#FREEKARENREAD: S1-E4

Summary

KAREN: THE RETRIAL - Episode #FREEKARENREAD: S1-E4 Summary

Release Date: November 6, 2024
Podcast: KAREN: THE RETRIAL
Host/Author: Law&Crime | Wondery

---

1. Introduction and Case Background

At the turn of 2023 into 2024, nearly two years after the tragic death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, the legal battle surrounding Karen Reed reignites with intense scrutiny and heightened public interest. Initially, the case had quieted, but new revelations brought Karen Read back into the spotlight as her retrial approaches amidst mounting pressure and controversy.

---

2. Emerging Evidence and Allegations

A pivotal moment in the case occurred on [01:50], when Detective Lieutenant Brian Tulley of the Massachusetts State Police released an affidavit implicating Karen Reed’s family in the investigation. This revelation introduced significant new evidence:

• Karen Reed’s Communication with Turtle Boy: Karen had exchanged 189 phone calls lasting over 40 hours with Aiden Kearney, also known as Turtle Boy, since April 2023. These communications were uncovered during an investigation into Turtle Boy’s witness intimidation charges.

• Evidence from Cell Phones: Authorities seized two cell phones from Karen’s residence, initially seeking evidence of conspiracy to intimidate witnesses. However, these phones revealed extensive communication between Karen and Turtle Boy, as well as between Turtle Boy and Karen’s attorneys, Alan Jackson and David Yannetti.

Notable Quote:

“The prosecution will tell you that's because it snowed and the snow melted... The idea that they started finding tiny pieces and then only later found big pieces is just very strange.”
— Attorney Adam Lally [06:09]

---

3. Defense Strategies and Allegations of Evidence Planting

The defense team, led by attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yannetti, leveraged the new evidence to argue that the taillight fragments containing Officer O’Keefe’s DNA were planted by Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator with personal ties to the Albert family.

• Inconsistencies in Taillight Evidence: The defense pointed out discrepancies in the timing and location of where the taillight pieces were found, suggesting they did not align with Karen’s vehicle’s movements at the time of the incident.

• Public Spectacle: The case garnered unprecedented public attention, with hundreds of supporters rallying outside the Norfolk County Superior Court, creating a "festival atmosphere" unprecedented in Massachusetts.

Notable Quote:

“And the only rational conclusion is Officer O’Keefe was struck by this vehicle because they matched the taillight that was cracked.”
— Attorney Adam Lally [07:36]

---

4. Prosecution’s Response and Evidence Strength

Prosecutor Adam Lally countered the defense’s claims by emphasizing the overwhelming evidence against Karen Reed:

• Physical Evidence: Microscopic pieces of the taillight with Officer O’Keefe’s DNA were found on both Karen’s vehicle and the officer’s clothing, inconsistencies that the defense failed to adequately explain.

• Crime Scene Integrity: The prosecution maintained that the evidence strongly indicated that Karen was responsible for the officer’s death, dismissing theories of evidence tampering as implausible.

Notable Quote:

“If the jury believes that physical evidence was there not because Proctor planted it, but because she actually hit him, then I think you've got a guilty, at least on the motor vehicle homicide charge.”
— Attorney Adam Lally [09:00]

---

5. Public and Media Presence

The high-profile nature of the case attracted significant media coverage and public demonstrations:

• Supporter Demographics: Crowds comprised a diverse mix of individuals, including families, women, children, and older adults, all rallying in support of Karen Reed. Reports indicated a 70-30 women-to-men ratio among the protesters.

• Symbolism and Messaging: Supporters wore "Free Karen Reed" T-shirts, some mimicking Massachusetts license plates, and carried signs demanding justice and fairness.

Notable Quote:

“You could be Karen Reed, I could be Karen Reed. Any one of our daughters could be Karen Reed.”
— Reporter Christina Rex [37:22]

---

6. Pretrial Hearings and Defense Motions

The defense launched several motions aiming to derail the prosecution’s case:

• Motion to Dismiss the Case: Karen’s attorneys argued that the investigation was compromised by Trooper Proctor’s involvement and sought to have the case dismissed. They highlighted Proctor’s text messages indicating a potential quid pro quo relationship with the Albert family.

• Motion to Disqualify DA Michael Morrissey: Allegations arose that DA Morrissey had a personal interest in the case’s outcome, further suggesting bias and undermining the trial’s integrity.

Prosecutor Lally vehemently opposed these motions, asserting that the defense was attempting to divert attention from the substantial evidence against Karen.

Notable Quote:

“The defense is obfuscating from the overwhelming evidence that was presented to this grand jury from a multitude of sources.”
— Prosecutor Adam Lally [15:22]

---

7. Investigation into Police Conduct and Potential Conflicts of Interest

The defense’s case intensified following:

• Internal Investigation into Trooper Proctor: On March 13, it was confirmed that Trooper Proctor was under internal investigation for potential policy violations, reinforcing the defense’s claims of misconduct.

• Text Messages Revealing Bias: Proctor’s communications, including a [26:18] text discussing the Albert family's involvement, suggested favoritism and possible evidence tampering.

Notable Quote:

“Newly uncovered text messages from the feds revealed that on January 19, 2022... Michael Proctor texted his own family members discussing the specifics of having Julie Albert babysit for his toddler child.”
— Attorney Adam Lally [26:18]

---

8. Public Reaction and Trial Preparations

As the trial date approached on April 16, 2024, tensions escalated:

• Crowd Control Measures: To protect jurors and witnesses from the large crowds, a 200-foot buffer zone was established around the courtroom, though this was a point of contention with prosecutors initially requesting a larger buffer.

