Karen Read Trial Day 4 & 5: Prosecutor Brennan LOSES It, Google Searches, & Phone Location

Summary

Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield Episode: Karen Read Trial Day 4 & 5: Prosecutor Brennan LOSES It, Google Searches, & Phone Location Release Date: April 29, 2025

In this riveting episode of Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield, host Ashleigh Banfield delves deep into the tumultuous fourth and fifth days of the highly publicized Karen Reed trial. Drawing from extensive reporting and a detailed transcript, Banfield provides listeners with a comprehensive analysis of the trial's pivotal moments, key testimonies, and the courtroom drama that unfolded.

---

1. Introduction: Setting the Stage

Ashleigh Banfield opens the episode by recapping the events of days four and five of the Karen Reed trial. She highlights the significance of these days, which offered the jury a firsthand look at the crime scene and introduced compelling digital evidence that could potentially undermine Reed's defense.

Key Highlights:

• Jury View: Jurors were taken to the actual crime scene, 34 Fairview Road in Canton, to gain an unfiltered perspective of where Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found dead.
• Digital Evidence: Introduction of critical digital forensics, including Google search timestamps and phone location data, which may challenge Reed's narrative.

---

2. Jury View: Walking the Crime Scene

Timestamp [00:04 - 08:25]

Banfield describes the "jury view," a pivotal moment where jurors toured the vicinity of the crime scene. Prosecutor Hank Brennan emphasized the altered condition of Reed's Lexus SUV, pointing out the missing right tail light and urging jurors to scrutinize details like bumper height and tail light placement.

Notable Quotes:

• Prosecutor Hank Brennan [00:45]: “Look, weather's different. It ain't the same as the blizzard. Conditions are different, obviously, but we still want you to get a good hard look, especially at Karen Reed's Lexus SUV.”

Defense attorney David Yanetti countered by asserting the superiority of firsthand observation over photos and videos, urging jurors to note specific distances and structural differences at the scene.

• Defense Attorney David Yanetti [04:15]: “Photos and videos can sometimes be deceiving, but your own eyes, those are the best computers you've got.”

The tour aimed to ground the jury in the physical realities of the case, moving beyond abstract evidence to tangible elements.

---

3. Blood Alcohol Evidence: Challenging the Limits

Timestamp [08:25 - 12:30]

The courtroom drama intensified as Dr. Gary Faller, head of the lab at Good Samaritan Hospital, testified that Karen Reed's blood alcohol level was 0.093, exceeding the legal limit of 0.08. This testimony placed Reed's sobriety under scrutiny.

Defense Strategy: Attorney Elizabeth Little aggressively questioned the validity of the blood alcohol test, highlighting that a serum blood test was used instead of the more definitive whole blood forensic test typically employed in criminal cases. She further probed whether Reed's health issues, such as multiple sclerosis and anemia, could have influenced the results.

• Attorney Elizabeth Little [09:30]: “Dr. Fowler, did you consider any of Karen’s health issues that could skew her blood alcohol content?”

Dr. Fowler conceded that these factors were not accounted for, potentially undermining the prosecution's evidence. Despite Reed's admissions of drinking and appearing intoxicated on video, the defense cast doubt on the accuracy and timing of the blood alcohol readings.

---

4. Paramedic Testimony: Emotional Transport

Timestamp [12:30 - 16:00]

Paramedic Jason Decker provided a poignant account of transporting Reed to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. He testified that Reed appeared emotional and mentioned an argument with John O'Keefe during the ambulance ride.

However, defense attorney Alan Jackson countered this narrative by clarifying that the argument occurred earlier in the day, not during the nighttime transport. He further emphasized that Reed had been leaving aggressive voicemails for O'Keefe throughout the night.

---

5. Digital Forensics: Unveiling Critical Evidence

Timestamp [16:00 - 28:34]

A focal point of day five was the introduction of digital forensic evidence by Ian Wiffen, a specialist from Cellbrite. Wiffen revealed discrepancies in the timestamps of Reed's Google searches, particularly the search term "hos long to die in the cold," which was misspelled.

