers of both prosecution and defense. She underscores the emotional weight of the testimonies and evidence presented, particularly the damaging media clips and contentious witness interrogations. Banfield urges listeners to consider the multifaceted nature of jury deliberations, acknowledging the diverse personal backgrounds jurors bring to the table.

"What's reasonable to me may not be reasonable to the guy beside me... When they start to debate this, what are these people going to think of those descriptions that Karen just gave about her drinking and her when she usually drives drinking, right?" [44:15]

In her closing remarks, Banfield reinforces the podcast's commitment to delivering comprehensive trial coverage, ensuring listeners remain informed about every critical development.

"Remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious." [Final Line]

---

Key Takeaways

• Text Evidence: Critical text messages suggest significant relationship strain between Karen Reed and John O'Keefe.

• Witness Credibility: Testimonies from Daniel Kelly and Michael Camarano present conflicting narratives about Reed and O'Keefe's relationship dynamics.

• Alcohol's Role: Reed's admission to drinking while driving adds a complex layer to the case, influencing perceptions of her reliability and responsibility.

• Media Influence: Public interviews by Reed have potentially prejudicial effects on her defense, especially when they showcase her in a negative light.

• Jury Deliberation: The upcoming jury view and the diverse backgrounds of jurors are pivotal in shaping the trial's outcome.

---

For more detailed recaps and ongoing coverage of the Karen Reed trial, stay tuned to Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield. Subscribe and follow along as Ashleigh continues to peel back the layers of mystery and injustice surrounding this case.

Transcript

[Unknown Speaker]

Foreign.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hi there. I'm Ashley Banfield, and welcome back to another episode of Drop Dead Serious. It's day three of Karen Reed's retrial unfolding in Dedham, Massachusetts, and today was short, but it wasn't sweet. Jurors got a blistering view into the relationship between Karen Reed and her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, a Boston cop who was found dead in the snow outside of a house party three years ago. Prosecutors say Karen hit him with her car after a boozy night and a day of fighting. Karen says he died inside that house party and that she's being framed by the real killer or killers. If you are new to this case and you need an overview or even if you've been following the case, but you need a refresher, I got a few podcast episodes about this case, and they'll be linked in the show notes. And if you're watching this on YouTube, the episodes will be in the video description. That should help you get back up to speed.

[Unknown Speaker]

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye.

[Ashley Banfield]

So back to today and that blistering view into their relationship that I just mentioned. It came in the form of text messages, a barrage of messages and phone calls that showed a desperate and angry Karen Reed battling with her boyfriend in the hours before he died. Jurors also today watched clips from Karen Reed's media interviews where she talks openly about vodka tonics and how much she had to drink and whether she was in any condition to be driving that snowy night. And one clip in particular was brutal for Karen's team. It was from a docu series where Karen gave lengthy interviews. In the clip, she mocks the grieving mother of her boyfriend, a mother grieving because just hours earlier she'd found out her son was dead. And the jury saw that in all of its glory. Like I said, it wasn't good. But let's break down what happened before the judge called it a day. Right off the bat, the judge ruled that that damning clip was, in fact, okay for the jury to see. And within minutes, that clip was rolling in open court.

[Unknown Speaker]