• Final Pretrial Hearings: The prosecution filed motions to restrict the defense from presenting a third-party culprit defense, a central strategy of Karen’s legal team. While the prosecution argued that allowing such a defense would undermine the case, the judge chose not to rule immediately, leaving the jury to consider the possibility of additional culprits.

Notable Quote:

“John O'Keefe's injuries are consistent with having been in a fight and are not consistent with having been hit by a car... Therefore, if John O’Keefe was not hit by a car, as both our expert and FBI confirmed, then he was attacked.”
— Attorney Adam Lally [40:03]

---

9. Conclusion and Upcoming Trial

With the dismissal motions denied, Karen Reed’s trial looms large, set against a backdrop of intense public support and swirling allegations of investigative misconduct. The episode closes with anticipation of how jurors will navigate the complex web of evidence and defense claims, setting the stage for a highly anticipated courtroom showdown.

Final Thoughts:

“Yet you still see folks out there with all types of different clothing and representations of this case and signage, and it sometimes takes on this kind of air of like a rally.”
— Mass Live Reporter Louise Fieldman [36:12]

For listeners seeking an in-depth understanding of Karen Reed’s retrial and the multifaceted legal battle, this episode provides a comprehensive overview of the critical developments shaping the case.

---

Credits:
Host: Paula Barros
Executive Producer: Jessica Lowther
Producer & Writer: Cooper Maul
Editor: Josh Kleefeld
Researcher: Stephanie Doucet
Bookers: Alyssa Fisher & Diane Kay
Legal & Fact-Checking: Elizabeth Vouli
Special Thanks: Shawn Panzera

Listen Exclusively on: Wondery+, available via Wondery App, Spotify, or Apple Podcasts.

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. Please listen with care.

[Adam Lally]

What the defense is obfuscating from is the overwhelming evidence that was presented to this grand jury from a multitude of sources. 42 separate witnesses, 50 exhibits, over 1400 pages of transcripts which clearly demonstrate and indicate that the defendant, Karen reed killed John O'. Keefe. On February 1, 2022, three days after John O' Keefe was killed, there was another text message. In this one, Michael Proctor's sister texts Michael Proctor very specifically just saw Julie and Julie said when all this is over, she wants to give you, Michael Proctor, a thank you gift. You can't help but be near the Norfolk county super and see hundreds of people in support of Karen Reid. This is a spectacle the likes of which, as far as I know, in Massachusetts has never occurred. I think that's when it really became clear that this was not your typical case.

[Paula Barros]

From Law and Crime, I'm Paula Barros and this is Karen. At the turn of 2023 into 2024, nearly two years after the untimely death of John O', Keefe, chatter around the case of Karen Reed had quieted. But the calm was short lived. On January 31, 2024, a Massachusetts State Police affidavit by Detective Lieutenant Brian Tulley dropped a bombshell revelation. Her family's involvement has been looked at with Turtle Boy.

[Adam Lally]

She's been implicated in her involvement with him as well.

[Paula Barros]

Karen Reed and Turtle Boy had been in contact, and they weren't just exchanging glances in the court halls. In fact, the report alleged the two exchanged 189 phone calls lasting over 40 hours, dating back to April 2023. But how did the Massachusetts State Police get to those staggering numbers in the investigation into Turtle Boy, AKA Aiden Kearney's witness intimidation charges? Led by Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey, a warrant was ordered to seize two cell phones from Karen Reed's residence. The state troopers tasked with retrieving the cell phones were operating under the assumption that these phones could contain evidence of the ongoing conspiracy with Turtle Boy to intimidate witnesses. But evidence of the phone calls between Karen and Turtle Boy were not the only thing they found. Here's prosecutor Adam Lally with what the investigation revealed.

[Adam Lally]

There is a significant history between this defendant, Mr. Yannetti, Mr. Jackson, and the social media blogger Mr. Kearney, who's now been indicted for intimidation of witnesses. In this case, there is a precipitous amount of phone communications, indications of communications between Mr. Kearney and Ms. Reed on a signal messaging app, an encrypted app, as well as, I believe, about 189 phone calls over a span of a few months. There is also going back to the spring 23, direct communications between Mr. Kearney and Mr. Yannetti and Mr. Kearney and Mr. Jackson. They went out to lunch with Mr. Kearney following a court date in May of 2023, again, I would suggest, is a large minimization of what actually has transpired here.

