Loading summary
Transcript91 lines
- [00:00]
Kristin Thorne
Wondery subscribers can binge all episodes of Karen early and ad free right now. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. This podcast is a law and crime production. It may contain harsh language and references to violence and death. Please listen with care. Retrials can feel like rewinding a tape. Same evidence, same same witnesses, same story just told again. But this time, in the case of Karen Reed, something's changed. Because while the broad strokes are familiar, John o' Keefe found dead in the snow, a girlfriend accused of leaving him there. This time, the details are sharper, the timeline is tighter, and the courtroom strategy, it's entirely different. This past week, the third week of trial, the focus turned to what's been hiding in plain sight. The phone data, the digital trail, and a team of expert witnesses who might just redefine how jurors understand what happened that night. From forensic maps to legal framing, from credibility battles to questions of intent, we're not just revisiting the evidence. We're watching how it's being rebuilt from law and crime. I'm Kristin Thorne and this is Karen. The retrial. Let's get into it. Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, a digital forensics expert, was recalled to the stand this past week to walk jurors through the data. According to his testimony, between 12:33am and 6:03am, Karen Reed called John O' Keefe 53 times.
- [01:55]
Matt Timpanik
Showing you a binder, sir.
- [01:56]
Rich Showenstein
Could you open it up, tell us what this is?
- [01:58]
Trooper Nicholas Guarino
Yes, this is the phone calls and text messages between the defendant and John o', Keefe, as well as the voicemails.
- [02:06]
Rich Showenstein
Is there a package in the front of that binder?
- [02:08]
Trooper Nicholas Guarino
Yes, there is.
- [02:09]
Rich Showenstein
And what is that package?
- [02:10]
Trooper Nicholas Guarino
Defendant's voicemails. And on 129 2022, the USB thumb drive that should have those files on.
- [02:20]
Kristin Thorne
She left eight voicemails. Angry, profane, at times accusatory.
- [02:33]
Karen Reed
John, I'm here with your fucking kids. Nobody knows what the fuck you are. Fucking pervert. Yes, one in the morning. I'm with your fucking niece and nephew, you fucking pervert. You're fucking pervert. John, I'm going home. I cannot see you. Sit in me. I need to go home. You. You are fucking using me right now. You're fucking another girl. He's sleeping next to me. You're a fucking loser. Fuck yourself.
- [03:03]
Kristin Thorne
The jury heard every single one of them played out in sequence with timestamps visible. Each call now builds a clearer timeline of what happened and what may have gone wrong. Matt Timpanik explains how this second trial presents the data in a fundamentally different way.
- [03:23]
Matt Timpanik
Every time Trooper Guarino was saying, defendant calls John O' Keefe at 12, 39 and 40 seconds, it shows the timeline. So the jury's able to figure out it's like the second voicemail. You can clearly hear the defendant stomping on hardwood. So she's in the house at that time. So the alleged pedestrian strike would have to occur before then. So we're just being able to get the timeline down to the second. I'm kind of shocked, actually, that the same evidence can be presented two completely different ways in ways that are much easier to digest than it was in the first case.
- [04:04]
Kristin Thorne
That time stamp matters because prosecutors alleged that o' Keefe had already been fake fatally injured, possibly by Reid's car, before she returned home and made those calls. Rich Showenstein says the voicemails cut both ways.
- [04:20]
Rich Showenstein
On the one hand, the number of the phone calls and the way she sounds in them paint her as unhinged and very upset, and those are all to her detriment in this trial. But some correctly observe that the idea that she called somebody all of those times is counter to the notion that she thought they were dead.
- [04:48]
Kristin Thorne
So what was going through her mind? Was she in a panic trying to cover something up, or just drunk and spiraling? Timpanic offered his take.
- [04:59]
Matt Timpanik
She's yelling profanity. She's clearly intoxicated. She's angry. She sounds like a woman scorn. She kept saying the alleged victim was a pervert. So you kind of see that there's some kind of maybe allegation of infidelity, potentially the defendant accusing the alleged victim of having an affair with a much younger girl. So it possibly gives an idea of what was going on immediately before them, because without it, none of it makes sense.
- [05:26]
Kristin Thorne
This week, the prosecution highlighted one key data point. Reid's phone connects to Okeefes home wi.
- [05:34]
Trooper Nicholas Guarino
Fi at 12:36am At 12:36:39am the defendant's phone auto connects to the wi fi hats fan123.