And his mother leans over the kitchen island and says to me, I think he looks like you got hit by a car. He looks like you got hit by a car.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah. That's what you call a snarl. That is what you call bad evidence for a defendant. You never want to be seen mocking anybody's mother, right? Let alone the mother of your boyfriend. A mother who has just discovered her son is dead. And you're imitating her like that with your snarling face. It's not good. And it's going to be hard for the jury to forget that. It might have been more powerful had it been played yesterday. And the prosecution wanted it to be played yesterday. They tried, but the judge was like, yeah, I need to sit on this one for a while. I'll rule in the morning. Which she did this morning and did play it. But I said yesterday would have been more powerful because yesterday that victim's mother was on the stand, and it was a very emotional witness. You know, her testimony was gut wrenching. She's talking about seeing her son dead and bruised. She's grabbing Kleenexes, she's sniffling, she's got to take breaks. She's talking about having to tell the kids about John being dead and how difficult that was. She was an amazing witness because she humanized John O'Keeffe as a real person with a real family and a real tragedy that happened when he died. It would have been very powerful right after that to see that clip of Karen Reed mocking that grieving mom that you just saw with the tissues on the stand. But that didn't happen. So I guess you could call it a win lose for Karen Reid. It didn't happen yesterday where it would have been horrendous, but it did happen today where. Where it wasn't very good. Is it probative? I don't know. I'm not so sure it is. Is it prejudicial? Oh, yeah, it. It absolutely is. But let's not forget, all evidence that's against a defendant is prejudicial. It's just the value of whether it's also probative. Who knows if this could be an appellate issue? I don't know. I highly doubt it. It's just a clip. And Karen freely gave that in TV interview. I mean, why she did it? She has her reasons. Was it better for her to give that interview with all of its warts? Probably. Despite the fact it's being played against her in court, because she got her story out to the jury pool and the public. Right. Her story without having to get on the stand and endure a withering cross examination. Okay, so next up, it was time for the cross examination of Daniel Kelly. Kelly is a Canton firefighter and one of the first emergency responders on the scene the morning of January 29, 2022. And under direct exam on day two, firefighter Kelly had described arriving at 34 Fairview and finding John O'Keefe lying in the snow, face up, arms at his sides, clearly Unresponsive. He said John's body was stiff and cold with visible signs of trauma, including blood around his nose and his face. And then came a familiar phrase, one we have now heard more than one first responder repeat, and that is Karen Reed yelling the words, I hit him. I hit him. Firefighter Kelly testified those were Karen's words, all right, and that she was hysterical and distraught and repeating herself at the scene. But again, the defense challenged that memory. And one of Karen's attorneys, David Yanetti, he came in hot.

[Unknown Speaker]

So then we come to yesterday on direct examination, do you recall that Mr. Brennan yesterday asked you before you left, were you having any conversations with the defendant? And you answered, yes. Recall that yesterday?

[Daniel Kelly]

Is that at the hospital?

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm asking you yesterday, do you recall Mr. Brennan asking you, before you left essentially the scene, are you having any conversations with the defendant? Your answer was yes. And Mr. Brennan said, can you share with the jury what those conversations were about? And your answer was, so we were talking. She was upset. She kept asking if there was any chance her husband could be alive, even sitting outside in the snow without any coat for many hours. Do you recall that answer that you gave yesterday on direct examination?

[Daniel Kelly]

Yes.

[Unknown Speaker]

And that was the first time that you mentioned that she said supposedly or asked supposedly about him sitting outside in the snow, Correct?

[Daniel Kelly]

I was just using phrases. Generally speaking. I wasn't paraphrasing at that point. I was paraphrasing. I was not speaking verbatim to what she said.

[Unknown Speaker]

Let's try that again. That was the first time that you mentioned that she claimed or asked that he was sitting outside. Correct.

[Daniel Kelly]

It could have been sitting, laying, being.

[Unknown Speaker]

Let's try it a third time. So just.

[Ashley Banfield]

Just ask the question. Not. Let's try it.

[Unknown Speaker]

Let's try it. Was. Was that the first time that you testified under oath that Ms. Reed said or asked about him sitting outside?

[Daniel Kelly]

Are you asking me to clarify whether she used the word sitting?

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm not going to clarify anything. I'm asking you whether that was the first time yesterday during direct examination, that you mentioned that she asked about him sitting outside.

[Daniel Kelly]

I'm sorry, I am very confused because I. I'm trying to figure out if you're. He was being outside, sitting outside.

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm asking about Ms. Reed's statement, sir. That's all I've been asking you about her statements to you. And your testimony about her statements to you was yesterday on direct examination, the first time that you testified under oath that Ms. Reed mentions the words sitting outside?

[Daniel Kelly]

I don't know I'm just using. She made. She might have said laying outside. Being outside.

[Unknown Speaker]

Outside. Okay. So when you testified yesterday before this jury.

[Daniel Kelly]

Yes.

[Unknown Speaker]

That she mentioned the words sitting outside, you're now saying that that might not have been accurate. Correct.

[Daniel Kelly]

It could have been a different word.

[Unknown Speaker]

Okay, but you didn't say it could have been a different word yesterday. You just left it as sitting outside, Correct?

[Daniel Kelly]

Yeah, that's what I said, sitting.

[Unknown Speaker]

All right. What you said on cross examination yesterday, which was. She said that he had been out in the snow without a jacket on for many hours, that was not a declarative statement by Ms. Reed, correct?

[Michael Camarano]

Objection.