[Paula Barros]

In Special prosecutor Ken Melo's investigation into witness intimidation, a new name popped up that caught his team's interest. Natalie Berschneider. Natalie was a college friend of Karen's based in California. The two had reconnected after Natalie had caught wind of the case. Massachusetts State Police interviewed Natalie, who then claimed that Karen expressed interest in Turtle Boy, reporting on her ongoing legal battle. Using the encrypted messaging app Signal, Natalie would send screenshots of her text conversations with Karen and send them to Turtle Boy. And what Karen shared with Natalie to pass along to Turtle Boy could understandably raise some eyebrows. Natalie told investigators that Karen shared everything with her. Her charges, information about witnesses, photos of witnesses, the home address of Trooper Michael Proctor, photos of the crime scene evidence, police reports, motions filed by her attorneys, and even John o' Keefe's autopsy report. These messages were frequently signed off with notes like tell Turtle Boy from Karen and not for public but you and Aiden can see. Adding insult to injury, it was discovered that Karen also shared the audio of the 911 call when John O' Keefe's body was found with the subject. Do not share. And these discovery motions didn't just implicate Karen either. Phone records revealed Turtle Boy had been in direct contact with her attorneys and Alan Jackson and David Yannetti, too. In response, the two claimed they had not spoken with Turtle Boy until after he began publishing information about Karen, insinuating they never fed the blogger information from the outside looking in, the defense team appeared to be in bed with someone charged with witness intimidation. Things were getting messy to say the least. Come February, Turtle Boy's communication with Karen and her team wasn't the only evidence under scrutiny. On the 22nd, in a 3,000 page report, US Attorneys unveiled the long awaited results of the crime scene evidence tests. The primary pieces in question, Karen's broken taillight. Here's attorney Matt Timpanek with what they.

[Adam Lally]

Uncovered in his clothing, they found microscopic pieces of her tail light that are so small you couldn't even pick up.

[Paula Barros]

And the pieces of taillight that were big enough to recover from the scene and allegedly matched Karen's SUV came back with traces of John o' Keeffe's DNA. Attorney Jennifer Roman remembers where the DNA was found.

[Adam Lally]

There's a piece of John Okeefe's hair on her rear quarter of her car.

[Paula Barros]

But the when and how of the taillight pieces is still an enigma. Legal analyst Rich Showenstein says right out the gate, the pieces of taillight in question became contentious.

[Adam Lally]

Here's the problem. They weren't all found at the same time. Some of them were found at different times. The prosecution will tell you that's because. Because it snowed and the snow melted. There were microscopic pieces of taillight found on John o' Keeffe's clothing. But that clothing was apparently in the trunk of Trooper Proctor's car for some period of time.

[Paula Barros]

These gaps in time in recovering the pieces of taillight gave the defense something to chew on. They refuted the evidence with their own theory.

[Adam Lally]

Now, ultimately, the defense theory on the tail light is it was planted. They tried to question when it was cracked. There was a little bit of conflicting testimony from police officers about how cracked or damaged the taillight was at various times. There was also a bag of taillight evidence that had three pieces and suddenly had five pieces.

[Paula Barros]

Onlookers like Alita Majeika were flummoxed. Once the defense laid bare the gaps in the taillight investigation, she didn't know what to believe.

[Adam Lally]

There are certain elements that are still very big questions for me that were brought up by the defense. Those taillight pieces, they really don't match the photos that were taken of the back of Karen Reid's car before it was picked up by Trooper Proctor and Trooper Buchanan.

[Paula Barros]

You know, and then also there's the testimony of Officer Barros from the Dighton.

[Adam Lally]

PD who said it was cracked. There was a small piece missing, but it wasn't fully damaged. Those, along with this idea that there were taillight pieces that were sort of over time, discovered in the snow. The idea that they started finding tiny pieces and then only later found big pieces is just very strange. There's just so much there that is so, so strange.

[Paula Barros]

It's a potential issue jurors would have to mull over once the trial begins. If Ian Runkle were on the jury, he would be asking himself, could this.

[Adam Lally]

Plastic have been placed there by an Officer.

[Paula Barros]

And depending on whose argument is stronger, this evidence alone could have serious consequences for Karen Reid. If the jury believes that that physical.

[Adam Lally]

Evidence was there not because Proctor planted it, but because she actually hit him, then I think you've got a guilty, at least on the motor vehicle homicide charge.

[Paula Barros]

The physical evidence Jennifer Roman alluded to just now could alone allow jurors to come to a more formidable conclusion. Conclusion.

[Adam Lally]

Like Matt Tympanic, the defense was arguing that this was a conspiracy. Michael Proctor and all this. That it was an unsecured crime scene. This, that, and the other. Okay, all well and good, but unfortunately, when you have those pieces of tail light in the clothing that are so small that how would somebody actually plant this if you can't even pick it up? And the only rational conclusion is Officer o' Keefe was struck by this vehicle because they matched the tail light that was cracked.

[Paula Barros]

Because.

[Adam Lally]

And those same taillight pieces were found on his clothing.

[Paula Barros]

And if she didn't strike John with her vehicle outside of the Alberts home that night, where else could she have broken her taillight? Security footage from John O' Keefe's home on the morning of January 29th shows Karen backing out of his driveway, presumably on her way to look for him. His SUV is parked at the foot of his driveway.

[Adam Lally]

So the defense was trying to argue with that. When she backed up into Officer o' Keeffe's vehicle, that's when her tail light cracked.

[Paula Barros]

Matt says this claim has holes in it, too. For him, it's the taillight pieces on John's clothing that are just too difficult to look past.

[Adam Lally]

Unfortunately for her, there were two real issues with that. One, none of the pieces of the tail light were found near Officer o' Keeffe's vehicle that she backed up into. Could they have been picked up and moved? Yes. Okay. But when they're actually found, they're actually found at the scene. And the other piece of the taillight were found on his clothing. So when you put it all together, it's like, okay, all right, maybe they could have picked up the big pieces and moved them over to the crime scene. All right, to plan. All right, that's. That's possible, but how does the other pieces get on his clothing that you can't pick up?