- [05:45]
Matt Timpanik
Did you learn the range that a.
- [05:47]
Rich Showenstein
Connection must be in in order to connect to his router?
- [05:50]
Trooper Nicholas Guarino
Yes. So it's either 150 foot indoor range or up to 300ft outdoor. So again, when you pull into your home, sometimes you can auto still be connected to your home WI fi in the driveway.
- [06:03]
Kristin Thorne
That detail is vital because as Timpaneck puts it, boom.
- [06:07]
Matt Timpanik
We now know exactly when she's in the house. So you could probably assume that she was maybe in the garage for a minute or something. So this alleged pedestrian strike had to occur before this moment.
- [06:20]
Kristin Thorne
The prosecution argues that timing supports their version of events in the case of that Reid, enraged and possibly drunk, struck o' Keeffe with her SUV and left him to die in the snow. But the defense sees it differently. That call pattern, they say, suggests confusion, not intent, concern, not guilt.
- [06:46]
Matt Timpanik
What I think is much more reasonable to believe is that the defendant possibly knew that Officer o' Keefe was in the area and she felt her vehicle hit something. She didn't know what it was. It could have been just an animal or hit a mailbox. Officer o' Keefe wouldn't pick up the phone. She started to think, possibly, did I hit him? And when you see her testimony and from the documentary, that's what she was saying, she's like, questioning herself. So what I possibly think is she thought she maybe hit some.
- [07:19]
Rich Showenstein
Something.
- [07:19]
Matt Timpanik
And it. It kind of dawned on her, maybe I hit him by accident. And when you add it together with the statements at the scene, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. That it's kind of like, oh, my God. We have this realization that was not clear until this moment with him being in this area where she's in the documentary saying, He's 50ft from where I dropped him off. So it's reasonable that it's possible that this could have happened.
- [07:46]
Kristin Thorne
Showenstein, too, questions the prosecution's leap to murder.
- [07:50]
Rich Showenstein
I don't know that the evidence gets to the level of problems suggesting that one of the members of the relationship would try to commit an act of violence against the other. I've always struggled with this case on its top charge. I've always struggled with the idea that they charged her with a murder count that requires some showing of intent, not necessarily intent to kill, but at least intent to do a violent thing that could lead to the death. And I've never really thought this evidence suggestive that they were having difficulties in their relationship and perhaps even an argument that night. And perhaps even she was jealous and perhaps even she suspected. Suspected that John o' Keefe was having other relationships. All of that could be true and doesn't get me to intent.
- [08:50]
Kristin Thorne
And intent is critical for a second degree murder conviction. Jurors don't have to believe Reid meant to kill o'. Keefe. Proving that she acted with intent to cause serious bodily harm or that she had reckless disregard for human life would be enough. Here's Tim Panic again.
- [09:11]
Matt Timpanik
You don't need to actually prove the intent to murder to be able to get a conviction for second degree, you need to prove that this individual had an intent to commit serious bodily injury that could result in death.
- [09:23]
Kristin Thorne
But as jurors hear the calls and study the timestamps, one question hangs in the air, one that even seasoned legal analysts find tough to answer. If she just killed him, why leave him voicemails?
- [09:40]
Rich Showenstein
Both sides can claim that those phone calls hold evidence that supports their theory.
- [09:46]
Kristin Thorne
Of the case and that in a trial where the details are now being presented frame by frame might be enough to sway 12 jurors in one direction or leave them in doubt. The phone activity between Karen Reed and John o' Keefe isn't the only digital trail jurors have been asked to consider. There's also the silence, specifically the absence of any messages between the friends inside 34 Fairview that night. In a case that's been dissected down to the second, analysts and observers alike have zeroed in on what isn't there. No texts from the group chat expressing shock, no frantic exchanges about what happened. No how could this happen? Or did anyone see him out there? Timpanic calls. That silence suspicious, but not necessarily exculpatory.
- [10:47]
Matt Timpanik
That's more of a forced out. It's like, why aren't they talking about this? Like, how did nobody see him? It's like, well, that's not entirely true. One of the witnesses in the first trial, and I expect them in this trial to say they saw a big black blob on the lawn in the location where Officer o' Keefe is eventually found. What is the key in a criminal case is not why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that? But is that a reasonable doubt or is that just more of an observation? And it's more of an observation still.