Key Points:

• Search Timing Conflict:
  • Prosecution Claim: The search occurred at 6:23-6:24 AM, four hours later than the defense's assertion of 2:27 AM.
  • Defense Argument: Jackson and his team suggested that digital forensic interpretations are not always straightforward, hinting at potential inaccuracies.

Notable Dialogue:

• Prosecutor Hank Brennan [08:25]: “Can you share with us when you first became aware of the data in this case and how that came about?”
• Digital Expert Ian Wiffen [08:32]: “Yes, it was actually one of the public relations managers at Salbro Albright who reached out to me or to my team because he'd heard about this case and about the confusion regarding a timestamp and requested if we could look into it and find out what the confusion was and how we could respond to it.”

Wiffen also examined John O'Keefe's phone location history, showing that the phone remained near the crime scene throughout the night, with the battery temperature dropping significantly—a potential indicator that both the phone and O'Keefe were exposed to freezing conditions.

• Digital Expert Ian Wiffen [10:21]: “It's approximately that, yeah.”
• Prosecutor Hank Brennan [10:21]: “Right.”

These digital footprints were pivotal, providing a timeline that could corroborate the prosecution's version of events.

---

6. Crash Reconstruction Experts: Legal and Ethical Battles

Timestamp [28:34 - 29:11]

The episode delves into the contentious role of crash reconstruction experts from ARCA, hired by the Department of Justice. These experts, Dr. Daniel Wolf and Dr. Andrew Rentschler, were expected to provide objective analyses but instead became embroiled in legal disputes regarding their impartiality and the propriety of their engagements with the defense.

Key Issues:

• Conflict of Interest: Allegations that ARCA experts may have been influenced by defense strategies before presenting their findings.
• Rule Violations: Debates over whether ARCA and the defense team violated courtroom protocols, potentially jeopardizing the credibility of their testimonies.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan pressed Alan Jackson, defense attorney, about communications between ARCA and the defense team, leading to heated exchanges and legal objections in court. The integrity of these expert witnesses became a focal point, with questions about whether their involvement was truly independent or tainted by prior engagements.

• Prosecutor Hank Brennan [27:16]: “Did you have any understanding that any of your time that you were entering was to go to be billed to the defense team in this case?”
• Defense Attorney Alan Jackson [17:35]: “No, sir.”

The episode highlights the delicate balance between expert testimony and legal maneuvering, emphasizing the potential impact on Reed's defense.

---

7. Conclusion: The Road Ahead

As days four and five of the trial concluded, the courtroom remained on edge. The judge’s impending decision on whether the ARCA experts crossed legal boundaries could significantly influence the outcome of Karen Reed's case. Banfield teases future episodes, promising ongoing coverage of the trial's developments.

Closing Remarks:

• Ashleigh Banfield [29:11]: “The truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.”

---

Final Thoughts

Ashleigh Banfield masterfully navigates the complexities of the Karen Reed trial, offering listeners an in-depth look at the strategic maneuvers, evidentiary battles, and personal dynamics that shape this high-stakes courtroom drama. By weaving together expert testimonies, courtroom exchanges, and her incisive commentary, Banfield ensures that even those unfamiliar with the case gain a clear and engaging understanding of its nuances.

---

Stay tuned for upcoming episodes as Ashleigh Banfield continues to unravel the layers of mystery and justice in the Karen Reed trial.

Transcript

[Ashley Banfield]