[Ashley Banfield]

I'll allow that.

[Unknown Speaker]

Was that a declarative statement by Ms. Reed?

[Daniel Kelly]

She asked if she. If he could be alive without a jacket in the snow for many hours.

[Unknown Speaker]

So, again, it was a question, sir.

[Daniel Kelly]

She asked me. And we were just trying to give her hope in terms of telling stories of hypothermic patients that could survive outside.

[Ashley Banfield]

The next witness up was Michael Camarano, a friend of John O'Keefe's. Michael's daughter is still close with John's niece. Michael became emotional as he recounted the events on the night before John's death, stating that he and John and Karen Reed had all gone for drinks at C.F. mcCarthy's Bar in Canton.

[Unknown Speaker]

Hi. Good morning. My name is Michael Camerano.

[Michael Camarano]

Mr. Camerano, can I ask how old you are? I'm sorry?

[Ashley Banfield]

Spell your last name.

[Unknown Speaker]

C A, M E R A, A, N, O.

[Michael Camarano]

Could I ask you how old you are?

[Unknown Speaker]

48.

[Michael Camarano]

Where do you live?

[Unknown Speaker]

Canton, Mass.

[Michael Camarano]

How long have you lived in Canton for?

[Unknown Speaker]

Me and my wife have lived there for 20 years. Me and my wife have lived there for 20 years. We have two children.

[Michael Camarano]

How old are your children, sir?

[Unknown Speaker]

My daughter is 17. My son is 14.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you know John O'Keefe?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

How did you know him?

[Unknown Speaker]

I met John for the first time at his sister's. At his sister's. Date of benefit for his sister in 2000, I think. 13. I met John there for the first time. Then years later, our kids got involved with sports together, and they became very close. As they became close, I became very close with John and his family.

[Michael Camarano]

Was your daughter close with John's niece?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Was your son close with.

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you spend a lot of time together through sports and socially?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes, we did.

[Michael Camarano]

I want to take you forward to January 28th of 2022.

[Unknown Speaker]

Okay.

[Michael Camarano]

Do you remember that day?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes. That Friday, my daughter and his daughter, they got acceptance letters to school, so we wanted to get them together. So they could enjoy the time together and, you know, just, you know, go over, like, how it'll be so much fun. Something new, Different. Yeah. So we were going to meet up after I got out of work.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you spend time at CF McCarthy's?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Were you drinking?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Was John drinking?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Alcohol?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

How long were you there for?

[Unknown Speaker]

A couple hours.

[Michael Camarano]

While you were there, did anybody come and meet you that you knew?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

Who?

A friend. And then Karen came in.

[Michael Camarano]

You got home?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you do anything significant when you got home?

[Unknown Speaker]

Put the kids to bed. My son. And. No, I went to bed.

[Michael Camarano]

What's the next thing you remember happening?

[Unknown Speaker]

Waking up to? I missed some phone calls.

[Michael Camarano]

Who were the miss Phone calls from?

[Unknown Speaker]

From my wife and Karen.

[Michael Camarano]

What did you do?

[Unknown Speaker]

I called my wife.

[Michael Camarano]

After speaking to your wife, what did you do?

[Unknown Speaker]

I got in my car, drove to John's house.

[Michael Camarano]

About what time was this?

[Unknown Speaker]

In between maybe 5 and 6am.

[Daniel Kelly]

What.

[Michael Camarano]

Was your mood at that point?

[Unknown Speaker]

I was panicked.

[Michael Camarano]

Why did you go to John's house?

[Unknown Speaker]

Because I went to get Kaylee.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you know if she was alone?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes. She came out the door and I asked her, you know, if she needed anything. She could get in my car and stay warm. And when you first saw Kaylee, what.

[Michael Camarano]

Did she look like?

[Unknown Speaker]

She looked distraught.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you try to help her?

[Unknown Speaker]

Why? I just. I think I just said everything will be okay.

[Michael Camarano]

Did she come with you?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

Where are you going?

[Unknown Speaker]

To my house. And then? I don't know. A couple hours later, maybe. Paul called me and asked me to bring Kaylee home.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you know anything at that point?

[Unknown Speaker]

I did. Yes.

[Michael Camarano]

You did or didn't at that point?

[Unknown Speaker]

I. I did when Paul had told me.

[Michael Camarano]

So what do you do?

