Transcript
Ashley Banfield (0:04)
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.