[Paula Barros]

And for those more aligned with the stance of the prosecution, there's more. If you believe the physical evidence was.

[Adam Lally]

Not planted by Proctor, that he didn't have the means, the motive, the ability, whatever, then that physical evidence is very compelling. The pieces of the taillight, the Pieces.

[Paula Barros]

Of glass John o' Keeffe's seen on.

[Adam Lally]

Video security footage leaving the Waterfalls Bar.

[Paula Barros]

The last place where they had been.

[Adam Lally]

Drinking before going to the Alperts home carrying a glass. That glass is found on the scene.

[Paula Barros]

Crushed by his body. The glass seen on the security footage found by John's body outside the Alberts home certainly made it undeniable that whether Karen or somebody else killed him, John did in fact make it to the outside of the Alberts home the night of January 28, 2022. And in light of the latest evidence presented by the prosecution, Judge Beverly Canoni delayed the start of Karen reed's trial from March 12 to April 16, 2024. While the trial may not have begun March 12, both the prosecution and defense found themselves back in a pretrial hearing at Norfolk County Superior Court that day. This time, Karen's attorneys brought forward a motion in response to the federal prosecutor's February evidentiary report. They now wanted the case dismissed altogether. Karen sat between her attorneys in a black suit with white pinstripes as Alan Jackson approached Judge Kanoni, arguing in favor of dismissal. Citing that the integrity of the case had been tainted by its lead investigator, Trooper Michael Proctor, he suggests, oh well.

[Adam Lally]

These are just a couple of text messages. It's no big deal. We're talking about the integrity of a sitting grand jury and the presentation before that grand jury, what Mr. Lally now has in his possession. But he didn't mention now that he says, oh well, she killed him. Let's just get on with it. She killed him. He's already tried and convicted her in his mind and tried to do it in this courtroom.

[Paula Barros]

Trooper Proctor wasn't the only person implicated in Alan Jackson's argument either. Upon review of the 3,000 pages of evidence, Karen's defense team finally found a new crutch to lean on. The prosecution's own experts concluded they found nothing in their investigation that led them to believe Karen killed John with her SUV.

[Adam Lally]

Now Mr. Lally has in his possession another thing from the feds that we didn't have access to. The federal investigators hired independent of us hired a professional reconstructionist to look into exactly this issue. That her SUV made contact with John o'.

[Paula Barros]

Keefe.

[Adam Lally]

And their conclusion? His injuries were inconsistent with the damage on the car. The damage on the car was inconsistent with having been made, having made contact with John o' Keeffe's body. In other words, the car didn't hit him and he wasn't hit by the car. Period. Full stop.

[Paula Barros]

Sasha hated sand.

[Adam Lally]

The way it stuck to things for weeks. So when Maddy shared a surf trip on Expedia Trip planner, he hesitated. Then he added a hotel with a cliffside pool to the plan and they both spent the week in the water. You were made to follow your whims. We were made to help find a place on the beach with a pool and a waterfall and a soaking tub and of course, a great shower. Expedia made to travel.

[Paula Barros]

These particular findings were never shared with the grand jury.

[Adam Lally]

The information that we've been talking about today wasn't presented to the grand jury. We're talking about the integrity of a proceeding. He doesn't get to convict my client by standing up here and pounding the fist, pounding the table and saying, oh, she did it, she hit him. So let's just all get on with it. Deny this motion. We're talking about the integrity of what is the foundation of Massachusetts judicial system. And that integrity was compromised, that integrity was impaired. And it demands that justice be done. And that justice is in the hands of this court. Dismiss this indictment. That is the only way justice will be found in this case.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor Adam Lally responded to Jackson's argument, claiming the defense's strategy zeroed in on one detail while overlooking what his team believed was a mountain of evidence substantial enough to not only bring Karen Reid to trial, but to find her guilty of murder.

[Adam Lally]

Counsel wants to say that Commonwealth is asking the court or everybody to sort of look the other way when it comes to these things. What I would submit is that's exactly what the defendant is doing. Look the other way. Defense by obfuscation. It's essentially, it's a three card Monty trick, you know, card trick on the corner, on the side. Look at all of this, look at this relationship, look at that relationship conflating these relationships. Sort of the distortion that I would say between what exists in social media realm and what exists in reality. That if you know someone, that automatically means that you're best friends with them. Every single one of their siblings, every single person that they've ever met or socialized with. One social interaction, you know, transforms into a long standing 20 year relationship. All of those things. What the defense is obfuscating from is the overwhelming evidence that was presented to this grand jury from a multitude of sources. 42 separate witnesses, 56 exhibits, over 1400 pages of transcripts which clearly demonstrate and indicate that the defendant, Karen Reed killed John o'. Keefe.

[Paula Barros]

Dismissal of the case wasn't the only argument Lally and Jackson went head to head on during this pre trial hearing. Next, the defense entered yet another motion.

[Adam Lally]

I've been practicing criminal law as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney for over 30 years now. Never have I seen such unethical conduct from a prosecutor. And now we are here with a motion to disqualify Mr. Morrissey from further prosecuting this case because he has a personal interest in the outcome.

[Paula Barros]

The unethical conduct that David Yannetti claims occurred goes back to August 2023, when District Attorney Morrissey released a video. In the wake of COVID up theories seeping into headlines and the subsequent witness harassment spurred by Turtle Boy's Free Karen.