[Unknown Speaker]

Ask Madeline and Kaylee. If I say Madeline, will you come for the ride? I don't say anything to Kaylee. And why? We get in the car and I start heading back to John's house.

[Michael Camarano]

And you didn't say anything to Kaylee?

[Unknown Speaker]

No, I didn't. I just said, everything will be all right. She had a feeling.

[Michael Camarano]

Why do you say that?

[Unknown Speaker]

She didn't want to go home.

[Michael Camarano]

Let's see what happens next.

[Unknown Speaker]

We.

We. So I pull in the driveway and I remember Paul and Papa standing. I think they were standing at the side door. And we just embraced.

[Ashley Banfield]

Under cross examination, the defense questioned Michael Camarano about the nature of Karen and John's relationship, probing for any signs of discord or conflict that might have been evident that evening. But Michael Camarano responded that Karen and John appeared to Be getting along well that night with no overt signs of disagreement.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you stay?

[Unknown Speaker]

No. Not long? No.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you go back?

[Unknown Speaker]

I was to the house. I went back to my house.

[Michael Camarano]

Did you go back to John's house?

[Unknown Speaker]

I did the next day? Yes, I was there.

[Michael Camarano]

When you went back, were there people there?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes, many. There was people coming and going.

[Michael Camarano]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

[Unknown Speaker]

Good morning, Mr. Cameron.

Good morning.

This is quite painful for you to remember the events of January 28th, is it not?

Yes.

You were very close with your friend John O'Keefe, correct.

Was close with him. Yes.

And you actually met Karen Reed through John, correct?

Correct.

After meeting Karen, you spent a good amount of time with both Karen and John, correct?

Correct.

As of January 28th of 2022, you had known Karen for maybe about a year or so.

Sounds correct.

And you see them especially on Fridays, correct?

Correct.

That would be sort of the day that you get together with both of them often.

Yes.

And of course, your children spent a lot of time with John and Karen, right?

Correct.

You entrusted both Karen and John with your kids?

Yes.

Sometimes your kids would even go on vacation with Karen and John, right?

They did go to the Cape. Yes.

Sometimes you'd see Karen without John at your house or on a ball field. And your daughter in particular would sometimes spend time with just Karen without John, correct?

Correct.

Your daughter would sometimes go over to Karen's house in Mansfield when she lived there? Correct?

Correct.

And obviously, when your daughter would go to Karen's house in Mansfield, Karen would be the one in charge of caring for her, correct?

Correct.

And you were fine with that because you liked and you trusted Karen, right?

Correct.

And in your view, Karen was very good with kids, right?

Correct.

But you also had the opportunity to see Karen and John together, right?

Yes.

You saw how they interacted with each other over that year, period that you knew Karen?

Yes.

You saw how they got along?

Yes.

And you never observed any arguments or bickering, Correct.

I mean, they. They argued and bickered.

You had previously testified that you. You wouldn't even call it arguing, you just call it banter, right?

Yes. I mean, he. He would. I mean, no. He would get upset or, like, over if she bought expensive things for the kids. Yes.

Yeah, we will get to that. That would be the one thing that John would complain about, Karen buying, like, very nice things for his niece and nephew, right?

Correct.

Or he complain if, you know, Karen was taking his niece and other girls to get their nails done, like extravagances like that.

Correct.

And one specific memory you have is when Karen bought his niece a very expensive sweater, right?

Correct.

And you recall John telling you that he wished that she hadn't done that because he considered that to be spoiling the girl, correct?

Yes.

But it was very clear to you from your observations that Karen really, really liked John. I'm sorry? John really, really liked Karen. Right.

Sustained.

He certainly never told you or even suggested he was thinking about or planning to break up with Karen, right?

No.

Okay. So with regard to that Friday night, January 28, sir, the plan was for you and John to go to McCarthy's to have some drinks because there was a storm coming in. Correct. And because of the celebration of the girls getting into Bishop Fenton?

Well, yeah, we were going out. It wasn't a continuous continuation of the celebration of the girls. We were going out to have a few beers as guys.

You had no inkling that day that anything was wrong between Karen and John, correct?

No.

Everything seemed fine between the two of them, right?

Yes. He did mention, though, that night that there was. He was. He was just. He was. Didn't understand why Karen had a plumber go to the house.

Because he had somebody that could have done that work instead of paying for the plumber, right?

Well, yes. Yes. Okay.