Hi there, and welcome back to another episode of Drop Dead Serious. I'm Ashley Banfield, and in this episode, we're recapping days four and five of the Karen Reid trial. One day that gave the jury a view of the crime scene and another day that dug deep into the digital evidence. This that may be a lot harder for Karen Reed to explain away. If you're new to this case or if you just need a refresher, no worries. Just go back to my previous episodes, which are linked in the show notes. Let's start with the field trip. The jury was taken on something called a jury view. And this jury view landed them right outside the house where prosecutors say Karen Reed ran over John O'Keefe, her boyfriend, using her SUV. We heard about the now infamous Google search, how long to die in the cold? And actually, the word how was spelled wrong. It was spelled hos. Like hos. Hos long to die in the cold. We also heard a pitched fight over exactly what time that search was made and whether the search results were erased after the fact. And then we heard from some crash reconstruction experts from an organization called arca. Karen Reed is depending on these witnesses, these ARCA witnesses, to really blow up the state's case. But they didn't testify. Instead, the ARCO witnesses spent the time on the stand defending themselves about money and contracts and about how close they really were with the defense before they ever called themselves independent. And prosecutor Hank Brennan, he frankly lost his shit with these witnesses, especially the first one. There is so much to unpack, so let's get right into it. On day four, the jury packed up and headed over to 34 Fairview Road in Canton, the very spot where Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found dead back in January of 2022. It's called a jury view, and it's a way for jurors to literally walk the scene themselves and not just rely on photographs and videos. But before they even got out of the bus, special prosecutor Hank Brennan gave them a heads up. Look, weather's different. It ain't the same as the blizzard. Conditions are different, obviously, but we still want you to get a good hard look, especially at Karen Reed's Lexus suv. Prosecutor Brennan pointed out that the entire right tail light was removed from the vehicle and told the jury really to pay attention to things like the height of the bumper and the tail light. Little details that could matter big time later on. Then it was the defense's turn. Defense attorney David Yanetti told the jury that photos and videos can Sometimes be deceiving, but your own eyes, those are the best computers you've got. He asked them to notice the distance from the second story window to the front lawn, the distance from the two front doors, the differences between the two driveways. And he finished by telling the jurors to, quote, take a good look at the lexus. While at 34 Fairview, the jury was not allowed to talk, and the lawyers, they were forbidden from explaining anything further. Jurors were only allowed to look. After the jury view wrapped up, everybody headed back to the courthouse. And that's where we got into blood alcohol evidence. Dr. Gary Faller, who ran the lab at the good Samaritan hospital back in 2022, Tell testified that Karen Reed's blood alcohol level was.093, well over the legal limit of 0.08. But the defense went right after that number. Attorney Elizabeth Little pointed out that the test they used, a serum blood test, isn't the same as a whole blood forensic test, which is usually what's used in criminal cases. Plus, she pressed Dr. Fowler on whether he considered any of Karen's health issues, like multiple sclerosis or anemia, which could skew her blood alcohol content. Dr. Fowler admitted, no, he had not factored that in. Now, does any of this really matter? I mean, honestly, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but Karen Reed has admitted to drinking. Karen Reed is on video drinking. And Karen Reed has never said that she was not drinking. On the contrary, she's admitted to being pretty wasted that night. Additionally, the testing was done in the morning of the 29th, many hours after the binge drinking was over. What the professionals always do, though, is they extrapolate, they count backwards, and, you know, they say the science is pretty good. But in the end, how accurate? How accurate is it really? The jury also heard from paramedic Jason Decker. He was the one who transported Karen to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. And the paramedic, Decker said that Karen seemed emotional during the ambulance ride and told him that she'd been in an argument with John O'Keefe. But on cross examination, the defense attorney, Alan Jackson, made it clear that argument had happened earlier in the day, not during the evening. And as far as late night, it was just Karen leaving voicemails, nasty voicemails for John, all night long. Moving on to day five, the commonwealth started digging into something they say you can't argue with digital forensics. Ian Wiffen is a digital forensics expert. He works with a company called Cellbrite, and they specialize in Pulling data out of cell phones, Ian took the stand and dropped a pretty big bombshell about Google searches. According to his data, Jennifer McCabe's Google search used, you know, the misspelled one Hoss Long to die in the cold. The how long to die in the cold? That happened at 6:23 and 6:24am that is four hours later than the defense would have you believe. She typed in those words. And the defense has said all along that Jen McCabe's search was done at 2:27am A time that would put Karen Reed in the clear. But aren't digital forensics black and white? There's no gray area in your digital footprint, is there? Well, it turns out maybe that's kind of weird, but maybe the prosecution expert explains it this way. If you open a Google browser on your phone at, say, 2:27am and then you fall dead asleep and you wake up at 6:23am and you start typing in that same browser, it'll register as though you made the Google search at 2:27am the time. The night before that, you open the browser. But once the defense starts presenting its case, you can bet your bottom dollar that they're going to trot out their digital expert to say it does not happen that way at all. And then it's up to the jury, right? It's up to them to pick the digital nerd that they liked better or that they understood better or maybe none of the above. Maybe all of it was so advanced and complicated it all went over their heads and they ignore it all as a wash because that stuff happens. And on the subject of deleting searches, which never, ever sounds good to a jury, the defense says that Jen McCabe deleted only one of her Google searches that morning. And yeah, it's the big one. Haas long to die in the cold. But the Commonwealth's expert has a reason for that, too. That browser data actually deletes automatically when you close a tab. And that's a lot less sinister than the defense would lead you to believe. But just wait. Just wait for when the defense expert is up to bat, because this pendulum is sure to swing once again, leaving you in limbo, wondering just what the hell actually happened out there in the snow. But the prosecutors did plant a little seed about the defense expert, and they got in a little dig on him, too. They mentioned that occasionally, that defense expert, a guy named Richard Green, that he occasionally has to call the prosecution expert to get help.