- [11:14]
Kristin Thorne
It's a detail the public has glommed onto, suggesting it's not just what wasn't said, but what may have been deleted. Showenstein offers another explanation, one rooted in experience.
- [11:28]
Rich Showenstein
These are people who were involved in or around law enforcement and may know better than civilians that you don't want to make a written record of communications about something that's still under investigation.
- [11:45]
Kristin Thorne
That theory, a kind of professional discretion, may resonate with some jurors, but it may also raise eyebrows, especially in a case where the defense alleges a cover up orchestrated by those very same people. The jury's now heard Karen Reed's voicemails. They've seen the call logs displayed down to the second, and they've likely felt the emotional weight of it all. But what does it add up to? Anger, panic, a toxic breakup, or a moment of violence that turned fatal?
- [12:20]
Matt Timpanik
You can kind of see the toxicity of their relationship, but the key is being able to show, is this individual capable of murder.
- [12:30]
Kristin Thorne
For jurors, parsing motive might be more difficult than parsing call logs. But motive alone won't decide this case. Because while the emotional volatility is undeniable, jurors won't be asked to render a verdict on whether Karen Reid was angry. They'll be asked to decide how John o' Keefe died. And that's where the defense has shifted its footing. As the trial unfolds, one thing has become increasingly clear. The defense is no longer leading with a conspiracy theory. They're leading with. With science.
- [13:05]
Rich Showenstein
The defense changed its strategy in opening argument. Opening argument of trial one was Karen Reed was framed, which I thought was a bad theme for opening argument, opening argument, trial two. The central theme was John o' Keefe was not hit by a car. Now, that is a fact. If the defense can prove that or can at least create reasonable doubt that he was hit by a car, I think that really, really damages the prosecution's case.
- [13:40]
Kristin Thorne
And the key witnesses who could make or break that claim are a pair of experts from a private firm called arca. But their appearance in this courtroom has been anything but straightforward. Rich Showenstein breaks it down.
- [13:53]
Rich Showenstein
So these are guys that worked at arca. They were hired by the federal government. They did a report which they gave the federal government, and then prior to the first trial, that report was provided to both the prosecution and the defense, as well as thousands of pages of documents that the federal government had obtained in its investigation, including, I think, some of the very damaging text messages that came out of the investigation. But put those aside. The issue is this. Anybody can hire an expert witness and present them at trial, and they can ask the expert witness to testify on any matter they want to. And if it's relevant to the case, and if the expert witness is qualified, the judge will probably let it in. And usually the expert has to write a report of what its testimony is going to be that is given to the other side in advance so that they can prepare. Here the process was muddied because ARCA wasn't initially hired by the Karen Reid team. And so they didn't really give the government in the first trial a report that coincided with what the testimony was going to be. They gave them the report that had been done for the federal government, but that wasn't necessarily the Be all and end all of the testimony. The prosecution complained that it wasn't getting adequate, what they call rule 14 discovery. And the judge resolved that in the first trial by letting the government voir dire the expert witnesses in advance of their testimony. The defense made a big, big deal in the first trial that these were independent experts. The jury wasn't told that they had any connection to the federal government because the jury wasn't told about the federal investigation, because that just would have confused the jury. Why was there a federal investigation? What did the feds investigate? What did they conclude? That would just create a lot of questions in the jury. So there was no mention of a federal investigation, and there was no mention of where archaeologists came from, other than the jury was told they were independent of the defense.
- [16:15]
Kristin Thorne
Initially brought in by the Department of Justice, the ARCA experts were tasked with analyzing whether o' Keefe's injuries were consistent with being struck by a vehicle, specifically Karen Reed's suv. Their findings, the damage to Karen's SUV and John's head injuries were inconsistent with a vehicular impact, suggesting that John may not have been struck by the vehicle. Needless to say, those findings were strong enough for the defense to seize on. But here's where things got complicated.
- [16:50]
Rich Showenstein
In between the two trials, an issue arose. There was evidence that suggested maybe ARCA wasn't that independent of the defense. They had coordinated prior to the first trial, at least shared some emails in preparation for testimony.
- [17:09]
Kristin Thorne
And it wasn't just emails they exchanged.
- [17:13]
Rich Showenstein
After trial, they sent a bill to the defense, which the defense paid.
- [17:19]
Kristin Thorne
That's why Ian Runkle says the backstory around ARCA could matter as much as the science.