But in any case, the plan was for Karen to meet up with the two of you, right?

Yes.

And she did show up to McCarthy's at about 8:30pm or so?

Yes. I guess if that's the time.

And you saw an affection.

[Ashley Banfield]

I'm sorry, what was the answer that.

[Unknown Speaker]

You said if that was the time. I. I'm not sure about the timeline. I. I.

Okay. It was sometime after he had gotten there, right?

Correct.

And when. But you do remember when Karen arrived, it was an affectionate greeting between John and Karen, right?

Yes.

You saw them kiss, right?

Yes.

You saw John put his arm around Karen.

Correct.

And you saw that Karen sort of nestled into his embrace.

Correct.

And when she did that, that's when he kissed her, correct?

Yes.

And they seemed happy to see each other, did they not?

They did.

That night, they were affectionate?

Yes.

Laughing?

Yes.

Happy?

Yes.

Like a normal couple?

Yes.

No arguments?

No.

You witnessed no bickering, no tension, correct?

No.

And during the month before John's passing, that January of 2022, you observed their relationship in your presence to be normal, caring and affectionate, right?

Yes.

[Ashley Banfield]

And then came the hammer. After Michael Camareno was done, the prosecution introduced a series of text messages that Karen and John had exchanged in the last full day of John's life. January 28, 2022. The messages were read out loud by Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino. And boy, oh boy, did it ever show that their relationship was in the toilet. In one message, Karen seems really insecure, asking John if he's interested in someone else. John says no, but says things hadn't been great between them for a while.

[Unknown Speaker]