[Hank Brennan]

Can you share with us when you first became aware of the data in this case and how that came about?

[Ian Wiffen]

Yes, it was actually one of the public relations managers at Salbro Albright who reached out to me or to my team because he'd heard about this case and about the confusion regarding a timestamp and requested if we could look into it and find out what the confusion was and how we could respond to it. At that point, I contacted the investigators to get more details.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you learn that a consumer had called about a question relative to every port produced by the software?

[Ian Wiffen]

Yes, there was both the troopers who had requested information about this particular artifact and also a private forensics examiner, Richard Green.

[Hank Brennan]

When Richard Green reached out to your company, what specifically was the question or issue?

[Ian Wiffen]

He reached out to the tech support team, asking, basically, if there's a timestamp that doesn't make sense, I need to understand what this time stamp means.

[Ashley Banfield]

The prosecutor's digital expert, Ian Whiffin, also dug deep into John O'Keefe's phone location history. And what he found really lined right up with the Commonwealth story. John's cell phone location shows that the phone arrived at 34 Fairview Road at 12:24am and then stayed put pretty much right near the flagpole outside the house all night. But under cross, he had to admit that phone could have taken 36 steps, and that's more than enough to reach and enter the house.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

So in this entry, 1231,56, you state that there's the start of health event, quote, 36 steps, 25 meters.

[Hank Brennan]

Correct?

[Ian Wiffen]

Correct.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Is it accurate to say that because we're in the United States and we don't work on the metric system, that 25 meters is about 84ft? Are you able to make that calculation?

[Ian Wiffen]

It's approximately that, yeah.

[Hank Brennan]

Right.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Would you accept approximately 84ft? So as we discussed meters, we can go to feet and about.

[Ian Wiffen]

I would accept it approximately 3 times 25. Right.

[Ashley Banfield]

The expert even tracked the phone's battery temperature, which he says dropped from 72 degrees at 12:37am to 37 degrees by 6:14am meaning John's phone, and likely John himself, was outside in the freezing cold for hours. The jury was sent home early so that the court could hammer out some issues with Karen Reed's crash reconstruction experts. Like, can those experts even testify? Dr. Daniel Wolf and Dr. Andrew Rentschler are experts from a company called Arca. They were hired by the Department of Justice to perform crash reconstruction analysis. And the defense, they're using the work that those guys did for the DOJ in the defense's case. But here's the twist today wasn't so much about how. How ARCA did their science. It was more about whether ARCA and the defense team broke the rules and misled the court before testimony even began in the first trial. There's been a lot of back and forth between the prosecutors and the defense on just who paid who for what work and when, the feds or the defense lawyers. There have also been a lot of accusations about discovery violations. And make no mistake, ARCA reports are critical to Karen Reed's case because this company determined in the first trial that John O'Keefe was not hit by Karen Reed's Lexus SUV. So maybe that's why the prosecutor, Hank Brennan, came out swinging against them.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you communicate with the defense before June 9, 2024?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't believe so. I think the. From what I recall. Next up was, I think, the voir dire, either Allen. I think Alan contacted me, letting me know that the court wanted to do a voir dire of myself and Dr. Rentschler and.