- [17:25]
Ian Runkle
What is one of the first questions that every expert always gets asked? How much did you get paid? And for a juror hearing that an expert got $50,000 or something makes them go, well, what would I tell a court? $50,000.
- [17:39]
Kristin Thorne
So who were they working for?
- [17:41]
Rich Showenstein
The prosecution cried foul, wanted more information, and the judge's remedy, again, was voidir the prosecution could take testimony of the experts. The judge has concluded that defense counsel wasn't straight with the court about what happened here. I think the judge feels that the defense counsel didn't give Folsom information on its relationship with arca, but she wasn't going to bar them from testifying. That would have been one possible relief. She could have said the experts now can't testify because the defense wasn't straight about all of the facts. She didn't do that. She chastised the lawyers. They went through voir dire last week, nothing came out of that that would preclude them from testifying. So they are testifying.
- [18:36]
Kristin Thorne
Runkle highlights just how pivotal their testimony could be.
- [18:41]
Ian Runkle
If they accept arca's view that John Okeefe wasn't hit by a vehicle, then Karen Reed has to be acquitted.
- [18:48]
Kristin Thorne
But expect a battle over how much the jury gets to know about these experts origins.
- [18:54]
Ian Runkle
The defense, of course, wants to portray these experts as being completely unbiased. Completely. They've got no horse in the race and the prosec going to come in and try to portray that these experts were in fact very much here to support the defense.
- [19:10]
Kristin Thorne
That clash over credibility and allegiance won't just play out in front of the jury. It's already shaped how the court itself is handling the ARCA testimony. Because while both sides are angling to control the narrative, Judge Kanoni has signaled how she intends to manage the fallout. Timpanik puts it bluntly, it sounded pretty.
- [19:32]
Matt Timpanik
Clear that the judge is going to give, especially ADA Brennan a very wide latitude to cross examine them. And I think her words were the only cure is a vigorous cross examination. That's judge speak for I kind of know what's going to happen and I'm going to allow it to. Because ARCA witnesses on some level violated discovery orders.
- [19:54]
Kristin Thorne
With that green light, the ARCA experts are coming in, but not without baggage. Judge Kanoni may have ruled they can testify, but she hasn't settled the bigger question. How much of their backstory is the jury allowed to know?
- [20:09]
Rich Showenstein
The issue that remains unresolved, as far as I understand it, is what the jury will be told about where these ARCA witnesses came from. The defense would like to tell the jury that they were hired by the federal government, they gave a report to the federal government independent of the prosecution or the defense in this case. They came to their conclusions independently and therefore they're super honest and super credible. And they're super experts. And the prosecution is saying that's not really true. They really, ever since they were allowed to do so, have taken the side of the defense. They've coordinated with the defense, they've been paid by the defense. They're doing a new report now which they're going to have to share. And all of that means they shouldn't be presented as independent witnesses. And also unresolved is if you do tell the jury that they were hired by somebody else, how much do you tell them? Do you tell them that they were hired by the federal government? Do you tell them that the federal government conducted an investigation. Do you tell the jury what the federal government was investigating? And do you tell the jury that the federal government apparently has closed its investigation without bringing any charges against anybody? Do you tell the jury that the federal government appears to have been investigating the work of law enforcement in the Karen Reed case or but decided not to prosecute anyone? I'm sure the defense doesn't want to tell the jury that.
- [21:53]
Kristin Thorne
So how should the defense navigate it?
- [21:56]
Rich Showenstein
My solution would be you don't get to tell the jury that. We're not going to tell the jury the feds were involved and therefore we're not going to tell the jury that. These guys are super independent expert witnesses. You can put them on. They can talk about the work they did, they. They can talk about their qualifications, they can talk about the conclusions they came to. They are handsome as the day is long. They are well spoken, they are articulate, they are good witnesses. Put them on and see what happens.
- [22:30]
Kristin Thorne
This is the tightrope both sides are walking. The defense needs jurors to trust the ARCA testimony enough to create reasonable doubt about a vehicle strike. But the prosecution will fight to frame them as compromised, if not partisan, hired guns dressing up a theory that can't stand on its own. Timpanic sees the stakes clearly.
- [22:53]
Matt Timpanik
If the defense cannot make that third party culprit defense, what ARCA is going to say probably isn't going to matter. Because if this wasn't anybody else, it can be even remotely pointed in the direction of someone else. Or all that's left is all the evidence pointing in one direction.
