Flirts and Googles: S1-E6

Summary

Detailed Summary of "KAREN: THE RETRIAL" - Episode: Flirts and Googles: S1-E6

Introduction

In the gripping sixth episode of Season 1, titled "Flirts and Googles," listeners are taken deeper into the high-stakes retrial of Karen Read, accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, with her SUV. Hosted by Paula Barros from Law&Crime | Wondery, this episode delves into critical testimonies, scrutinizes digital evidence, and highlights procedural discrepancies that could influence the trial's outcome.

Key Witness Testimonies

1. Jennifer McCabe's Testimony

   Jennifer McCabe, sister to homeowner Nicole, takes the stand to recount the events of the stormy evening when John O’Keefe was last seen alive. Her testimony is pivotal, given her proximity to both Karen Read and John.

   • Timeline of Events:
     Jennifer describes exchanging texts with John en route from the Waterfall Bar and Grill, noting the timestamps:

     • 12:27 PM: "I see a car out front."
     • 12:31 PM: "Hello."
     • 12:40 PM: "Where are you?"
     • 12:42 PM: "Jen to John, where are you?" (03:06)

   • Observation of Karen's SUV:
     Despite repeatedly checking, Jennifer claims she did not see anyone exit Karen's SUV:

     "Did you see anybody exit from the dark SUV or black SUV you see in front of the house?" — Jennifer McCabe (03:52)
     "No." (03:52)

   • Subsequent Actions:
     Jennifer narrates the frantic search alongside Carrie Roberts and Karen Reid, culminating in discovering John's body. A critical moment arises when Karen urges Jennifer to "Google hypothermia" amid chaotic circumstances:

     "I attempted to Google how long does it take to die in the cold when you doctor that search?" — Jennifer McCabe (05:01)

2. Matt McCabe's Testimony

   Matt McCabe, Jennifer's husband, provides additional perspectives, particularly focusing on the behavior of Karen's SUV and his interactions with Karen during the early morning hours.

   • Observation of the SUV:
     Matt recounts seeing Karen's SUV multiple times outside the Alberts' house:

     "Each of these times, you're not just standing at the door or standing at the window staring out the entire time, correct? No..." — Matt McCabe (08:35)
     He notes the absence of observed damage to the SUV's taillight, despite claims it was broken:
     "Never saw any damage to the rear right tail light, correct?" — Matt McCabe (15:14)

   • Group Chat Revelations:
     Matt discusses group texts indicating a coordinated effort to present a unified story:

     "Tell them the guy never went in the house. It wasn't a story. It was the truth." — Matt McCabe (19:56)
     This exchange raises suspicions of witness manipulation.

3. Brian Higgins' Testimony

   Brian Higgins, an ATF agent with personal ties to both Karen Read and John O’Keefe, shares insights into his relationship with Karen and the nature of their interactions.

   • Romantic Involvements:
     Higgins admits to a flirtatious relationship with Karen, detailing their text exchanges and emotional dynamics:

     "I was physically attracted to her." — Brian Higgins (37:12)
     His testimony reveals underlying tensions that may have influenced events leading to John's death.

4. Sergeant Yuri Buchenik's Testimony

   Sergeant Buchenik, a first responding officer, is scrutinized for his handling of the crime scene and surveillance footage.

   • Crime Scene Handling:
     Buchenik admits that the interior of the Alberts' home was not secured as a crime scene:

     "We did not secure the home as a crime scene. Yes, I do know how to do that." — Sergeant Buchenik (50:06)
     This oversight questions the thoroughness of the initial investigation.

   • Surveillance Footage Concerns:
     Discrepancies in surveillance video, such as inversion and missing segments, are highlighted:

     "Everything in this video is completely backwards. It's a mirror image." — Sergeant Buchenik (51:15)
     These anomalies fuel speculation about evidence tampering.

Cross Examination Insights

The defense attorneys meticulously dissect witness testimonies to uncover inconsistencies and raise doubts:

• Jennifer McCabe's Digital Activity:
  Prosecutor Adam Lally challenges Jennifer's claims about her Google searches, suggesting premeditation or evidence destruction:

  "Did you delete that search because you knew that you would be implicated in John O'Keefe's death if that search was found on your phone?" — Adam Lally (31:18)
  Jennifer maintains her innocence, asserting she did not perform certain searches or delete evidence.

• Matt McCabe's Inconsistencies:
  Defense attorneys expose conflicting statements about the number of times Matt observed Karen's SUV, undermining his credibility:

  "Why is the first search correct and a valid search at 227, but the other one not a valid search at 628?" — Adam Lally (33:00)
  Matt struggles to reconcile his testimonies, weakening the prosecution's case.

Digital Evidence and Cell Phone Searches

A significant portion of the episode focuses on the interpretation of digital evidence:

• Cellebrite Data Analysis:
  Discrepancies between prosecution and defense interpretations of Jennifer's Google search timestamps create confusion:

  "The prosecution's expert says there's a search at 2:27 AM and 6:24 AM, but the defense disputes the timing." — Adam Lally (30:57)
  These conflicting reports raise questions about the reliability of digital forensic tools.

• Deleted Searches:
  The allegation that Jennifer deleted incriminating searches adds another layer of suspicion:

  "If she deleted that search, that would be even more incriminating." — Paula Barros (32:19)
  Jennifer denies any deletion, maintaining the searches were performed as per circumstances.

Surveillance Footage Issues

The manipulation of surveillance footage becomes a focal point during the trial:

• Inverted Video Evidence:
  Defense attorney Alan Jackson highlights the mirrored surveillance footage, suggesting potential tampering:

  "It's a mirror image that they're displaying because the lettering on the back of a patrol car is reversed." — Alan Jackson
  Forensic expert Alina Burrows counters, stating that inversion alone doesn't alter the data's integrity.

• Missing Segments:
  Gaps in the footage are exploited to cast doubt on law enforcement's transparency:

  "There's a portion of that video that was deleted. It's missing." — Alan Jackson (53:29)
  These omissions lead to skepticism about the prosecution's narrative.

Defense's Narrative and Strategies

The defense employs various strategies to introduce reasonable doubt:

• Alternative Suspects:
  By highlighting Brian Higgins' romantic interests and possible motives, the defense suggests alternative perpetrators, shifting focus away from Karen Read.

• Witness Coordination:
  The group chat between Matt McCabe and Brian Albert is presented as evidence of a coordinated effort to present a unified testimony, potentially undermining individual credibility.

Conclusion and Ongoing Drama

As "Flirts and Googles" concludes, the trial remains fraught with unanswered questions and conflicting evidence. The meticulous cross-examinations expose vulnerabilities in the prosecution's case, while the defense continues to weave doubt through witness contradictions and digital evidence ambiguities. With key testimonies scrutinized and digital footprints under the microscope, the episode leaves listeners on the edge, anticipating the next developments in Karen Read's quest for conviction or exoneration.