[Hank Brennan]

You mean Alan. You mean Attorney Jackson?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

Okay. So you became friendly.

[Alan Jackson]

I guess. First name basis, Is that what you're referring to?

[Hank Brennan]

No, I'm saying, did you become friendly?

[Alan Jackson]

No, I wouldn't say that. We were friends.

[Hank Brennan]

I didn't ask your friends. I said, did you become friendly?

[Alan Jackson]

I talked to him like I talked to all of the attorneys that I work with.

[Hank Brennan]

Sir, what would you call me if you were going to address me?

[Alan Jackson]

Probably.

[Hank Brennan]

Mr. Brennan, did you speak to anybody other than Mr. Jackson about this case before the first trial?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't believe so, no.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you speak to anybody since then on the defense team? Who?

[Alan Jackson]

I believe Ms. Little and Mr. Alessi.

[Hank Brennan]

Okay, and how about Ms. Reed?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you ever have any conversations that weren't on a regular telephone? You have a Zoom?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, we have had. I believe it was a Zoom or a teams meeting. We've had a couple.

[Hank Brennan]

When was that?

[Alan Jackson]

That would have been more recently to go over some of the testing that we've done.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you ever have any Zoom meetings before the first trial?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you have any group conferences before the first trial?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't believe so, no.

[Hank Brennan]

Were you ever on the phone before the first trial in a conversation where you and Dr. Renschler both were on the call?

[Alan Jackson]

There may have been an instance of that. I just don't recall.

[Hank Brennan]

Well, think that.

[Alan Jackson]

I don't recall.

[Hank Brennan]

At some point you were contacted by Mr. Jackson and you decided or you learned that you may be part of this case? As far as a Witness?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

When you learned you were part of this case, did you have contact with Mr. Jackson before you testified at the Voir dare?

[Alan Jackson]

Did I have communications with him?

[Hank Brennan]

Yes.

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Hank Brennan]

And in those communications, you spoke about your role?

[Alan Jackson]

I think we spoke about logistics and coordinating my arrival here for the voir dire and certainly the trial.

[Hank Brennan]

Well, when you spoke on March 20, 2024, didn't you talk about more than coordination of logistics?

[Alan Jackson]

I'm sorry, what was the date?

[Hank Brennan]

March 20, 2024.

[Alan Jackson]

So I believe that would have been the very first phone call that I had with Mr. Jackson.

[Hank Brennan]

Was that more than about logistics?

[Alan Jackson]

Well, I think we were trying to figure out what. What should we do? I will note that this was a very abnormal situation for me, being involved in a federal investigation and then ultimately being called as a witness. Well, I'm trying to answer your question, but you're not.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you talk about more than logistics?

[Ashley Banfield]

So are you finished with your answer, Dr. Wolf? Are you still answering?

[Alan Jackson]

I was still trying to answer.

[Hank Brennan]

Go ahead, finish.

[Alan Jackson]

Thank you. So, as I mentioned again, the situation was. Was abnormal. I didn't know if we could get involved. I didn't think Mr. Jackson knew we could get involved. In terms of a path forward, would we be able to do more work? Could we review additional material? How could we work together moving forward? There was a lot of unknown, so there was a lot of uncertainty.

[Hank Brennan]

You done?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you talk about more than just logistics?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

Did you talk about fees or structures?

[Alan Jackson]

I described to him our typical procedure when. When we intake a criminal defense case. Right. There's typically a contracting retainer associated with that. So I described our normal procedure that takes place. Yes.

[Hank Brennan]

So you talked about fees and scheduling and costs, what you charge.