All right. This is from Karen reed to John O'Keefe. You have really hurt me this time. This was sent at 9:40 9:22am on the 28th from John O'Keefe to defendant. I'm sorry. This has been an issue with me for eight years. It physically hurts me to see everyone else in their life do things for them and I'm forced to always be the bad guy. This is sent at 10:02:56am on the 28th from the defendant to John O'Keefe. I'm not the same as everyone else. Most of the time I try to do what is healthy, smart for them. More importantly, I try to support you in what you need. You just lashed out at me and said terrible things. I don't know how you've gotten to this point with me when I'm just trying my hardest. You made your point and continue to beat me down. I have a lot going on too. Physically I am falling apart and trying to get answers and help. 10:09:49am on the 28th from the defendant to General Keefe. I am just your girlfriend. I am not a perfect parent. I'm trying very hard and sometimes treat them dash nothing like I used to. 10 10:46am on the 20 28th from John O'Keefe to the defendant. I know. I'm sorry for lashing out. I'm just hurting and struggle daily with them. Always feel like I'm failing at this parenting thing. I wasn't built for this. 10:14 12:00am on the 28th, the defendant to John O'Keefe. Kaylee isn't perfect, but everything wonderful about her is because of you. 12:21:36pm on the 28th from John O'Keefe to the defendant. An emoji ascent at 12:21:59 on the 28th from the defendant to John O'Keefe. It's true. I know she's her mother's daughter, but she wouldn't be so bright and successful if she lived with anyone else. 12:22:51pm on the 20 28th from the defendant to John O'Keefe. While Kristen just sent two back to back messages. Do not lose your faith in the kids. 12:31:28pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Or in yourself at 12:31:41pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. There's two emojis sent at 12:32:06pm on the 28th from the defendant to General Keith. No. And there's two emojis. Life can pick you up sometimes. Please be happy with them and put away your frustrations for the rest of the day and be so proud of yourself. JJ. That's 12:33:35pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. That's what bothers me more than anything. Should have sent pegs or Sarah's W2s. We are all equal guardians. 1:18:21pm on the 28th from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Maybe you can call someone. 12, 1:21:55pm on the 28rd, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. Like who? 1:46:42pm on the 28TH from John O'Keefe, the defendant. What time are you coming here? 1:47:38pm on the 28th from John O'keefe to the defendant. It's another emoji sent 200 5:30pm on the 25th from the defendant to john o'keefe. I don't know what time. Feel kind of out of it. Just trying to clear my head. 206-07-00pm on the 28th from John O'Keefe to the defendant. He writes. Okay. 2:06:25pm on the 28th from the defendant's John O'Keefe. Text me when you guys settle in later. Two hours. 6:44pm on the 28th From John O'keefe to the defendant. Sure. 206:58pm on the 28th, the phone call seconds just. And then we'll start with the first slide. Just. From the defendant to John O'Keefe. I feel pretty shitty about how this morning went down. I know you said sorry, but it really stung. Especially. Excuse me. Especially when I've been trying pretty hard lately. I feel like a loser turning around, just coming back over after everything you said. 2:16 10:00pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. Not sure what else. What you want me to do. I said I'm sorry and I was out of line. If you prefer to stay home, I totally get it. 2:17:16pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Things in my own life have been difficult too, you know. 2:17:33pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. I know. 217. 4. On the 28th, at 2:17:45pm the defendant calls John. The phone calls answered and they speak for 2 minutes 22 seconds. 2:23:02pm the defendant calls John. That's again answered at 1 o'clock and they speak for 1 minute 2 seconds. At 2:24:17pm the defendant calls John and the call is rejected. From the Defendant to John O'Keefe. Tell me if you're interested in someone else. Can't think of any other reason you've been like this. 2251 8:00pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. Nope. 2:25 33:33pm on the 28th, from john o'keefe to the defendant. Things haven't been great between us for a while. Ever consider that. 226033:00pm on the 28th, at 2:28:40pm the defendant calls John. That call is rejected. From John O'Keefe to the defendant. Kids are here. Not in the mood to talk. 2:29:03pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. So you're not into it anymore. That's fine. But I don't want to keep trying and you keep treating me like this. 2:2 9:12pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. I'm trying to hug and kiss you this morning and you whack me in the face with a pillow. 2:29:59pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Last night you're basically like, yeah, what about when we talk about the future? So why don't you just admit you're not into so much anymore? 232:23pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe, the defendant. Not how it went down, but okay. 2:30:26pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Can you please admit your head is out of the game with us? 230-5:02pm on the 28th, John O'Keefe to the defendant. Sick of always arguing and fighting. It's been weekly for several months now now. So yeah, I'm not as quick to jump back into being lovey dovey as you apparently. 