[Adam Lally]

Reid movement, 11 people have given statements that they did not see John O' Keefe enter the home at 34 Fairview that night. Zero people have said that they saw him enter the home. Zero. No one. These people were not part of a conspiracy and certainly did not commit murder or any crime that night. They have been forthcoming with authority providing statements and have not engaged in any cover up. They are not suspects in any crime. They are merely witnesses in the case. To have them accused of murder is outrageous. To have them harassed and intimidated based on false narratives and accusations is wrong. They are witnesses doing what our justice system asks of them. I'm asking the Canton community and everyone who feels invested in this case to hear all the actual evidence at trial before signing guilt of people who have done nothing wrong, and certainly before taking it upon yourself to harass citizens who evidence shows have done nothing in this matter but come forward and bear witness. We try people in the court and not on the Internet for a reason. The Internet has no rules of evidence, the Internet has no punishment for perjury, and the Internet does not know all the facts.

[Paula Barros]

In the March 12 hearing, David Iannetti spoke on his interpretation of DA Morrissey's.

[Adam Lally]

Video before any trial has occurred, he called the defense theory in this case a false narrative. Before any trial has occurred, he announced his opinion that nobody within the home at 34 Fairview participated in any murder or any cover up. Before any trial, he vouched for the credibility of Commonwealth witnesses, Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe and Brian Albert. He announced that those witnesses were forthcoming. In other words, truthful. Before any trial has occurred, DA Morrissey announced that the defense theory is, quote, a desperate attempt to reassign guilt, end quote. Given those broad statements of Mr. Morrissey's opinion that Karen Reid is guilty, can you believe that the da, in their opposition to this motion, had the audacity to claim that DA Morrissey's words were narrowly tailored to the harassment of witnesses. It goes without saying, but your words are not narrowly tailored if you're a prosecutor vouching for the credibility of witnesses, particularly after a judge told you not to do that. DA Morrissey announced every potential juror in Norfolk county not that someone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. The words innocent until proven guilty never came out of his mouth.

[Paula Barros]

Yannetti and Jackson were of the opinion that the public release of the nearly six minute video violated their client's right to a fair trial and that D.A. morrissey's office failed to disclose information regarding the additional federal probe into the communication between Turtle Boy and Karen Reid. For them, these actions were oversights worthy of disqualification.

[Adam Lally]

DA Morrissey has an interest in this case not to do justice, but to win. My client deserves a neutral, impartial prosecutor, and it's crystal clear we do not have that in Michael Morrissey.

[Paula Barros]

Making matters more complicated, Jackson and Yannetti also claimed the U.S. attorney's office, in the wake of these perceived missteps, launched a federal investigation into the District Attorney's Office that proffered further grounds to remove him from the case.

[Adam Lally]

There's information and evidence that's been provided by the federal authorities which deals with the egregious conduct of both the District Attorney and his investigators and the police.

[Paula Barros]

But the validity of said investigation remains a bit of a mystery. A spokesperson from the U.S. attorney's office issued a statement in response to Jackson and Yannetti's claims, reading, at no time has the U.S. attorney's office named any person or entity as a target of an investigation to anyone. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office doubled down, issuing a statement of their own. They claimed that neither DA Morrissey nor anyone else in their office had ever been a target of a federal investigation, and that Yannetti and his team misrepresented that detail completely. When given the opportunity to rebuttal, Prosecutor Lally presented an argument that skirted any mention of D.A. morrissey, but argued that Yannetti and his team were kept well aware of the probe into the relationship between Turtle Boy and Karen.

[Adam Lally]

What is also clear from the federal grand jury is that this was an investigation which was initiated by the defendant and Mr. Yannetti. So to claim that he was in the dark or didn't know about this federal investigation. Every bit of discovery that the federal government has from the state case was provided by Mr. Yannetti. Nothing was asked for from the Commonwealth, nothing was asked for from the District Attorney's office, the state police. I have no idea what they have seen or what they haven't seen, how much of the file, how much of the discovery or anything else, it's all sort of been provided and colored by Mr. Yannetti. And this goes back to November of 2022. So to then claim that you were sandbagged or didn't know about an investigation that you initiated over a year before until late in December of 2023 is disingenuous. Would be about the nicest term that I can come up with for that.

[Paula Barros]

Tensions were clearly mounting between the defense and prosecution. It appeared that the more information revealed, the less clear this case was becoming. Unlike most investigations, more evidence seemed to only make everything even more complicated.

[Adam Lally]

I've often said that every crime scene is a puzzle, but what happens when you can't trust the pieces you have? That's the biggest thing we're looking at here, is when the integrity of investigation is called into question. We're left trying to determine if the evidence is really showing a true picture of what occurred.

[Paula Barros]

With these new arguments, entered the hearing to dismiss the case and throw DA Morrissey out of it. Adjourned without a firm decision by Judge Kanoni on whether or not to dismiss Karen's case completely or disqualify District Attorney Morrissey. As the legitimacy of the investigation into DA Morrissey became subject of debate. Just one day after the motions to dismiss were entered, another investigation into a key player was confirmed. On March 13, the Massachusetts State Police confirmed that Trooper Michael Proctor, lead investigator in the death of John o', Keefe, had become subject of an internal investigation for a potential violation of the department's policies. While the language of their statement was vague with regard to what prompted the investigation, onlookers and online sleuths felt strongly it just had to be in connection to Proctor's alleged missteps at the scene. The announcement of the investigation into Trooper Proctor emboldened the defense's theory that he had hid his personal ties to people involved in the case. Attorney Jennifer Roman remembers what at this point the defense had alleged about Proctor.