[Alan Jackson]

I did talk about. Yes. The contact contract in the retention letter.

[Hank Brennan]

When you talked about that contract. Contract, there was a discussion, wasn't there, about them hiring you, paying you, or retaining you?

[Alan Jackson]

Potentially. Again, I prescribed our standard procedure.

[Hank Brennan]

Why was it you were talking about fees and schedules if you didn't think that you were potentially going to get hired?

[Alan Jackson]

Again, I prescribed our normal operating procedure. I had no idea how it was going to work moving forward. Which is why, ultimately, immediately after that phone call, I contacted the Department of Justice to get clarification on that.

[Hank Brennan]

We'll get to that. But I'm asking you specifically, why were you talking about fees and scheduling and being paid at that point?

[Ashley Banfield]

Objection, your honor, I'm going to allow.

[Alan Jackson]

It again because Mr. Jackson was. Was interested, I believe, in calling us to testify at trial. So I explained to us the normal process when a client reaches out and wants to engage us for trial testimony. That's t. Typically, again, the procedure that. That we prescribe at arca. So that's why I had that explanation to him.

[Hank Brennan]

So you were talking to him about details about potentially being hired. Isn't that fair to say?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't know about being hired. I think, again, him utilizing us in the trial as expert witnesses.

[Hank Brennan]

Well, because what's the difference between him utilizing you and paying you for that utilization and him actually hiring you? What's the difference in your mind?

[Alan Jackson]

Well, I think there is a difference because ultimately, after I got clarification from the Department of Justice, they indicated that they could not, the defense, that is, sign any type of contract. There could not be any type of agreement or retainer.

[Hank Brennan]

I'm not asking what you determine later. I'm talking about the conversation you had on March 20, 2022, when you were speaking to attorney Jackson. That's what I'm talking about. Vote. Okay. Understand.

[Alan Jackson]

I. I don't know that I understand your question.

[Hank Brennan]

Then. Okay. When you had a conversation on March 20, 2022, with attorney Jackson, you discussed potentially being hired, paid, compensated by attorney Jackson or the defense for this case, didn't you?

[Alan Jackson]

We did. Like I said, we. I did explain to him our typical operating procedure when a case. When a client reaches out for trial testimony. I went over that with him, you know. Yes.

[Hank Brennan]

Not talking about a client. I'm talking about this client. Did you talk about them potentially hiring or retaining you for work in this case? That's the question I'm asking you. On March 20, 2022, not the 22nd, not the 24th. March 20, 2024, did you speak to attorney Jackson about them potentially retaining or hiring you for this case?

[Alan Jackson]

I spoke to him like I speak to any other client that would be interested in calling us as a witness.

[Hank Brennan]

Okay. And so after you spoke to them, you spoke to representatives of the United States Attorney's office, and you wrote an email back saying that you were going to put the conversation on hold. Is that fair to say?

[Alan Jackson]

Correct. Until I got clarification from them.

[Hank Brennan]

At some point, it was on. On hold, right? Some point it resumed, yes. When was that?

[Alan Jackson]

That would have been towards, I believe, the end of April.

[Hank Brennan]

The end of April. How was this relationship resumed? What was the contact, the conversation between you and anybody on the defense that resumed that relationship?

[Alan Jackson]

I think that I reached out to Mr. Jackson. Like I said. I think it looks like about a month had passed, and I had Let him know that I had spoken to the DOJ and got clarification on moving forward.

[Hank Brennan]

So In April of 2024, you reached out to the defense and said that you had permission or a green light to move forward in the relationship with the defense in this case?

[Alan Jackson]

I had clarification from the Department of Justice, yes.

[Hank Brennan]

And that clarification allowed you then to work with the defense on this case?

[Alan Jackson]

Not work with. We could be called on the defense's behalf to testify. And for that matter, the Commonwealth could have also contacted us and utilized us at trial as well, if they should. Please.

[Hank Brennan]

So when did you become an advocate for the defense? Do you feel like you're an advocate for the defense?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir. Are you sure about that, sir? I'm on the science and the analysis that I've done. That's the side that I'm on.