Notable Quotes

• Adam Lally on Digital Evidence:

  "If we can't trust the times that we experience extract from cell phones, because all that data they talked about, you can't do two searches at one time." (33:00)

• Brian Higgins Reflecting on Courtroom Dynamics:

  "It is so awkward in that courtroom. He had to read these really awkward, flirty text messages." (39:31)

• Defense Attorney Alan Jackson on Surveillance Footage:

  "It's a mirror image that they're displaying because the lettering on the back of a patrol car is reversed." (54:30)

Timestamps Referenced

• Jennifer McCabe's Initial Texts: 03:06
• Observation of SUV Without Seeing Someone Exit: 03:52
• Google Hypothermia Search Performed: 05:01
• Matt McCabe Observations: 08:35, 15:14
• Group Chat Coordination: 19:56
• Brian Higgins on Romantic Interests: 37:12
• Sergeant Buchenik on Crime Scene Handling: 50:06
• Surveillance Footage Inversion: 51:15
• Digital Evidence Reliability: 30:57, 31:18
• Expert Testimonies on Surveillance: 53:29, 54:30
• Courtroom Embarrassment: 39:31
• Final Cross-Examinations: 42:21

---

This episode of "KAREN: THE RETRIAL" masterfully unpacks the complexities of the case through detailed witness interactions, highlighting the intricate dance between prosecution and defense. As the trial unfolds, each revelation deepens the mystery, leaving listeners eager for the next installment.

Transcript

[Paula Barros]

Wondery subscribers can binge all episodes of Karen early and ad free right now. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

[Adam Lally]

This is a Law and Crime Network presentation.

[Paula Barros]

This podcast explores themes of violence and death and contains harsh language. Courtroom testimony has been edited for clarity and time. Please listen with care.

[Adam Lally]

When you told the group to tell them the guy never went in the hu, that was you talking about how you should all get your stories straight, correct? Then the texts get read and it is one hour of second hand embarrassment. I don't know how else to describe it. It was so awkward in that courtroom he had to read these really awkward, flirty text messages where it seemed like Karen Reid was hitting on him and he wasn't taking a hint. Yesterday, during the entirety of your question, not once did you mention that this video is actually completely inverted. I don't think any of that looks good. I think that was not helpful for the prosecution and I'm surprised that law enforcement people would do that. They should have known better. Anytime anybody gets rid of anything, it's either called spoliation of evidence or destruction of evidence. Who are you to decide what's important or not.

[Paula Barros]

From law and crime? I'm Paula Barros and this is Karen. Though two weeks had elapsed in the trial of Karen Reed, it showed no signs of wrapping up anytime soon. On its 14th day, May 17, 2024, prosecutor Adam Lally called a key witness.

[Adam Lally]

To the stand, Jennifer McCabe, sister to the homeowner Nicole.

[Paula Barros]

Remember, Jennifer was with Karen and John at the Waterfall Bar and Grill on the stormy evening John was last seen alive and with Karen the morning he was found dead.

[Adam Lally]

The prosecution seems to have leaned very heavily on the lay witness testimony from other people that were around, particularly Jennifer McCabe. I was thinking she was going to be one of their star witnesses.

[Paula Barros]

In the months leading up to the trial, she had been at the center of many of Turtle Boy's blog posts where he was claiming conspiracy. In fact, by the time she took the stand, Jennifer's alleged involvement in a cover up had been widely circulating online From Reddit to TikTok in cahoots with each other.

[Adam Lally]

They threw a guy out in the fucking snow and left him there. And they're blaming Gary Reed for it.

[Paula Barros]

In the ongoing quest for answers as to what really happened the night of January 28, 2022, Jennifer's testimony was predicated by resounding anticipation by onlookers far and wide. Sporting a Heather gray blazer, Jennifer approached the stand with a Confident demeanor, Prosecutor Adam Lally asked her to walk the court through the events leading up to the discovery of John's body outside the Albert home. Lally drew the jury's attention to texts exchanged between Jennifer and John while en route to the party from the bar.

[Adam Lally]

So this one is from myself to John and it says here at 12:27. So at that point I see a car out front and I text him here I sent to John. Pull behind me at 12:31 from me to John, saying hello. And it was at 12:40. Jen to John, where are you? And that was at 12:42.

[Paula Barros]

Jennifer claimed that as she was messaging John to no avail, she was able to see Karen's SUV through the window in the foyer. She had been periodically getting up from the kitchen table to get a sense of what the holdup was out in front of the Alberts home. But at one point, she says she stopped looking at 1240.

[Adam Lally]

When I say hello, I cannot be certain whether they were still out front or if they had left. Now, Mrs. McCabe, I can take you back to at the house on Fairview. Again, you are sending these text messages and going back to the table and then going back to the window at various times to the front door. Yes. And at any point in time, did you see anybody exit from the dark SUV or black SUV you see in front of the house? No.

[Paula Barros]

Not unlike the witnesses before her, Jennifer said John and Karen never made it beyond the driveway. She didn't think much of it at the time. That is, until she received a frantic phone call from Karen early the next morning.

[Adam Lally]

She tells me that John didn't come home. They got into a fight and that.

[Paula Barros]

She left him at the waterfall, prompting Jennifer's final text to John O'.

[Adam Lally]

Keefe. Myself to John, please answer at 4:59. Myself to John. Karen is worried. We need to find you at 4:59. Myself to John, please answer so I know you're okay. 504.

[Paula Barros]

The scene Jennifer found herself in nearly an hour after her last text to John was anything but okay. She walked Lally through each step that she, Carrie Roberts and Karen Reid made after they joined forces to track down John. Noting everything from seeing Karen's broken taillight to hearing her utter I hit him once his body had been discovered. Then, unbeknownst to Jennifer, she opened a can of worms. When she explained what happened after first responders arrived at 34 Fairview.

[Adam Lally]

We were in the back of the police cruiser.

[Paula Barros]

Karen was sitting in there.

[Adam Lally]

I kind of scooched myself. And Ms. Roberts came over. Karen grabbed our hands. She asked us to pray. She looked at her hands and she had blood. She asked us if she could have gotten her period. We told her no, that was John's blood. Then she said, what if he's dead? Promise me you'll take care of the kids. Someone's gonna take care of the kids. Then we prayed. Then at the end, they were moving John. And at that point, Karen told Kerry, go over, look, is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead? Over and over. And Kerry said, I'll go over and check on him. And she was yelling, are they working on him? And then at that point, she grabbed my hands and she said, google hypothermia. Google how long it takes to die in the cold. And so I had my phone out and it was cold and my hands were frozen and I have Ms. And I took my phone out while she was screaming and shaking my arm. And I attempted to Google how long does it take to die in the cold when you doctor that search? That was at the defendant's request on scene sometime after 6am on that day? Yes. You recall whether or not that came up or is research in Google? Is it something that you typed once or more than once? I believe I did it multiple times because as I was typing it, I don't know what else was coming up. She was screaming, my hands were shaking. And do you recall anything as far as what the search results were or did you click on anything or did you get an answer to the question the defendant opposed to you? I don't even think I got an answer because as I kept googling and she kept yelling and then they were moving John and the next thing I knew, we were kind of moving because she wanted to see if they were working on him.