2:32:28pm on the 28th, at 2:32:47pm the defendant calls John. That call is rejected. John O'Keefe to the defendant. OMG. Stop calling. 2:32:54pm on the 28rd, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Then why would you start with me this morning? 2:32:58pm on the 28TH, from the defendant to John o'Keefe. You're setting me up to fail. 2:33:05pm the 28th, from the defendant to John O.Keefe. you start a number of fights from your end. 2:33:26pm on the 28nd and John O'Keefe to the defendant. I've explained it a few times already. Not doing it again. 2:33:31pm on the 28th, from the defendant to General Keith. So you're not into this anymore? 2:33:41pm on the 28th with John O'Keefe to the defendant. Not into fighting all the time, correct? 23403pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. If you're. Excuse me. If you tell me you're interested in someone else, you will never hear from me again. You can have all the space in the world. 2:34 11:00pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. He sends an emoji. 23419:00pm On The 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Then stop starting with me. 23420:00pm On THE 28th. 2:34 2020:09pm the defendant calls John. He rejects the call. John O'Keefe to Karen. Excuse me, the defendants. I'm not answering. Stop calling. 2:34:42pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Can you please answer after how you treated me earlier. 2:34:43pm On 28th, at 2:34:54pm the defendant calls John. Let's rejected. John O'Keefe to the defendant. Kaylee is right here. 2350:02pm on the 28th, the defendant to John O'Keefe. You start a rager with me out of nowhere and then tell me you're sick of fighting with me. 2:35:41pm on the 28th, the defendant, General Kennedy O'Keefe. I'm going to grab a drink in a bit. 2:38:14pm on the 28th. 2:38:42pm the defendant calls John. That call is rejected. The Defendant to John O'Keefe. Can you please answer? 2:38:52pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe to the defendant. No, Karen. Not sure why you need to announce that you're going. Excuse me? Not sure why you need to announce that you're grabbing a drink, but have fun. 2:39:46pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Seeing if you want to meet me later. 2:40:22pm the 28th, from the defendant To John O'Keefe. Can you please call me? 2:40:32pm on the 28th, from John O'Keefe. The defendant have to take them to the doctor. He has practice. 2:40:55pm on the 28rd, from the defendant to John O.Keefe. yeah. Five minutes. 2:41:17pm on the 28TH, at 2:43:01pm, the defendant calls John. It's not answered. At 2:43:45pm, the defendant calls john. The call is rejected. John O'Keefe to the defendant. My father just walked in. 2:43:58pm the 28thth, the defendant to John O'Keefe. Okay, can you please call me for two minutes? 2:44:14pm on the 28TH, John O'Keefe to the defendant. Not right now. 2:44:23pm on the 28H, the defendant to John O'keefe. I'm there when anyone else needs me. 2:44:26pm on the 28Th, at 2:45:32pm, the defendant calls John. The calls rejected. The defendant calls Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, John. You gave me utter grief this morning. I'd like you to call me for. For amends. 2:46:16pm on the 28th, the defendant to John O'Keefe. I've been trying to get over the hump with is arguing and now you tell me you're not into doing things and you don't want to fight weekly but fly off the handle at 8am with me like you're setting me up to fail. 24708pm on the 28th, defendant's John O'Keefe. I've been dealing with my own personal crisis over things I have zero control over. I'd like to lean on you too sometimes. Instead I just said I just hear everything I've done wrong. 2:48:34pm on the 28th, at 2:50:56pm, the defendant calls John. The call's rejected. At 2:51:13pm, the defendant calls John. It's rejected. 2:52:37pm John calls the defendant. Not answered. At 2:53:56, the defendant calls John. Again, not answered. The defendant, John O'Keefe. You seriously cannot pick up the phone for two seconds. 2:54:13. PM 25805pm the defendant calls John. It's rejected. At 2:59:13, John calls the defendant. The call is answered and they speak for 4 minutes 59 seconds. From the defendant to John O'Keefe. Why don't you meet me at Hillside at 4:35? 3:08:55pm John Keefe to the defendant sends an emoji at 3:10:08pm on the 28th. From the defendant to John O.Keefe. or whenever you get shoot me. Or whenever you get everyone settled. Three, 10:35pm on the 28th. From John O'Keefe, the defendant. Like I said, doctor now. And he has practice till six. If you want me to go start. If you want to go start drinking, then go for it. 3:36:21pm on the 28th. Then defendant to John O'Keefe. I didn't know the times of his practice. 3:30 6:40pm on the 28TH and then defendant to John O'Keefe. I just want to give you space at the house without me there. So rather meet you out than meet at the house. 3:37 o.m. on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. So do you plan on going out tonight? 33901pm on the 28th. From John O'Keef to the defendant Karen. I don't know. 3391 7pm on the 25th, John O'Kee to the defendant. You're like jonesing to drink. So go. 3:30 9:43pm on the 28th, from the defendant to John O'Keefe. Okay, well, after how this morning went down, I don't think I need to be back over there with you get frustrated at how I am with the kids. Has nothing to do with drinking. 3:40pm on the 28th, then defendant to General Keefe. I am paranoid now that everything I do with them is problematic. So rather see you for a minute with them without it kids around.