[Adam Lally]

The theory from the defense around Trooper.

[Paula Barros]

Proctor is that because of this personal relationship that he had with the Alpert.

[Adam Lally]

Family and he knew it was their.

[Paula Barros]

Residence, that he was certainly a large part of planting physical evidence to make.

[Adam Lally]

It seem like this crime occurred or.

[Paula Barros]

That something happened outside of the home, rather than taking the attention of the responding officers into the home. And the timing of the confirmation felt serendipitous, as it had only been 24 hours since Alan Jackson invoked the long standing Relationships Proctor had had with witnesses as grounds for dismissal.

[Adam Lally]

The commonwealth withheld from the grand jury clear and even more egregious conflicts of interest as they pertain to Michael Proctor. Sergeant Link was aware of this irremediable conflict the Canton police department had and that he should have had with the Alberts. So what does he do? He calls in Massachusetts State Police, and who do they send but Michael Proctor. And that's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. That's the same Michael Proctor who's also years long close family friends with the Alberts. The Proctors have called the Alberts their, quote, second family. And to that point, now we have benefit of some hindsight, and that's the federal investigation. We have been saying since September 16, 2022, in lengthy motions that we filed before this court and filed with the Commonwealth, there is a conflict. You're not investigating the conflict. That conflict was never described to the grand jurors. And we've been robust at every single turn.

[Paula Barros]

And the conflict wasn't just conjecture. Proctor's digital footprints did paint a picture of his close ties to the Alberts.

[Adam Lally]

Newly uncovered text messages, but from the feds revealed that on January 19, 2022. Think about that date. That's 10 days before the incident. January 19, 2022, Michael Proctor texted his own family members discussing the specifics of having Julie Albert babysit for his toddler child. We should all let that sink in for a second.

[Paula Barros]

Former crime scene investigator Alina Burrows remembers. These text messages certainly went against how Proctor had characterized his relationship with the Albert family.

[Adam Lally]

Lead investigator Trooper Michael Proctor indicates through a series of text messages from his personal phone that he is in close alliance law enforcement. He's clearly biased against Karen Reed and willing to cover for fellow law enforcement officers.

[Paula Barros]

He had contradicted himself at the outset.

[Adam Lally]

He. He basically said they were acquaintances, sort of having been in the same law enforcement community, that of course they knew each other, but they weren't really friendly.

[Paula Barros]

And Proctor's testimony didn't hold up for long. But then there was evidence and testimony that came out that she.

[Adam Lally]

But Proctor's sister was actually very close with one of the Alpert wives and that there was more of a personal connection than what Trooper Proctor had originally testified to.

[Paula Barros]

Text messages between him and his sister after the death of John O' Keefe raised red flags, too.

[Adam Lally]

And there's more. On February 1, 2022, three days after John O' Keefe was killed, there was another text message. In this one, Michael Proctor's sister Texts Michael Proctor very specifically and writes the following quote, Just saw Julie and Julie said, when all this is over, she wants to give you, Michael Proctor, a thank you gift. Michael Proctor didn't respond with, that's inappropriate. These are witnesses, these are potential suspects. Please tell her don't ever do that again. Don't ever suggest an exchange of gifts again. That would be inappropriate. I'm going to go write a report. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Lally, and Mr. Lally is going to turn that information over to the defense and to the court. No, that's what he should have done. What he did do is he responded, Get Elizabeth 1, his wife. In other words, get the gift from my wife. It'll be a little less obvious. So now we have the lead investigator from Massachusetts State Police literally discussing the exchange of gifts between the Albert family on the one hand and the Proctor family on the other hand, as a thank you, their words for helping the Alberts out of a jam. And if you looked up quid pro quo in the dictionary, you would find this set of text messages.

[Paula Barros]

Trooper Proctor's response certainly begs the question, was he doing the Alberts a favor in some way? And if so, what exactly was the favor for the defense? These communications just couldn't be overlooked and they played perfectly into the constellation of alarm bells they were sounding to them. Trooper Proctor was at the helm of the COVID up part and parcel of.

[Adam Lally]

The defense's theory is that they were so well known that this family would have people who'd want to protect them and not want to rock the boat, so to speak, by challenging what they.

[Paula Barros]

Saw outside, by going into that home.

[Adam Lally]

By investigating the home and figuring out what actually happened, that the, you know, the first responders just said, oh, we've got this. That text exchange between Trooper Proctor, who was a lot of the spotlight of this, I mean, a lot. The defense really focused a lot on him and definitely had their theory that Proctor planted a lot of the physical evidence that was found at the scene and then ultimately in Karen Reed's vehicle. And Proctor had a text suggesting that.

[Paula Barros]

The Alberts would be fine, which the.

[Adam Lally]

Defense really hung their hat on, sort.

[Paula Barros]

Of saying that that was suggestive of.

[Adam Lally]

The fact that Proctor knew something was going on.

[Paula Barros]

But no, he was taking care of.

[Adam Lally]

It because this is the Alberts.