[Paula Barros]

This wouldn't be the end of the questions about the alleged 6am Google search. Jennifer wasn't the only McCabe called to the stand that day. Her husband Matt, dressed in a black suit and light blue tie, got his shot at setting the record straight too.

[Adam Lally]

If you looked out the window or you looked out the storm door, at the front door, when you looked out, what, if anything, did you see? I noticed the big SUV parked in front of the house. And you know what color the SUV was at the time? It was dark. I didn't know if it was a black suv, a dark green or dark blue, but it was a dark SUV at the time. Were you familiar with either or both of vehicles of Mr. O' Keefe and or as a fen of misery? Yes, I I knew Karen drove a dock SUV.

[Paula Barros]

Matt testified that he saw Karen's car three times outside the Alberts house over the course of 12 to 15 minutes soon after he had arrived. But every time he saw the suv, he noticed something peculiar.

[Adam Lally]

Each of these times, you're not just standing at the door or standing at the window staring out the entire time, correct? No, just. Just looking out, being like, what the hell are they doing? And going back to my seat.

[Paula Barros]

Matt didn't think much more of it until the next morning when he was startled awake by his wife's phone call with a screaming. Karen Reed.

[Adam Lally]

And the screaming that you heard, how loud? It was loud enough to wake me up from a dead sleep. I could hear it. It was loud. Obviously I was laying in bed, realizing after my wife was laying right next to me on the phone. But it was a loud, Jen, Jen, Jen. It was repetitive. Do you know approximately what time that was? Yeah. Shortly before 5am I asked my wife, what the hell is going After I woke up and popped up looking around the room to find out who's in my bedroom. Assuming it was a kid, one of my kids screaming. I asked my wife, what is going on? And I could hear her saying, I'm on the phone with Karen. She can't find John.

[Paula Barros]

Matt McCabe said that Karen abruptly hung.

[Adam Lally]

Up, then called back the next call. We were informing the defendant that, wait, we saw your car. We saw you come to 34 Fairview. You. You guys were there. And I heard the response of I don't remember. I don't remember going there.

[Paula Barros]

Jennifer and Matt were mystified by this as they both had seen Karen's SUV outside the Alberts that evening. This begs the question, if Karen was so drunk that she doesn't remember leaving the waterfall with John and dropping him off at 34 Fairview Road. Can what she says about that night be trusted? Back on the other end of the line, Karen added another detail that we now know would become crucial to the commonwealth's case.

[Adam Lally]

She blurted that she broke her taillight, cracked her taillight, something to that effect while Jen and I were still in the bedroom and she was on the phone.

[Paula Barros]

In the early phases of the search For John, Matt McCabe attempted to reach out to him too.

[Adam Lally]

I know. I texted him and I think I called him as well. Pretty much, where the hell are you? I think it was when Karen Reed and my wife were leaving my house. I think I responded, where the hell are you now? Karen and Jen are out looking for you. In regard to those text messages. Did you receive any response from Ms. Doakie? I did not.

[Paula Barros]

Matt's testimony echoed what many other witnesses had claimed. Karen and John never entered the Albert home. Her taillight was broken. And upon realizing John was missing, Karen apparently implicated herself with emotionally charged utterances. But in Matt's cross examination, David Iannetti and Alan Jackson pulled at some of the looser threads and probed the gaps in his story. Janetti was particularly curious about the claims he had made about the various positions Karen's SUV was in while they were inside waiting for John. Matt said he was one of the last to arrive, and there were at least two other vehicles there when they pulled up. Parked at the end of the driveway, in front of the mailbox was a Jeep with a plow, which he confirmed was Brian Higgins. He then confirmed that the Jeep was still parked in the same spot when he witnessed Karen's SUV moving about out front. But according to the defense, there were inconsistencies in his statement. In a previous interview with Trooper Michael Proctor, he had said he only saw the SUV in two spots, not three.

[Adam Lally]

Trip planner by Expedia. You were made to have strong opinions about sand. We were made to help you and your friends find a place on the beach with a pool and a marina and a waterfall and a soaking tub. Expedia made to travel. What I'm concentrating on now, sir, is not what your memory is today or what you testified to the jury today. I'm concentrating on what you told Michael Proctor that very day on January 29, 2022. You initially told him that it was parked to the right of the house, the big, dark suv, and that you made those observations from the front door. And then you stated you looked out the front window and observed the same big, dark SUV had moved to the other side of the property. Correct. You would agree with me that you have contradicted yourself about how many times that it moved, correct? No. In May of 2024, yesterday and today, all three times it moved, it was moving further or farther up Fairview. In fact, you've testified now in May of 2024, that the third time that you saw it, the black SUV was even past the fire hydrant. And in fact, when you were talking to Michael Proctor, you had just observed the black suv. That's what it says on this paper. My recollection is always been I've saw the black suv.

[Paula Barros]

Yannetti dug deeper into Matt's communication with other witnesses, attempting to illuminate why his story could have changed since you talked.

[Adam Lally]

To Michael Proctor, it's fair to say that you've had multiple conversations about this case with your family, correct? Of course I've talked about this case. Yes. You've also, since you talked to Michael Proctor, have had multiple conversations about this case with your in laws, correct? Yes. That also includes in person conversations as well as phone calls and texts, correct? That is correct. And since you gave that statement to Michael Proctor, you've had multiple conversations specifically with Brian Albert, correct? Yes, I've talked to Brian Albert. That includes in person phone calls and texts, correct? That is correct. Would you agree with me that in terms of the changes in your version of events from what you've testified during this trial to what is in Michael Proctor's report, you put the SUV father down Fairview toward Chapman Street. Now, your testimony during this trial puts the SUV past the fire hydrant, almost toward the neighbor's house, correct? That is correct.

[Paula Barros]

Matt was backed into a corner. He was unable to deny that his story had changed. The seasoned defense attorney he is, David Iannetti, squeezed yet another intriguing detail out of Matt McCabe, one that prosecutor Lally seemingly glossed over.

[Adam Lally]

Well, however many times you saw that black suv, you'd agree with me, you never observed any damage to the rear of that vehicle, correct? Correct. Never saw any damage to the rear right tail light, correct? Correct.

[Paula Barros]

While Matt's recollection of how many times he saw Karen's SUV out front was up for debate, it appeared he was steadfast in his memory that the taillight was not broken in each instance he observed the vehicle. If Karen's SUV taillight was actually cracked, doesn't it seem odd that Matt McCabe's apparently watchful eye didn't notice it? It's head scratching, to say the least. For the defense's next line of questioning with Matt McCabe, they had more to go off of text messages exchanged between him and Brian Albert on January 29, 2022, after Carrie Roberts had been interviewed.

[Adam Lally]

By police in that discussion at 3:03pm and 15 seconds, it was Brian Albert who texted, quote, hope they don't think she's making it up after the fact for some reason. End quote. Correct? Yes, that's correct. And then less than a minute later, which was at 3:05 and two seconds, where he said, but if they barely interviewed her, that's on now, correct? That's from Brian. Yes, that's correct.