[Hank Brennan]

You sure are. Because after that 424 call letting them know that the United States Attorney's Office gave permission for you to be called as a witness, you called them again that day, didn't you? Or they called you on the main line?

[Alan Jackson]

We may have exchanged a couple calls that day, yes.

[Hank Brennan]

Well, you did exchange a couple calls that day because we have at least some records. And when you called later that day after telling them that you had permission, they could use you as witnesses, what did you talk about?

[Alan Jackson]

Do you have the records that I could take a look at just so I could see what you're referring to?

[Hank Brennan]

Remember having calls after you? You called Attorney Jackson and said you had the green light from the U.S. attorney's office. Do you remember having further calls that day?

[Alan Jackson]

I think we had a couple brief conversations, yes.

[Hank Brennan]

Okay. When you think about it, do you remember them or you just saying you think, but you don't know?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't remember. I remember that there was one conversation, I believe, in early May that I had with Mr. Jackson in which we engaged in a conversation where I gave him more information about my background, who ARCA was as a whole. I think we even got to talk a little bit about my family, my four kids, and things of that nature. But it was. It was a call about background and qualifications.

[Ashley Banfield]

It got so bad that the judge had to step in, admonishing the prosecutor multiple times, telling him to stop interrupting, stop making comments, and let the witness finish.

[Hank Brennan]

Do you remember the call on May 1, 2024?

[Alan Jackson]

I don't have the records in front of me, but was that a longer call by any.

[Hank Brennan]

It was. It was 40 minutes long.

[Alan Jackson]

Okay.

[Hank Brennan]

Yeah.

[Alan Jackson]

So then, yes. As I just described earlier. That would have been the call in which I went over with Mr. Jackson a little bit more about Arca, my background, my education qualification, the kind of casework that I do, things of that nature.

[Hank Brennan]

And did you discuss issues regarding this case?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

So during the 40 minutes you spoke, you never discussed any of your findings that had already been made?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

You'd never discussed any of your testing in this case during that 40 minute conversation?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir. And it was. It was all laid out in the report that was issued in February.

[Hank Brennan]

I'm asking you, did you have any conversations about it with the defense?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

So in that 40 minute conversation, you talk about your family, your pastimes, arca, but never, ever talked about this case? Objection.

[Ashley Banfield]

Your honors, I'm going to allow it.

[Alan Jackson]

Correct.

[Hank Brennan]

You billed for that time, didn't you?

[Alan Jackson]

I believe that I kept track of that time, yes.

[Hank Brennan]

Okay. When you kept track of the time, did you submit that time and ultimately get money for that time?

[Alan Jackson]

Again, I routinely keep track of my time when I'm working on a project. So, yes, that time was kept track.

[Hank Brennan]

That's not what I'm asking you. Ultimately, that time that you kept track of give you the. Then submit it and get paid and compensated for that time? That's what I'm asking you.

[Alan Jackson]

Well, first off, I'm a salaried employee, so I don't get direct compensation. When an invoice goes out that. That invoice, when it's sent, ultimately comes back to arca. That doesn't come back to Dan Wolf.

[Hank Brennan]

You reached out to the defense and said that you had permission or a green light to move forward in the relationship with the defense in this case?

[Alan Jackson]

I had clarification from the Department of Justice, yes.

[Hank Brennan]

And that clarification allowed you then to work with the defense on this case?

[Alan Jackson]

Not work with. We. We could be called on the defense's behalf to testify. And for that matter, the commonwealth could have also contacted us and utilized us at trial as well, if they should. Please.

[Hank Brennan]

So when did you become an advocate for the defense? Do you feel like you're an advocate for the defense?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

You sure about that?

[Alan Jackson]

Sir, I'm on the science and the analysis that I've done, that's the side that I'm on.

[Hank Brennan]

You sure are. Because after that 424 call letting them know that the United States Attorney's office gave permission for you to be called as a witness, you called them again that day, didn't you? Or they called you on the main.

[Alan Jackson]

Line we may have exchanged a couple calls that day.