[Paula Barros]

In response to the defense's theory and the news of the investigation into Proctor, his attorney, Michael Distefano, issued an emailed statement that read, to be clear, Trooper Proctor remains steadfast in the integrity of the work he performed investigating the death of Mr. John O'. Keefe. To the extent that Trooper Proctor's personal text messages are alluded to in court proceedings regarding Ms. Reed, he respectfully submits that the objective investigative steps he and members of his unit took are in no way undermined by the content of the personal messages. And Proctor's colleagues stood by him, too. He remained on active duty as the internal investigation marched on. On March 20, in another pretrial hearing, Yannetti and Jackson requested records from the investigation into Trooper Proctor. That motion was granted with no objection. But their next ask seemed to ruffle some feathers. Yaneti approached Judge Kanoni requesting phone records from April 2023 to present of Brian Albert, Brian's brother Kevin Albert, who is a Canton police officer, and ATF agent Brian Higgins. Both Brians were at the house on the night in question. But it was the Alberts other brother, Chris, who was present as well, not Kevin. Karen's defense team felt strongly that these phone records would bolster their argument that their client wasn't responsible for John's tragic death, but somebody else in attendance of the party on January 28, 2022, and that they would reveal the conspiracy to frame Karen.

[Adam Lally]

We are entitled to explore whether this investigation was conducted correctly and ethically. The records are relevant because they tend to show a cover up. They are relevant because they show a Canton police officer inserting himself into a case in which his department was conflicted out precisely because he was an officer there. We need these records. Going to trial without them would violate my client's rights.

[Paula Barros]

This wasn't the end of Yannetti's request. There was more. He entered a final motion for phone records from January 29, 2022, specifically around 2:22am just hours before John O' Keefe's body was discovered. The phone records in question again belonged to Brian Albert and Brian Higgins, but also former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz.

[Adam Lally]

Brian Higgins did testify before the federal grand jury. And at that time he was specifically asked if on January 29th of 2022, he made any phone calls when he got home. He said that he did not. He testified that he lived alone. He testified that he was alone that night. He testified there was nobody else in his bedroom. He testified that when he went to bed, he placed his phone on the bedside table. After making those admissions, he was confronted by a federal prosecutor with his phone records. Those records revealed that Brian Albert called Brian Higgins at 2:22 in the morning on January 29th. Those records reveal, moreover that 17 seconds later, Brian Higgins called Brian Albert back, and that call lasted for 22 seconds. Now, when he was first confronted, Brian Higgins first tried to claim that it had to have been a butt dial. That term, butt dial, is used by many of the commonwealth's witnesses to explain the many calls between them and among them. And I've never seen a case where there have been so many butt dials, to be frank. But Mr. Higgins was already locked in. He already testified. His phone was on the bedside table. His butt was in the bed. The phone was in the table. There was no possibility of a butt dial.

[Paula Barros]

In a police interview, the two Bryans claimed the calls were accidental. And in another interview, they both reported to be asleep at the time. So what was the real story? Judge Kanoni did not rule on the second two motions that day. The defense was left to connect the dots without the phone records they so desperately felt they needed. Back again at Norfolk County Superior Court In Dedham on March 26, Judge Beverly Kanone had arrived at a decision on the motion to dismiss Karen's case. And outside the historic four columned courthouse, the anticipation was palpable. With each pretrial hearing, Karen Reid's supporters began trickling in.

[Adam Lally]

You saw a lot of the Free Karen movement folks, as they've called themselves, in the courtroom with their signs, with their T shirts, and spilling out into.

[Paula Barros]

The hallway outside the courthouse. Karen's cadre of supporters were fired up and showing no signs of stopping. Their demeanor was energetic as they waved American flags and egged on passersby to join the cause. The growing crowds indicated a turning point.

[Adam Lally]

I think that's when it really became clear that this was not your typical case. It took on this sort of festival atmosphere where the spectacle created a spectacle, if you will. It's just unlike any other case I've seen.

[Paula Barros]

Attorney Will Korman witnessed the phenomenon himself. Himself. He said the sight of it all was pretty much unavoidable.

[Adam Lally]

You can't help but be near the Norfolk County Superior Court and see hundreds of people in support of Karen Reed. You can't help but hear cars and trucks honking as they drive around the courthouse. This is a spectacle the likes of which, as far as I know, in Massachusetts has never occurred.

[Paula Barros]

Mass Live reporter Louise Fieldman remembers. Karen supporters were decked out.

[Adam Lally]

People will show up in T shirts that say Free Karen Reid. You know, some shirts say framed and it looks like a Massachusetts license plate. And people are kind of making their own shirts. And, you know, there'll be photos of Karen Reed there'll be photos of her attorneys. Obviously, this case is concerning a very serious and grave situation and incident, and it's truly heartbreaking. Yet you still see folks out there with all types of different clothing and representations of this case and signage, and it sometimes takes on this kind of air of like a rally.

[Paula Barros]

We asked Luis and Will about the demographic makeup of the crowds outside the court.

[Adam Lally]

I think it was probably 70, 30 women, maybe 80, 20 women to men. There's been kids there. Adults have brought their children to come out to this. There's been older folks. There's been everyone in between.

[Paula Barros]

And reporter Christina Rex told us how many of these supporters responded when she questioned their motivations for being there.

[Adam Lally]

What they all say is, you could be Karen Reed, I could be Karen Reed. Any one of our daughters could be Karen Reed. They find her relatable. They find her to be someone who they believe is an innocent woman who is successful and had been framed for really no good reason.