[Paula Barros]

If they were confident their versions of the story were accurate, why would Matt and Brian express concern over Carrie's account? And there was more On February 1st.

[Adam Lally]

Of 2022, at 12:51 and 49 seconds, you texted the group chat to say, ask Chris to ask some questions, correct? Yep. And who was the Chris you were referring to? That would be Chris Albert, Brian's brother, correct? That is correct. And then you then texted your wife, Brian Albert and Nicole Albert, quote, tell them the guy never went in the house, correct? That's part of the same text, yes. Mr. McKee, who was the guy that you were referring to? Does he have a name? That would be John o'. Keefe. When you told the group, tell them the guy never went in the house, that was you talking about how you should all get your stories straight, correct? No. You would agree with me that your stories are all straight in terms of the guy never went in the house, correct? John never went in the house. It's not a story, it's a fact. Well, when you said, tell them the guy never went in the house, Brian Albert was on that exchange still, was he not? He was still part of the group text. Yes. Brian is on the exchange. And Brian Albert was the one to respond, wasn't he? Yes, he did. And then at that point you knew Brian Albert was the oldest brother of the Albert family, correct? Yes, that's correct. The oldest sibling in that family, correct? Yes, that's correct. And in his response to your instructions that his younger brother Chris should say that John o' Keefe never went in the house or the guy never went in the house, you would agree with me that he responded with one word, correct? Yes, he did. And in response to you saying the guy never went in the house, Brian Albert's response was exactly correct? Yes, that's his response.

[Paula Barros]

On its face, this exchange in the group chat could be interpreted by some as a group of witnesses conspiring to assemble a unanimous story. For onlookers and jurors who may have been leaning in the direction of the COVID up theory, this digital footprint only added insult to injury. And on day 15, Matt's wife Jennifer had some texts of her own to answer for.

[Adam Lally]

Did you ever have any group chats with family members who are witnesses in this case? Yes, I'm most interested in the group chat between yourself, Nicole Albert, Brian Albert, Matt McCabe, starting on or around February 1, 2022, on February 1, 2022, around 2:15 in the afternoon, on this group chat, did you receive a message from your husband on the group quote, Julie said Channel 4 is in de see that? Yes. The response from Matt McCabe is eating, I assume, quote, ask Chris to ask Some questions. Tell them the guy never went in the house. End quote. You see that? Yes. You look at the next page, there's a one word answer from Brian Albert. What is that answer exactly? Does it appear to you from this chat that Matt McCabe was directing witnesses, specifically Chris Albert, what to say to the news media? That is not how I would understand this. Tell them he never went in the house. Was the story that had been concocted between and among this group of people on this chat, correct? No.

[Paula Barros]

John never went in the house.

[Adam Lally]

It wasn't a story. It was the truth. And it is the truth. Just like she said, I hit him. Correct. So according to this chat, at least the very base level, this is one witness telling another witness to give certain information to the media that could be useful to the group. Correct. Tell them the guy never went in the house. Right.

[Paula Barros]

Presented with this evidence, Jennifer began to unravel. Here's Alita Majejeka with what she noticed watching her cross examination.

[Adam Lally]

I think that her cross examination really started to pull apart her, I guess.

[Paula Barros]

You could say, narrative.

[Adam Lally]

Her personality also her character started to come into question in a lot of different ways.

[Paula Barros]

And reporter Christina Rex, who was in the courtroom that day, remembers the staggering differences between the Jennifer who took the stand on day one and the Jennifer who appeared in court on day two.

[Adam Lally]

Jen McCabe was one of the witnesses. That was night and day on direct examination versus cross. You had heard a lot about her in openings, we had heard a lot about her outside of the courtroom. You know, she was one of those witnesses that the defense really had pointed to. And she came in and she testified for the Commonwealth and she seemed like a perfect witness. You know, composed answers to everything, remembered details, had text messages to back it up. A mother of four girls really remembered details. And then on her cross examination, she kind of fell apart. And she was emotional and she was defensive.

[Paula Barros]

Christina was able to send something that others in the courtroom may not have picked up on or been privy to.

[Adam Lally]

I don't know if the jury knows this because they probably don't know the backstory, but you could tell that the animosity she felt towards the defense attorneys because of the narrative that had been created about her and her family ahead of this trial that came out on the stand. It was so tense in that courtroom, in my opinion, more tense during Jen McCabe's cross examination than any other period in the trial.

[Paula Barros]

And as Jackson and Yannetti pressed on, the tension only grew, especially when more of her phone activity was put under their microscope.

[Adam Lally]

Jen McCabe googled how long to die in cold. Now this was supposedly done at the request of Karen Reed. Problem was the search was made prior to either one. Knowing that O' Keefe was deceased on January 29th in the early morning hours. I want to take you all the way back to 1:31:45am when you left 34 Fairview on the 29th after you dropped off the girls, where did you and Matt McCabe go? We came home. After you got home, you indicated that you went upstairs. Correct?

[Paula Barros]

Correct.

[Adam Lally]

After you went upstairs, you indicated that you got on the phone. Correct. After you got on your cell phone, you indicated that you started searching for something. Correct. So if there's GPS that you've seen the forensic extraction or part of it. Correct. Which one are you referring to? Forensic extraction of your phone. I saw what you showed me yesterday.

[Paula Barros]

From Celebrate, forensic data expert John Lucich told us more about Cellebrite.

[Adam Lally]

Cellebrite is one of the gold standard products out there to use for cell phone imaging and analysis. Cellebrite data shows that you were engaging with an app called Safari to engage some Google searches, correct? Yes. That would be generally accurate as well, correct?

[Paula Barros]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

So after you opened up Safari, you indicated that you Google searched something about Ozone Basketball, is that right? Yes. That was sometime after 2am, right? Yes. What was so important about ozone basketball at 2am that it couldn't wait until the morning? Why did you search it then? Well, first I was home, I was wide awake and I had been texting about a basketball chat and basketball was.

[Paula Barros]

Clearly on my mind.

[Adam Lally]

My daughter had been invited to join a team. I didn't know much about the team, so I just was like googling to see because the woman who had given my daughter the offer had wanted an answer. So you say that the basketball was on your mind, correct? Yes. Was there anything else on your mind in the early morning hour timeframe? Don't believe so.

[Paula Barros]

Here's where things get a little complicated.

[Adam Lally]

Jen McCabe's testimony was consistent with this, that around 2 2:15 in the morning, she's lying in bed doing some Google searches on sports teams for her daughter, basketball teams for her daughter and the extraction experts say, yep, there was definitely Google searches around that time for sports teams, which was consistent with Jen McCabe's testimony.

[Paula Barros]

Where the experts depart though, is how.