[Hank Brennan]

Yes, well, you did exchange a couple calls that day because we have at least some records. Do you typically bill clients when you're spending time talking about families?

[Alan Jackson]

Again, that wasn't the entirety of the conversation. I think he just briefly asked me about my family.

[Hank Brennan]

Oh, now it's brief. Okay. No comments, please. After you had text messages with the defense, did you delete those texts?

[Alan Jackson]

Yeah, after the trial concluded. I mean, that's something I routinely do. I'm not going to keep text from Mr. Jackson, especially now that we're past a year. I would have no reason to keep those, Sir.

[Hank Brennan]

I'm not asking for the excuse. I'm asking if you did it. Did you delete texts?

[Alan Jackson]

Again, it's something that I typically do. I communicate with attorneys all the time, whether it's for trial or inspections. I don't have a habit of keeping a text chain about scheduling or meeting or, hey, can we meet at this time? Or show up here? I just don't have a habit of keeping that type of text, so he's not my friend, sir.

[Hank Brennan]

So you didn't delete texts?

[Alan Jackson]

I. I think I just told you that, yes, I did delete the text.

[Hank Brennan]

You didn't tell me, but you just did now. Thank you. So, next question.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

No comments, Mr.

[Hank Brennan]

So you assisted the defense in anticipation of your testimony by sharing with them the questions and answers you thought would be most helpful.

[Alan Jackson]

Again, as I mentioned, this is something that I do internally to prepare. I sent that to him the evening before I testified at 6pm I presume that he already had his. His direct examination done at that point, so I sent that to him. Yes.

[Hank Brennan]

That's a lot of answers other than the one for my question. The one for my question. Hold.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hold the comments, please.

[Hank Brennan]

So my question was, you had communications offering information to the defense before you testified in a way that you thought would help the testimony, didn't you?

[Alan Jackson]

Well, first off, I have no idea if he even read it or utilized anything from it.

[Hank Brennan]

But that's not really answering the question I just asked, is it?

[Alan Jackson]

Can you repeat the question?

[Hank Brennan]

Of course I can.

[Ashley Banfield]

But didn't matter. The relentless drubbing continued. The prosecutor just kept hammering Dr. Wolf, grilling him about when exactly he started working with Karen Reed's legal team and whether his opinions were shaped by. By defense strategy before he ever put pen to paper. When the defense was up to bat, the tone shifted palpably. Karen's lawyers made it clear these weren't just hired mouthpieces. They were impartial experts hired by the doj?

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Were you under was ARCA under a contract with the United States Department of Justice?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, sir.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Was there a contract number assigned signed to that contract?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Was there an internal number at ARCA for which all time was billed for your work on that matter in February of 2024?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Did that contract number that began in February of 2024 ever change in arca?

[Alan Jackson]

Let me just clarify something real quick. So the original case when it came in from the Department of Justice was in the year of 2023. So when that project was opened with the Department of Justice, we assigned a project number to it. That project number from the original case with the Department of Justice remained the same all the way through the trial.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

And now let's go from in the trial in June of 2024, correct?

[Alan Jackson]

Correct. Yes.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

From June of 2024 to the end of December of 2024, did that contract number ever change?

[Alan Jackson]

No.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

To your knowledge, when you were entering time under that contract number for your work, did you understand that that time was going to be billed to that contract number with the US Government?

[Alan Jackson]

That was my assumption, yes.

[Dr. Daniel Wolf]

Did you have from Any time in 2024 any understanding that any of your time that you were entering was to go to be billed to the defense team in this case?

[Alan Jackson]

No, sir.

[Ashley Banfield]

But the big question now will Judge Kanone decide that the experts cross the line? And if she does, will Karen Reed lose two of the most important witnesses that she's counting on to beat this case? That ruling is still hanging out there and it could change everything, but we'll see. So that's where things stand now. I'll be back again tomorrow and every day after that, bringing you the latest twists from inside the Karen Reid courtroom. I'm Ashley Banfield and thanks so much for listening. And please remember one the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.