[Paula Barros]

So when Judge Kanoni ultimately denied the dismissal of the charges, these people who saw themselves in Karen Reid were crestfallen. There was no way around it. Karen Reed was headed to trial, and that meant more supporters were headed to set up camp and Dedham.

[Adam Lally]

And it just grew and grew and grew.

[Paula Barros]

With the trial on the horizon and awareness to the case heightening, there were some logistics to smooth out. Here's Luis Fieldman again.

[Adam Lally]

The defense had raised some concerns about the actual courtroom that it was supposed to take place in. You know, they were concerned that the jury wouldn't be able to see the witnesses and that some jurors would essentially be staring at the back of witnesses heads.

[Paula Barros]

This concern saw no argument from the judge or prosecutors.

[Adam Lally]

So it was decided before the trial got underway that they would switch courtrooms. And what that meant for the media and for supporters is that it was a smaller courtroom.

[Paula Barros]

And the smaller courtroom meant more congestion both inside and out. Judge Kanoni needed to come up with a solution for crowd control and for protecting both jurors and witnesses.

[Adam Lally]

There's a prosecution's motion to create a buffer around the court so that, you know, witnesses who were testifying and also for the jurors, you know, they wouldn't be confronted with these types of signs and shirts and that kind of thing.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutors wanted a 500 foot buffer zone, but Kanoni believed 200ft was sufficient.

[Adam Lally]

So this 200 foot buffer was created, and as far as I can tell, it was respected.

[Paula Barros]

With each passing day, the trial felt more imminent. The entire greater Boston area was gearing up for what promised to be one for the ages. And on April 12, the prosecution and defense gathered for the final pretrial hearing. Thirty motions were entered, the majority of them standard procedure. But there was one that took center stage. The prosecution requested for Karen Reed's lawyers to be prohibited from exacting a third party culprit defense. That's when evidence is introduced to pin the blame on somebody other than the defendant. And this was a problem. After all, that was Yannetti and Jackson's entire defense. They immediately refuted the motion.

[Adam Lally]

John Okeefe's injuries are consistent with having been in a fight and are not consistent with having been hit by a car. So therefore, if John o' Keefe was not hit by a car, that means that Cameron Reed did not kill him. And we know that John o' Keefe did not die of natural causes. This was not a heart attack or a stroke. John o' Keefe was injured. He was mortally injured. If he was not hit by a car, as both our expert and FBI confirmed, then he was attacked. And if he was not hit by a car, then there is a third party culprit or culprits. So by asking this court to prohibit the defense from introducing evidence that others had the motive, opportunity and the means to attack John o', Keefe, the Commonwealth is essentially asking this court to prohibit Karen Reed from being able to defend herself.

[Paula Barros]

Then Yannetti named the third party culprits at the top of their list.

[Adam Lally]

It is not our job to solve this case for the prosecution. It's our contention they had the opportunity to do that, but they failed. It is not our job to name a specific third party culprit. We do not have to prove that Brian Albert or Colin Albert or Brian Higgins or some combination of them intended to kill John o'. Keefe. We don't have to prove that any of them attacked John o' Keefe such that he eventually died. They have to prove beyond a reason, reasonable doubt that they didn't. But the fact of the matter is, there is evidence that all three of them had a motive.

[Paula Barros]

Yanetti went on to suggest that there was bad blood and jealousy between John o' Keefe and all three men he explicitly named, providing an exhaustive list of possible theories for their unique motivations to want John o' Keefe dead.

[Adam Lally]

It's very similar to the game of Clue. We have all these pieces, pieces and all of the players, but we're not yet sure who did what.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor Lally thought it was all a stretch, to say the least.

[Adam Lally]

That was A fanciful story, but again, there's actually no actual evidence of. Of most of those things. So what council just went through is essentially a list of rank speculation and not actual evidence.

[Paula Barros]

Perhaps surprisingly to some, Judge Kanoni ultimately did not rule on the third party culprit motion. It was looking like it was up to the jury to decide if it's possible someone other than Karen Reed was involved in the death of John o'. Keefe. And speaking of the jury, it was now time to seat them. But for a high profile trial anticipated to last six weeks, it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

[Adam Lally]

Because the Alberts were involved and because they had close connections to the investigators in this case. Karen Reed was framed for a murder she did not commit. Specifically John o' Keefe or Karen Reed that you saw at the bar earlier that night. At any point in time on the evening of the 28th or the early morning of 29, did either of those people come into your home? No, they never came into my home. Mr. Albert, you knew that if you admitted having a relationship with John o' Keefe and Karen Reed, you'd have a lot to answer for when Karen Reed's boyfriend ended up dead on your lawn six days later. The first time you've mentioned to anybody that that object was five to six feet long was yesterday to this jury. Two and a half years after you supposedly saw it, correct? Yes.

[Paula Barros]

You folks are the most important people in this courtroom. You will have to consider and weigh the testimony of all the witnesses who.

[Adam Lally]

Will appear before you.

[Paula Barros]

You can believe all of what a witness says, some of it or none of it. It's entirely up to you. That's all coming up on the next episode of Karen. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Paula Barrows. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our producer and writer is Cooper Maul. Our editor is Josh Kleefeld. Our researcher is Stephanie Doucet. Our bookers are Alyssa Fisher and Diane Kay. Legal and fact checking by Elizabeth Vouli. And special 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 plus in the Wondery app, Apple podcasts or Spotify.