[Adam Lally]

The how long before a body dies in the cold searches actually happened. And there were two of them. Ms. McCabe, if you wanted to know in general how long it takes for a human being to pass away because of exposure to extreme temperatures. Right. If you wanted to know the answer to that, what would you Google search? What phrase would you use? I'm not sure. All I recall is what the defendant asked me to Google in the morning. I'm asking a different question. If you personally wanted to know how long does it take for a person to die of exposure due to extreme temperatures, what would you put in? What phrase would you use? Well, we don't have to guess at the phrase that you would use if you wanted to know something about dying of hypothermia, do we? Did you in fact use a phrase to Google search how long it takes for someone to die of extreme temperatures? I did. In the morning. At the request of your client. What does that Google search say? House long to die in cold. Now, you indicate that you made that search at 6:23am Correct?

[Paula Barros]

Correct.

[Adam Lally]

And then you indicated that you did it again thereafter at 6:24. Correct? Correct. At 6:24 you misspelled the phrase and you spelled it as follows. How long ti die in cikd? Correct. Correct. Now, you claim that those two searches were at 6:23 and 6:24am respectively. I don't know if I gave exact times, but I said it was in the morning and Karen had asked me to do it. Exactly. You claimed that you searched it because Karen was screaming at you or yelling at you. Google hypothermia. She said something like, how long does it take for a person to die of hypothermia? You Google searched it at 6:23 and 624. Is that right? Again, I'm not sure about the exact times. I just did it after Karen asked.

[Paula Barros]

Me to do it. But that's not what the celebrite data purported.

[Adam Lally]

According to that, the celebrate data. You see this first search that says hoss long to die in cold? I do. What's that time?

[Paula Barros]

2:27Am or p.m. a.m. Jennifer's story began to crumble at this moment. In her cross examination, problems began to arise for the prosecution. Here's attorney Ian Runkle.

[Adam Lally]

One of the key issues, and this is one that gets a lot of argument, is this issue of this Internet search which either occurs between 2 and 3am and if she does that search between 2 or 3am then the Commonwealth's case falls apart because they had to be aware at that point that John o' Keefe was dying in the cold at a time when nobody should have known except by the prosecution's theory, Karen Reed. And so if, if Jen McCabe was aware of that fact between 2 or 3am Then the prosecution's entire case falls apart. I don't think that you can reconcile that search at that time with a theory that supports conviction.

[Paula Barros]

Jackson boldly proceeded.

[Adam Lally]

Ms. McCabe, you made that search at 2:27am because you knew that John O' Keefe was outside in your sister's lawn dying in the cold, didn't you? Absolutely not.

[Paula Barros]

I did not make that search at that time, no.

[Adam Lally]

The next morning, after John was discovered after 6am that you had an incriminating search on your phone, didn't you? Absolutely not. To cover your tracks, you searched it again in order to overwrite the original search at 227. Correct? Again, absolutely not. But you were nervous and you screwed it up. So the first search you made at 6:23 was cost long to die in CIKD. No. When you see the search right there. Correct. I see the search, but I disagree with your narrative. And what's the time frame of that search? 6:23. And you agree that time frame is accurate, right?

[Paula Barros]

Again, it's what the report says that.

[Adam Lally]

Comports with your memory of that morning. About 6:23 in the morning and 51 seconds there's a second search, correct? Correct. And this one at 6:24 says host long to dying cold. 6:24 18. Correct? Correct. And that comports with your memory as well? I remember Googling it at the request of the Defendant, yes. About 27 seconds apart, correct? Yes. But the reality is your first search didn't comport with the 2:27am Search, did it? It was a different spelling, wasn't it? I never searched a227. That is not reality. But the 624 search did exactly mirror the search that according to this report took place at 227. Correct. I'm sure Cellebrite will be able to explain it to you.

[Paula Barros]

I can't. John Lucich explained how the defense's experts and the prosecution's experts may have arrived at different conclusions for the exact time the Google search was made.

[Adam Lally]

I think part of the disconnect in this particular case is that person who originally did the imaging, which I believe might have been the state police, used an older version of cellebrite where the other person who found additional data used a newer version.

[Paula Barros]

To be clear, the defense also used cellebrite data, but the report they ran interpreted the time of the search differently.

[Adam Lally]

The prosecution's expert says that when you open up a tab on your phone and you just sort of lock your phone or you Just, you know, swipe away the tab. You don't actually X out the tab. That that creates a timestamp and that that timestamp does not get updated when you reopen the tab. So if I go and just take my phone and I'm like, okay, I'm done searching, lock my phone. And then I go to unlock it again and that search comes, that same Google search that I just did pops up on my Safari tab. The timestamp on that is going to be when I first opened the first did the search, not when I reopened it. And that's why the prosecution says there's.

[Paula Barros]

A discrepancy between a 2am appearing like.

[Adam Lally]

There was a 2am search for how long before body dies in the cold and the 6:22 and 6:24am searches. They say that the tab was opened at 2 something in the morning and that's why the tab just didn't update. But that the search itself actually occurred at 6:22 and 6:24. Defense expert says no, that's not what happened. The search happened at the time the tab was opened.

[Paula Barros]

And their review found more than just the alleged time the Google search was made.

[Adam Lally]

Of those three searches, one of them ended up deleted. Isn't that right? I never deleted any search.

[Paula Barros]

The report said otherwise.

[Adam Lally]

Take a look at the celebrity report. Top search, the column marked deleted. What do you see?

[Paula Barros]

I see a yes.

[Adam Lally]

Ms. McCabe, the reason you deleted that 2:27am call because you realized that if you were caught googling how long it takes for a person to die in the cold, three and a half hours before John's body was found, that would incriminate you, wouldn't it? Did you delete that search because you knew that you would be implicated in John o' Keeffe's death if that search was found on your phone? I did not delete that search. I never made that search at 2:23. I never would have left John O' Keefe out in the cold to die because he was my friend that I loved. Of the three searches that show up that were all found on your phone, the one that you disavow is the one that took place at 2:27am which would implicate you and exonerate my client. I wouldn't even know how to go in and delete a certificate. The one according to the Cellebrite report that was deleted, the one at 2:27am Correct? Correct. You would agree that that's awfully convenient.

[Paula Barros]

For you if Jennifer McCabe did make the how long to die in the cold? Google search at 2:27am that would say a lot. If she deleted it, that would be even more incriminating. But if she didn't even make the search until after John's body was found, then, well, this evidence is ultimately moot. But the conflicting interpretations of the cellebrite data didn't help Karen or Jennifer and thus did nothing to tamp the flames of conspiracy, just like so much of the evidence thus far in the trial, making things confusing even for the experts closely following the case.

[Adam Lally]

It doesn't make sense to me if we can't trust the times that we experience extract from cell phones, because all that data that they talked about, well, you can't do two searches at one time. And there was another search being done exactly at 227. Okay, let's assume that's correct. Why is the first search correct and a valid search at 227, but the other one not a valid search at 227, that it really occurred at 628? I, I they just are anomalies that if they're not explained, then they shouldn't be allowed to be put in as evidence. They both can't be right.

[Paula Barros]

And Ian Runkle hypothesized how the conflicting reports could land for the jury.