[Ashley Banfield]

Between trial number one and trial number two, Karen gave some interviews, lots of them, to ABC's 20 20, to local media outlets and to Investigation Discovery for a docu series. And she readily talked about her drinking, especially on the night of January 28, 2022. She said she had one vodka tonic about every 40 minutes at the bar and described the drinks at CF McCarthy's as weak.

[Michael Camarano]

When you walked out of the bar, how many drinks had you had?

[Unknown Speaker]

I had probably about four and not four that I completed Either. I didn't drink maybe more than a few sips at the Waterfall.

[Michael Camarano]

And four drinks, you felt fine to drive.

[Unknown Speaker]

Yep. And it's the level of intensity pretty high here for everybody. It's. It's happy. It's. You had a lot to drink, right? I wouldn't say I had, like, a normal amount, like. Like a lot of tonic every 40 minutes. Okay. And so are you feeling, like, buzzed? And I'm not judging. I'm just trying to get buzzed. The final count, Summer. The final count of my alcohol intakes, probably about five or six or four. The drinks that they were pouring me at McCarthy's, which is where I consumed most of the alcohol, was the weakest vodka tonic. It tasted just like all soda water with lime. Not that I needed to be a martini, but it was. It might have had a splash of vodka in it. So John, I said, john, this drink tastes like it has no vodka in it. And he said, just get a shot and mix it yourself. So each drink was being counted as a double. So I would get a vodka tonic and then I would pour a shot into it. So that would come as two. But frankly, it just felt like a regular cocktail. It was just a really weak poor. So I asked for a shot. So for my taste, it just tasted like that's the normal strength of what a drink should be. So I had maybe two or three that are being counted as four and six. And I don't know, I felt fine. I felt like I was buzzed. And then there was one drink, the last one that was given to me, which I would have counted as three, but they're counting as my sixth cocktail. The guys that we were with bought a round of shots, and they gave me one that I didn't drink, but I poured it in my drink. So that's now my fifth and sixth drinks with the seventh, which is a shot that all the men did, and I poured it. So that one glass that I'm holding that I go in with the waterfall with has three drinks in it, a Black Botanic and two shots. And which is why John said to me, you're not leaving that drink here like you haven't touched it and just poured a bunch of vitamins, like, just take it with you. Which was something he always did. So then I go into Waterfall, and I put that drink down, and I socialize most of the time. So that would have been my fifth, sixth, and seventh drinks. Then John orders me a drink of the water bowl that I don't drink, that that he takes with him. And then there was a round of shots that Chris Howler bought that I did take. So that would have been the night. But I did not consume nine vodka martinis or take nine shots, depending on how you count it. And the last two drinks I didn't touch. I mean, I'm not as clear as I would be. I hadn't been drinking. I had drank. So. And that led me to question, like, could I have hit him? Did I run over his foot or hit him in the knee? Did I incapacitate him? I mean, I always drive with my music blasting ever since I was 16. And I know when John got out of the car to go into Fairview, I know my car was blasting because when I got in it the next morning to go look for him, I had to immediately turn it down. And I don't know, it's stormy. I have had a few cocktails. I didn't black out, but I wasn't as lucid as I would have been if I had gone to bed at 9 and drank a tea. But yeah, so I was fuzzier than I would have been if I had had no alcohol. How did you feel after that many nights and you gotten a car? Did you feel like you could drive and did you feel how welcome? I wouldn't have gotten on the expressway. I wouldn't have gotten on the expressway at 12:15 on January 29th. I mean, it was quiet. The roads were very quiet. You can see it on the videos. And I was going, you know, when I've had a few drinks in my drive, I always drive extra slow. So I know why my alerts aren't as sharp as they should be. But I shouldn't have been driving. But I don't think I was driving. I know I wasn't driving recklessly. I mean, I've got plenty of video of myself driving all over the place. Put my car in John's garage, which is incredibly narrow, and I haven't had a very oversized suv. You see me, there's a video of me driving through the intersection when we leave Walking Waterfall to go to Brian Albert's. And I was always taught by my father, even when you have a green light, you always should tap the brake. You don't know who's going to run red. And I see me doing that multiple times between 12 and 1 and 5 and 6am So I know I was driving safely. Not as safely or as alert as I would be if I had no alcohol. But I was not driving recklessly by any measure.

[Ashley Banfield]

So what do you Suppose a juror is going to think about this, and let's not forget there's more than 12 of them, right? There's the 12 and the alternates. And everybody probably has something a little different about them when it comes to drinking, right? Some people are teetotalers. They don't drink at all. Some people are drunks. Some people drink and still get in their car and drive. Other people would never think of it. And that's when the reasonable juror principle comes in. Everybody's going to be a little different. What's reasonable to me may not be reasonable to the guy beside me. And that happens in a jury room. When they start to debate this, what are these people going to think of those descriptions that Karen just gave about her drinking and her when she usually drives drinking, right? That'll all play into how they decide who this person is and what she's capable of doing. So before you pass judgment on Karen's relationship with the bottle and her penchant to drink and drive, be patient, grasshopper, because later in this trial, you're going to hear that she was not the only one with a habit of drinking while plastered in Canton, Massachusetts. In an unexpected turn, court ended early today, earlier than scheduled. Judge Beverly Kanone dismissed the jurors before noon because the prosecutors simply ran out of witnesses for the day. The judge assured the jury that the issue was not going to affect the overall trial schedule and that the proceedings would continue as planned. But before they were dismissed, the judge told the jury to wear some comfy clothes tomorrow because they are going on a field trip. It's actually called a jury view. And a jury view is an opportunity for jurors to see things involved in the case. And in this particular case, they're going to see for themselves the place where all of this happened. 34 Fairview Road. I'm going to continue to follow this trial closely, bringing you detailed recaps so you don't miss a thing. Thank you so much for listening, everyone. I'm Ashlee Banfield, and remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.