- [23:12]
Kristin Thorne
And here's why jury perception really matters. Because even if the scientific testimony is strong, even if it raises real doubt about a car strike, the delivery may make the difference. Are the experts overconfident, evasive on cross, too polished? Or do they come across as the only people in the case with no agenda, no drama, and no acts to grind? Runkle sums it up.
- [23:41]
Ian Runkle
Ultimately, a big issue is going to be how the jury perceives these experts. Because I cannot think of another case where the experts actually originally were hired by the government and then come in as defense experts. That is beyond strange. To me, it's virtually unique.
- [23:58]
Kristin Thorne
That's why the stakes around expert testimony are so high. This isn't just another evidentiary dispute. It cuts to the foundation of the prosecution's theory of how o' Keefe died and what, if anything, Karen Reid had to do with it.
- [24:16]
Rich Showenstein
The prosecution's scientific proof in the first trial was not good. Not on cause of death, not on accident. Reconstruction. Those witnesses did not do a good job. It was. Was not effective in the first trial. And I thought the defense should have focused on that more in closing argument. Because if you don't prove the guy was hit, if the injuries don't align with being hit by an suv, if you can't explain how this occurred, how he was hit, and it led to an injury on the back of his head and his death, then I think that's a fatal blow to the case.
- [24:56]
Kristin Thorne
When the ARCA experts take the stand, they'll bring credentials, diagrams, injury models, scientific certainty, or at least the appearance of it. But none of that matters if the jury doesn't trust them. Because in this case, credibility is currency, and jurors aren't just evaluating facts, they're evaluating people. And trust cuts both ways. Because while the defense is counting on the jury to believe arca's version of events, there's another figure whose presence or absence may weigh just as heavily on their perception of the entire case. He hasn't taken the stand yet, but his name has been everywhere. Trooper Michael Proctor remains the most radioactive figure, so to speak, in the Karen Reed case. And whether or not he testifies in this retrial, jurors are already forming opinions because even without hearing from him directly, they've heard plenty about him. And now there's been speculation he may not take the stand at all. While it seems unbelievable, Rich Showenstein says it's a possibility, it is clear to.
- [26:13]
Rich Showenstein
Me, it's been clear since opening argument that the prosecution this time around is trying to build a case where Michael Proctor does not matter. They're trying to build a case based on her statements at the scene, her statements afterwards, all of those interviews that she never should have gone anywhere near, that they've been playing snippets of and scientific evidence, like the evidence about Okeefes phone and the fact that he never went in the house, evidence about the car and how it moved. And as we've been discussing, hopefully better evidence about accident reconstruction, the prosecution is going to say that the scientific evidence plus her admissions prove guilt. The investigation will therefore be almost irrelevant. According to the prosecution, it doesn't matter what Trooper Proctor did, because nothing he did could have altered the science we've shown you.
- [27:15]
Karen Reed
And.
- [27:15]
Rich Showenstein
And nothing he did led to her repeated admissions at the scene and afterward that she did or might have hit him. So they're trying to build a Michael Proctor proof case.
- [27:30]
Kristin Thorne
In other words, even if he cut corners, even if he sent crude, biased texts, it doesn't matter. The evidence stands on its own, but that's not how the defense sees it.
- [27:43]
Rich Showenstein
The defense went after him in opening argument, and the defense has been going after him with other witnesses, trying to paint a picture of Trooper Proctor as being the head of this whole operation and the hub of all information. So they can paint everything as tainted from the jump.
- [28:02]
Kristin Thorne
They've tried to paint Proctor as the man who had motive power and relationships to protect.
- [28:09]
Ian Runkle
Proctor is an incredibly toxic witness for the Commonwealth. Just really toxic. And quite frankly, if this wasn't a murder case, Proctor would probably have been the end of this case.
- [28:22]
Rich Showenstein
So the strategic questions are, one, should the prosecution call him at all or should they just ignore him? That's a hard question. Second question is, if they don't call him, are they going to have a witness tell the jury what happened to him? He's a pretty big missing witness. The judge will give a charge that missing witness is available to both parties. You shouldn't make any assumption about it, but he's a pretty big missing witness. And then the third question is, if the prosecution doesn't call him, should the defense call him? Because presumably they can subpoena and call him as a witness unless he has relocated and can't be reached. But presumably they can call him as a witness. And do they want to discredit him so badly that they would call him in the defense case? I think they might. I think they might. I mean, Jackson's cross examination of him in the first trial was one of the key moments of the trial. So I think the defense might go after him. And that leads me to believe it would be risky for the. The prosecution not to call him. You're basically conceding if you don't call him, and you're the prosecution, you are conceding that he cannot be trusted and did really bad things in this investigation.