[Adam Lally]

They have experts that say that that's sort of a digital artifact, a digital oops, essentially. And so that's either sort of weak evidence towards Karen Reid's guilt or else, if you flip it the other way, a complete failure of the prosecution's case.

[Paula Barros]

But attorney Matt Timpanik says there's an important factor to consider with regard to the experts consulted in the case.

[Adam Lally]

What was important is expert witnesses for a defense are paid. No matter what anybody says, they are paid, and they are paid to say what you want them to say.

[Paula Barros]

So who can we trust? The witnesses subpoenaed by the machine of the Commonwealth's District Attorney's Office, or the paid experts called upon by the team desperate to prove their client's innocence? On May 24, day 17 of the trial, more digital footprints were traced when the next witness was called for direct examination.

[Adam Lally]

Brian Higgins was an ATF agent who was close personal friends with John o', Keefe, Karen Reed and the Alberts. Higgins also had somewhat of a history with Karen Reed.

[Paula Barros]

Higgins was on the stand all day explaining that history.

[Adam Lally]

You went to John o' Keeffe's house at some point to watch the Patriots game on January 16, right? Yes. That was the time when you indicated that when you left, Karen gave you a kiss goodbye, correct? Yes. It's safe to say that that was not some hot, passionate, long kiss. But you think it was more than just a friendly pet, correct? I wouldn't describe it as a peck. I describe it as more than friends. It was a kiss.

[Paula Barros]

And a kiss wasn't all that the two were exchanging.

[Adam Lally]

After that incident, you exchanged flirtatious texts with Ms. Reed, is that right? I did.

[Paula Barros]

Higgins recalled that for nine days after the kiss, he and Karen continued to text each other, but never had another physical interaction. Here's what reporter Louise Fieldman remembers about what came next.

[Adam Lally]

It became known that he had shared some flirty text messages with Karen Reed. At one point, he had gone over to John o' Keefe's house to watch a Patriots game with Karen Reid there, and they had shared a kiss that night. And then from there, it seems like if you go back to his testimony, he's reading his test messages for, like, over an hour. They're talking about John o' Keefe's relationship, they're talking about the kids, and he's trying to figure out kind of what's going on.

[Paula Barros]

Their text exposed the discord in Karen and John's relationship in the days leading up to John's death.

[Adam Lally]

Over the course of that week or so, Ms. Reed did explain her feelings about her relationship with Mr. O', Keefe. Correct? In the text messages, during the pendency of communication, she did express. Yes. And she indicated that there's a difference between being married to someone and dating someone, et cetera. We saw those texts. Is that right? Yes. She also indicated that in. In terms of the situation in Aruba, she was upset by that, but it's not that big a deal. Correct? It was clear to me she was upset, and she said, I don't care too much about that other girl. Right. That's what she said in text. Right. She said something along the lines of, I'm just trying to be realistic. There's cracks in the relationship. It's far from perfect. Is that right? I think that's something she texted.

[Paula Barros]

From their text exchanges, it appeared that Higgins harbored romantic feelings for Karen. But Karen's attorney, Alan Jackson, didn't want to only go off of assumptions. He began by asking Higgins very directly about his apparent crush.

[Adam Lally]

You were showing romantic interest in Karen Reid, aren't you? I was interested, but I don't think I was at the romantic phase. Well, what do you mean by romantic? What's the romantic phase? Sending somebody flowers, dating. Well, there's a difference between dating and hanging out. It's kind of hard to date somebody when you have a boyfriend. Not if both people were dating other people. Right. Happens all the time, doesn't it? My question is, you seem to have a problem admitting that you had a romantic interest in my client. Is there a reason for that? I was attracted to her. Right. Physically attracted? I thought she was an attractive woman. Romantically attractive. You were sexually attracted to her? I was physically attracted to her, yes. Sexually attracted to her was my question. Well, I think in the text I said, you're hot. Okay. So My question again, Mr. Higgins, you seem to not want to answer my question. My question is, were you or were you not sexually attracted to my client? Yes. Okay. You were saying things like, what do you want from me? And I want the real deal. Those are your words, correct? Yes. And the real deal with you would be to date her, to get involved with her romantically? Correct? No. The real deal was what. What did you mean by I want the real deal? Like a relationship. What kind of relationship? A buddy buddy relationship. The same thing. Everybody wants a real relationship. It's possible. And she was answering with things like when you said, now what? She answered, I don't know. Correct. Yes, she did. When you said, so now what? She answered, now what what? Correct. I think on one occasion she did, yes. Okay. And you remember you just read a text where you texted, what do you want from me? And her responsive text was. I don't know. Correct. I think that was one of the texts, again, with this theme of her being non committal one way or the other. Is that right? That's not how I would interpret it as a theme, no. Well, didn't you just say she was non committal? That was your word, not mine. I did, but as I told you, it's been a process of trying to suss it out and see what this was all about. Right. So when you were sussing it out and determining whether or not you were going to advance this romantic interest, she was sort of non committal, wasn't she? Well, not one person advances it. I think that's a. That's a joint thing. You texted, you want the real deal? She responded, it doesn't exist. Didn't she? She did, yes.

[Paula Barros]

Christina. Rex remembers when Higgins was subjected to recounting his texts with Karen. She couldn't help but cringe.

[Adam Lally]

It is one hour of secondhand embarrassment. I don't know how else to describe it. It was so awkward in that courtroom. He had to read these really Awkward, flirty text messages where it seemed like Karen Reed was hitting on him and he wasn't taking a hint. He wasn't really understanding what was going on.

[Paula Barros]

Making things even more uncomfortable. It appeared Karen had left Higgins on red.

[Adam Lally]

From looking at these discussions, it looks like it's because Higgins kind of came on too hard. He was looking for a lifelong commitment, whereas she was kind of flirting around. And so she sort of broke that off. And then on January 23rd, she just stopped communicating with you altogether, correct? Until the 29th, yes. Correct. Do you know what the term ghosted means? I think I have a general idea, yes. She sort of ghosted you, didn't she? I wouldn't agree with that. When it was suggested to him that Karen Reed ghosted him, he looked hurt and offended by that. But that actually seems to be consistent with the evidence.

[Paula Barros]

But Higgins continued on with a brave base.

[Adam Lally]

That was frustrating to you that she just stopped communicating, wasn't it? No, not at all. You had been moving through this mindset of exploring a romantic interest with a beautiful woman thought was interested in you. Just like that. Done, right? No. So what communication did you have with her after January 23rd? Well, she texted me on January 29th. You keep saying that, but you know what I'm getting to? January 29th was her informing you that a tragedy had occurred, John had died, right? I'm not Talking about that, Mr. Higgins. Up to the 23rd, she had been texting back and forth with you pretty regularly. You saw it, correct? She also sent me a text with arrow saying the phone works both ways. And as of the 23rd, she stopped, didn't she? The texts were sporadic over those nine days. I don't know if they would have stopped or they would have kept going. Well, they didn't keep going, did they? Well, John passed away. You know, they didn't keep going because from the 23rd onto the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, all the way to the 29th, she never texted me, right? I believe so. She didn't respond to any of your texts, correct? Well, she didn't respond to the text on the 28th. Friday.

[Paula Barros]

Onlookers of the trial wondered, what exactly was Jackson trying to get at by dragging all this out?

[Adam Lally]

Alan Jackson kind of pointed to those texts. The defense's job, obviously, is to create reasonable doubt. With the case that they're putting forward, the burden of proof isn't on them. So by using this third party culprit defense, they're saying that there's other people who could have done this. And for example, here's one individual who could have had the motive. And that being that the relationship was unclear between this individual and Karen Reed. What Alan Jackson was saying is that he was jealous, that he wasn't getting the responses that he wanted.

[Paula Barros]

Could the jealousy have morphed into animosity directed at John o'? Keefe? And in turn, could that animosity have escalated to a physical altercation in the Albert home on the 29th? Higgins cell phone came under further scrutiny in the latter half of his cross examination.

[Adam Lally]

Did you take the SIM card out of your phone? Yes or no? I don't know. Did you testify that that's what you do when you get rid of phones, Sir? What I said was that might have been the extent of it if I was to have done that. And you either cut up the SIM card or ripped it up, correct? I believe what I testified to was I would have given you what you testified to. I'm asking you today, did you either cut up the SIM card or rip it up, Cut it up or broke it? And you will agree with me that cutting up or breaking the SIM card destroys the SIM card, does it? Not the card itself? Yes. That would have been the purpose in terms of cutting it up or ripping it up, to destroy it, correct? Yes. And you wanted to make sure that somebody couldn't put that SIM card in their phone and potentially access your data, correct? No. That wouldn't be the reason why when.

[Paula Barros]

John Lucid caught wind of this development, his ears perked up.

[Adam Lally]

Anytime anybody gets rid of anything, it's either called spoliation of evidence or destruction of evidence. Who are you to decide what's important or not? Once there's litigation involved, your normal course of business goes out the window. But would be more important is exactly when he got rid of that SIM card and what he thought was contained on that SIM card. But people get rid of things for a reason, and that's important.

[Paula Barros]

The ultimate fate of the SIM card was revealed.

[Adam Lally]

And you'll agree with me that you took that destroyed SIM card and put it in a trash bag, did you not? I believe it went in a trash bag, yes. Well, you used a passive voice. It went in a trash bag. Did it fly out of your hand unexpectedly into a trash bag, sir? No, sir. It would have been disposed of with the phone. No, I understand. But are you reluctant to say that you put it in a trash bag, sir? No, you, Honor. I put it in a trash bag or with my trash. You also took your phone. Now, without the SIM card. And you put that in the trash bag, too, did you not? Yes, sir. Then you drove to a military base and you threw both the destroyed SIM card and the phone into a dumpster, did you not? Well, I was cutting through the base, and I believe, how I testified, was a military base, sir. I was cutting through a base, yes. Did you drive to it? Yes, sir. And then you put both the destroyed SIM card and the phone itself, which were in a trash bag, into a dumpster on that military base, did you not believe that's what I did? Yes. And as you were driving away, you knew that that destroyed SIM card and the phone would be gone forever, correct? Yes, I threw it away.

[Paula Barros]

Anybody who spent any time living on or near a military base would find Higgins journey there to dispose of a SIM card. Unusual, to say the least. Like Alida Mijieka, his explanation about why.

[Adam Lally]

He went to a military base to do that is not the most convenient way to go about anything unless you have business actually there. Now, you might look at that and go, that's so strange. Why would you go all the way out there for that? That's so weird.

[Paula Barros]

What was stored on that SIM card that Higgins needed to so urgently discard?

[Adam Lally]

And before you drove away, you did not transfer anything from your old phone to the new phone, correct? That's correct. You lost all of your photos on that phone, did you not? Whatever photos I had on there. I did, yes. You lost all your videos on that phone, did you not? To the extent if I had any. You lost all of your other text messages besides the ones that you had with Karen Reed and John o', Keefe, correct? That's correct. And you knew that you did have text messages on that old phone with Kevin Albert. He's a friend. Most likely, you also had text messages on your phone with Nicole Albert. Most likely. Yes. And you had text messages on your phone with Brian Albert. Yes. It was important to you that no one see those text exchanges that you had with those three members of the Albert family. No, sir, that's not true.

[Paula Barros]

True or not, those who hung on every word of Higgins Cross, like legal analyst Rich Showenstein, agreed to. That's certainly what it looked like.

[Adam Lally]

I don't think any of that looks good. I think that was not helpful for the prosecution, and I'm surprised that law enforcement people would do that. They should have known better.

[Paula Barros]

Another day of the trial, another log thrown into the conspiracy theory bonfire. Brian Hagan's testimony did not help the prosecution on day 21, June 6, 2024. Sergeant Yuri Buchenik was called back to the stand for cross examination. The day prior, he had testified about physical evidence and multiple surveillance videos of Karen Reed's SUV both the day before and the day of John o' Keefe's death. The on duty officer, the day John Okeefe was found, sat at the stand in a blue suit and turquoise tie, his short hair neatly combed over. Jackson approached Buchanak with curiosity about a note he had made after observing John's injuries at Good Samaritan Hospital.

[Adam Lally]

Your initial investigation during those obviously critical hours, the beginning hours, led you to believe that there was at least a good possibility. You indicated that you made a phone call, that it was a physical altercation that led to John o' Keefe's death, correct? That's correct, yes. What steps did you take in those moments to. To determine whether someone in the house at 34 Fairview may have been involved in that physical altercation that you suspected at the time? As investigations develop, we followed the evidence and statements made. The steps I took was Trooper Proctor and I proceeded to an eyewitness who was also present at the scene when the victim was discovered and interviewed Ms. McCabe. And prior to that, prior to interviewing Ms. McCabe, by the way, that was at Ms. McCabe's home, correct? That's correct. Even though you believe that there may have been a physical altercation, you didn't ask anybody to come down to the station, is that right? Any of the witnesses? That's correct.

[Paula Barros]

You'd think a first responding sergeant who couldn't rule out the possibility of a physical altercation would at least do the due diligence of bringing witnesses in to see if any of them supported his suspicion, right? That wasn't the only step he overlooked.

[Adam Lally]

And you did not seek to actually go to the physical location of 34 Fairview in those next few hours? That's correct. For the next few days, Correct. Not myself, no. As a matter of fact, Trooper Proctor did not either, did he? No, he did not.

[Paula Barros]

Buchenik's testimony made it seem like Trooper Proctor felt little to no sense of urgency to secure the scene. Jackson saw this moment as an opportunity to question their aptitude as investigating officers. And from there, things grew a bit caustic.

[Adam Lally]

You didn't secure the interior of the house as a potential crime scene. You certainly know how to do that, right? That's a compound question. Do you want me to answer whether I did it or whether I know how to do it? Well, I'll ask the question if you can answer it. Please answer it. Okay. And you answer that question. I can answer that question. Why don't you answer both of them? First portion is, we did not secure the home as a crime scene. And the second portion, Yes, I do know how to do that.

[Paula Barros]

While the snarky back and forth between a defense attorney and a witness is entertaining, like watching a real life version of your favorite courtroom drama, Buchenik's testimony ultimately didn't provide an answer as to why the crime scene inside or outside of the Alberts home was never secured. Like everything before it, Buchanak's testimony left a lot to be desired. More questions, less answers. And his time in the hot seat wasn't up just yet. Jackson called his attention to a glaring discrepancy in surveillance footage from the Sally Port garage where Karen's SUV was stored and examined after investigators took it into their possession.

[Adam Lally]

And yesterday, during the entirety of your question by Mr. Lally, not once did you mention that this video is actually completely inverted. Did not know.

[Paula Barros]

Neither prosecutor Lally nor Sergeant Buchanak acknowledged the surveillance footage was fully flipped, which confounded the hordes of people watching the trial closely. Jackson played the footage again to get everyone on the same page.

[Adam Lally]

If you take a look, a close look, there's a classic police car in that selling point, Correct. There's an antique vehicle there. Yes. Yes. If you take a close look at the trunk of that vehicle, the word police. Yes, I believe I can read that. Yes. And it's background. Correct. It is mirrored, Correct. That's a good indication that this is an inverted video, right? It appears that way, yes. If we were to to Fast forward at 5:42, you see the Sally Ford garage came down. Yes. You see a number on the garage? I do. Is that correct? What is correct? Does the number appear correct? How do you make the four? No. The number's in the mirror image. Yes. I just wanted to make the point. Everything in this video is completely backwards. Correct. It's not backwards. It's mirrored, reversed. You can look yourself in the mirror in the morning. You still see your own face. It's not backwards. But my mirror images is not an accurate depiction of who I am. Physical appearance is who I am. Correct. A mirror image, Sergeant, is not an accurate video of this, is it? It's a mirror image by definition.

[Paula Barros]

While Buchenik acknowledged the video was flipped, it seemed he couldn't find a reason as to why this would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. But Jackson noticed something else that puzzled him.

[Adam Lally]

There's One other issue I want you to pay attention to, if you can, right at this moment or right before this moment, and that is the time stamp. Instead of paying attention to the individuals, I'm going to ask you, can you see the time stamp 5, 37 and 37 seconds pm can you see that from where you're at? No, I cannot. Did you see another person just appear toward the rear end of the car? There was a fog of some sorts. It did appear as if there was two people back there and two people walked away or one person walked away. Timestamp jumped to 5 hours, 38 minutes and 1 second. Correct. I cannot see the timestamp, sir. Did it appear that there was an anomaly? There was a portion of that video that was deleted. It's missing. Not deleted, but just missing. I cannot tell what is happening with the video.

[Paula Barros]

Here's Ian Runkle with what he was able to discern from this portion of the tape.

[Adam Lally]

There's gaps in it, there's places where the video just drops out. And further, the video appears to have been inverted, which makes the officers look like they're not getting near this tail light.

[Paula Barros]

Former CSI Alina Burrows told us how she caught on to the fact that the surveillance video was apparently inverted.

[Adam Lally]

When we look at the video captured from from the storage bay where the vehicle is kept, we can tell that this is a mirror image or inverted because there's a numeral, the numeral 4 on the wall of the garage, which appears backwards.

[Paula Barros]

Buchanan remained steadfast in his conviction that none of the footage was deliberately tampered with. But why wouldn't he have flagged these discrepancies from the get go, especially when they were so obvious? It certainly didn't reflect well on the department.

[Adam Lally]

Even if that was done accidentally. It looks bad to a jury, it looks bad to the public when they see these things and they say, wait a minute, why is this going on?

[Paula Barros]

Alina offered a counterpoint.

[Adam Lally]

When we see Karen Reed's vehicle in custody at the police department, the camera angle is pointed towards the driver's side of the vehicle. In this same video, we see law enforcement gathered at the passenger rear where our broken taillight in question is. Now, the question is, did law enforcement specifically place the vehicle in that position so that the passenger rear of the vehicle wasn't captured by camera? In court, they bring up this issue of the inverted image. You can clearly tell that this is a mirror image that they're displaying because the lettering on the back of a patrol car is reversed. I liken this to taking a picture of yourself on your cell phone. If you take that image, whether or not you flip it, invert it, or mirror that image, the data captured is the same. So if we did invert that image, we don't get to see the passenger side of the vehicle. We just get to see a flipped version of what we have, which is the driver's side. So inverted video is of no consequence. It's not gonna reveal a different camera position. So police know where the video camera is in the garage. And if they wanted to do something on the passenger, you put that side away from the camera. So the inverted video, to me, I'm not really sure why that was such.

[Paula Barros]

An issue, but that's not how Karen's defense saw it. Outside the courthouse after Buchanan's cross examination, Jackson was approached by a slew of reporters hoping to make sense of the altered surveillance footage.

[Adam Lally]

How did you discover that the image was inverted? I saw the word police and thought I had dyslexia. You saw that yesterday when they played it the first time. Saw it last night? No, when they played it the first time, I was completely taken by surprise When I saw the number four on the. On the sally port door, that was a pretty good indicator. And then obviously with the word police, and then we started looking closer and I realized that the driver of the car gets out of the passenger side. It became clear last evening. So the video is inverted. It's completely inverted. It's a mirror. New metric suggests the the driver's side is the master side. By versus manipulated the altered video on purpose. Would the mechanic have to be part of a cover up? Would he have to know about it? No, no, no, no. He's just, you know. No, not at all. Not at all. Somebody. Somebody wanted that video to be inverted.

[Paula Barros]

And if it wasn't Buchenk, who else could that somebody.

[Adam Lally]

Triple? Proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other eight individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public, did you? If you could just read the three responses from yourself, sir. Okay. Steve's came from me. Funny, I'm going through his retarded client's phone. No nude so far. With reference to the investigation at this point, talking about his client's phone, who are you referring to? Ms. Reed? And then you write back, quote, she waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital. Right. Correct. You used the phrase waffled about a Boston police officer who had fallen in the snow and died in someone's yard, and you decided to use the word waffled in these juvenile, unprofessional comments have zero impact on the facts and the evidence and the integrity of this investigation. You decided on the 29th of January, 17 hours into the this investigation, you decided individually, Trooper Proctor, you're not only gonna put it on the girl, you decided you're gonna make sure this is cut and dried. And the way you're gonna do it is to make sure that she's fucked.

[Paula Barros]

That's all coming up on the next episode of Karen. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Paula Barros. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our producer and writer is Cooper Maul. Our editor is Corey Hiltman. Our researcher is Stephanie Doucet. Our bookers are Alyssa Fisher and Diane Kay. Legal and fact checking by Elizabeth Voulai. And special thanks to Shawn Panzera for designing our key art. 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 App, Apple podcasts or Spotify.