- [29:49]
Kristin Thorne
And for the jury, his absence could speak louder than any cross examination. Because if Proctor doesn't testify, jurors might wonder why. Why not? Matt Timpanik makes it clear there's no scenario where Proctor simply disappears.
- [30:07]
Matt Timpanik
The Commonwealth is not going to hide him.
- [30:09]
Kristin Thorne
And here's why.
- [30:11]
Matt Timpanik
Because if Alan Jackson is able to control the direct examination, things might be a lot worse for the Commonwealth. Hank Brannan is a federal criminal defense attorney, so he knows the power of directing a witness allows you to control the examination, because cross examination is limited to only questions that are asked on direct examination. But if Alan Jackson is in control of it, he can ask whatever he wants that he deems relevant and box Hank Brennan into what he can ask on direct examination. Thus, there's no world where trooper Michael Proctor doesn't take the stand.
- [30:48]
Kristin Thorne
And when, not if he takes the stand, the stakes will be enormous. Because if the defense can get Proctor to contradict himself, to admit bias, or to show signs of a rushed or one sided investigation, it could tip the scales on credibility. But if he holds the line, appears measured and unflappable, it may neutralize months of narrative. It's a gamble either way. The jury's impression of him could shape how they view everything else. The evidence, the timeline, even the ARCA testimony. The moment Proctor takes the stand could become the gravitational center of this entire trial. And outside the courtroom, everyone's waiting for it.
- [31:38]
Rich Showenstein
There's 80 plus witnesses on these witness lists. But the ones that everyone wants to see are Jen McCabe, who we've seen, the ARCA guys that we've talked about, everybody loves those guys, Everybody wants to see them. The two Brian's, Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, everybody wants to see them get cross examined, and Michael Proctor. Those are the witnesses that everybody wants to see. Those are the days where the viewership on the streaming platforms will be the highest by far.
- [32:07]
Kristin Thorne
Because this trial isn't just a courtroom drama anymore, it's a national feed.
- [32:13]
Rich Showenstein
I've long thought this case was fascinating because it's an interesting case about an alleged hit and run leading to a fatality. And then you add on top of that, the intense scrutiny and public interest and the fact that there are people out there on social media, on both sides, people who are sure she is guilty, people who are sure she's been framed and, and they're vehement about their positions. And we're seeing this trial, we're seeing every minute of it because it's being broadcast live on the Internet where anyone can watch it. And not only that, now it's a retrial, it's a second trial. And this is probably the most scrutiny a trial has ever received in the history of trials.
- [33:06]
Kristin Thorne
But the online viewers are not who decides this case.
- [33:11]
Rich Showenstein
The outcome of this trial depends on 12 people who were in that courtroom who, if we trust what they said during voir dire, have not spent their last two years on the Internet debating this case, did not watch the first trial, and do not have a view of who's guilty and who's innocent.
- [33:33]
Kristin Thorne
The Internet can debate every frame of video, every facial expression, every possible motive. But the jury, the only audience that counts, has no rewind button, just testimony, exhibits, and the burden of proof.
- [33:50]
Ian Runkle
The jury ultimately will examine all of the evidence. Not piecemeal, but considering it as a whole.
- [33:57]
Matt Timpanik
Right?
- [33:57]
Ian Runkle
They're going to consider all of this to decide what they believe, what they don't believe, and what things they're certain of and what things they're less certain of.
- [34:08]
Kristin Thorne
And that, in the end, is what this trial will come down to. Not what's most viral, but what's most believable to 12 people in one room behind one closed door. In our next episode, we dive into the the testimony of another sticky character in this case, Sergeant Yuri Buchenic of the Massachusetts State Police, whose cringe worthy moments on the stand might just have you asking is someone about to flip? This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host Kristen Thorne. This episode was written and produced by Cooper Maul. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our editor is Anna McClain. Our associate producer is Tess Jagger Wells. Guest booking by Diane Kay and Alyssa Fisher. Legal review by Elizabeth Voulais. Key art designed by Shawn Penzera. Follow Karen in the Wondery app. You can binge the entire series early and ad free right now by joining Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify.