Loading summary
Transcript83 lines
- [00:00]
Kristin Thorne
Wondery subscribers can binge all episodes of Karen early and ad free right now. Join Wondery plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.
- [00:10]
911 Operator
91 1. What's emergency? I need someone to come immediately to 34 Fairview Road, Canton, Mass. What's going on? There's a guy unresponsive in the snow. In the snow at 34? Yes, 34. The Albert resident? Yes, I just pulled up and found him. Okay, 34 Fairview. 34 Fairview. Canton.
- [00:30]
Kristin Thorne
Math.
- [00:30]
911 Operator
Yes. 9 11. Where's your emergency? Hello? Yes, I'm sorry. Can you come to 34 near View Road in Canton? 34 Fairview. Yes, there's a man unresponsive in the snow. Okay. Is he. You've got to get here. Okay. Okay. What's going on? Is he face down? We just flipped him over. Okay, who's that in the background? Is that someone related? That's his girlfriend. His name is John. Okay, how old is he? John is 46 years old. 46. How long has he been outside? I don't know. I don't know.
- [01:22]
Kristin Thorne
She said she dropped him off. The prosecution said she left him to die. It began on a bitter January night in 2022. John O', Keefe, a respected Boston police officer, was found unresponsive in the snow outside the Canton home of another officer, Brian Albert. His girlfriend, Karen Reid, told investigators she'd dropped him off there after a night of drinking. Hours later, she was the one to find his body. But as the investigation unfolded, Reed found herself no longer a witness, but the prime suspect. Prosecutors argued she'd struck o' Keefe with her SUV in a drunken rage and left the scene. They pointed to a shattered taillight and a string of cryptic texts and voicemails. Reed's defense, meanwhile, cast doubt on every angle of the state's case, suggesting a botched investigation, hidden conflicts of interest, and a potential cover up within the tight knit Canton police community. When the case eventually went to trial in April 2024, the courtroom became a battleground of dueling narratives. Was this a tragic accident involving a spurned lover? Or a deeper conspiracy to protect one of their own? The first trial captivated the public, drawing scrutiny over law enforcement, transparency and small town loyalties. But after weeks of emotional testimony and crossfire between experts, the jury couldn't reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared. Now, as Karen Reed faces a retrial, the stakes are even higher. New evidence, new witnesses, and the same haunting questions. What really happened to John o' Keefe that night? Could Karen Reed really be guilty of murder? Or was the truth, like the body in the snow, buried too deep to be seen? I'm Kristin Thorne and this is Karen. The retrial. Last year, long crime brought you the trial that captivated the nation. And now the case is back in the spotlight and interest hasn't faded, it's only intensified. New prosecutors, new evidence, new trial, and new voices that could change everything. But before we bring you into the courtroom, behind the scenes and inside the minds of the people still searching for justice, let's recap how we got here in the first place. Karen Reed's first trial stretched across 29 intense days, featured over 70 witnesses and introduced more than 600 pieces of evidence. It was a case full of twists, testimony and unanswered questions. And nearly impossible to keep up with. To refresh our memory, I called upon forensic expert Elena Burrows to cut through the noise and bring you everything you need to know. Heading into the retrial, we began with the Fateful night of January 28, 2022.
- [04:21]
Alina Burrows
John O' Keefe and his girlfriend Karen Reed go to the Waterfall Bar and Grill for some drinks. The Waterfall Bar and Grill closes around.
- [04:28]
Kristin Thorne
Midnight, but the night didn't end there.
- [04:30]
Alina Burrows
They proceed to the home of Brian Albert, who's having a little gathering and after party, if you will. Brian Albert and his wife Nicole own the home which was the location of the after party. Brian has 28 years on with the Boston Police Department.
- [04:44]
Kristin Thorne
Brian Albert isn't just a friend. He's a Boston police officer like John. And his home is a familiar place. But that night, something went very wrong.
- [04:55]
Alina Burrows
Later the next morning, John o' Keefe's body is found deceased in the snow in the front yard of the Albert residence.
- [05:02]
Kristin Thorne
It ignited instant speculation.
- [05:04]
Alina Burrows
Did Reed strike o' Keeffe with her vehicle, leaving him there in the snow, hoping that police would assume that he'd stumbled out there and succumbed to hypothermia.
- [05:13]
Kristin Thorne
But why would Karen want John dead? After all, he was the kind of man who everyone said gave more than he took.
- [05:22]
Alina Burrows
John O' Keefe is a 46 year old police officer with the Boston Police Department. Well liked, well respected in the community, he took over guardianship of his niece and nephew when his sister and brother in law passed away. People describe John as the type of guy that would literally give you the shirt off his back.
- [05:39]
Kristin Thorne
But even good men have complicated lives. His relationship with Karen wasn't always easy. It was, in a word, volatile.
- [05:48]
Alina Burrows
Their relationship has been described as a bit tumultuous. Having an equal amount of chaos and good times.
- [05:55]
Kristin Thorne
No relationship is without its complications. But the allegations swirling around Karen were serious enough to lead to her arrest. On February 1, 2022, just three days after John O' Keefe's body was found in the snow.
- [06:11]
Alina Burrows
Karen Reed is arrested and charged with second degree murder, manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and le leaving the scene where personal injury or death occurred.
- [06:23]
Kristin Thorne
It was fast. Almost too fast. The charges were serious, carrying years, even decades of prison time. But to some, the pace of the arrest felt less like swift justice and more like a rush to judgment.
- [06:38]
Alina Burrows
Karen pleads not guilty to these charges. My question is, if the arrest comes so quickly, within this three day period, was law enforcement able to get back the results of any forensic tests by this point? If not, that could prove that they already had their person and they were going to make the evidence fit.
- [06:55]
Kristin Thorne
And then came the bombshell.
- [06:58]
Alina Burrows
There is a bit of a twist. A tip comes in to Reed's attorneys alleging that she is innocent and that that evening o' Keefe was killed by Brian Albert and his nephew in an altercation where they then left his body outside to succumb to the elements. This was all done to frame Karen Reed.
- [07:19]
Kristin Thorne
Now the case wasn't just about a car accident or even a possible murder. It had become something much larger. A story of power, protection and a small town system that might have closed ranks to protect its own.
- [07:34]
Alina Burrows
There are two theories as to what happened that evening. One theory is that Karen Reed struck John o' Keefe with her Lexus SUV at the home of Brian Albert and then fled, leaving John o' Keefe in the snow. The second theory is that this all was a police cover up.
- [07:51]
Kristin Thorne
And as two competing theories emerged, one of a drunken mistake, the other of a deadly cover up, it didn't just divide a courtroom. It split a community and then a nation. So now the stage was set. Prosecutors said Karen was drunk, angry and dangerous. The defense said she was a scapegoat in a small town conspiracy. This wasn't just a trial. It was a fight for which story would stick. Alina Burroughs watched Karen Reed's first trial like a hawk. She walked me through the key evidence and outstanding questions. First, fractures in the timeline of events. According to witness testimony, Karen Reed's SUV pulled up to the Alberts house sometime after midnight. In several interviews, Karen says she dropped John off, stayed for roughly 15 minutes and around 12:30am she left. But here's the thing.
- [08:52]
Alina Burrows
None of the partygoers report seeing o' Keeffe at the house at all?
- [08:57]
Kristin Thorne
Okay, but if Karen left him outside.
- [08:59]
Alina Burrows
Before driving off between 12:30 and 1:30 in the morning, at least six partygoers left the Albert residence. Is it possible that a 6 foot 2 man laying in this front yard was would be not noticed?
- [09:15]
Kristin Thorne
It's possible.
- [09:16]
Alina Burrows
It was a blizzard condition. So was John's body just covered in snow and lighting conditions were poor or was his body not there?
- [09:25]
Kristin Thorne
So what if the body wasn't there earlier? What if he was placed there after something happened inside?
- [09:32]
Alina Burrows
Normally people enter the Albert home through the side door. Could have o' Keeffe gone through the front door and then gone downstairs where he had an altercation with the Alberts. This theory purports that John o' Keefe was moved from the basement of the Alberts residence to the backyard and then ultimately he was left in the front yard to die in the snow.
- [09:52]
Kristin Thorne
The next morning, January 29, 2022, Karen Reed woke up to something that didn't feel right. She was at John's house with his teenage niece. And John hadn't come home. He wasn't answering his phone and no one seemed to know where he was. By now snow blanketed the ground. A storm had moved in overnight. Erasing footprints, freezing time. Covering up whatever had happened hours earlier. Karen started calling around then she started driving. She wasn't alone. She was with John's friends, Jennifer McCabe and Carrie Roberts. Together they headed back to where she last saw him. The house on Fairview Road. The home of Brian Albert. They pulled up slowly. Something caught Karen's eye. Just off the edge of the driveway, partially buried in snow, was a shape. A body. It was John. He was unresponsive, cold, face down in the yard. And in that moment, what had been an anxious morning turned into something far worse. A tragedy, A death. A crime scene. A crime scene that's handling took center stage in the trial. From the moment first responders arrived at 34 Fairview Road, the case was marked not by clarity but confusion. When officers arrived on scene they made choices that forensic experts like Alina say.
- [11:17]
Alina Burrows
Are baffling when we look at how the crime scene itself was handled. To say this was a gross miscarriage of justice would be an understatement. Law enforcement never enters the home of Brian Albert who where John o' Keefe is found deceased in his front yard.
- [11:32]
Kristin Thorne
Not the kitchen, not the basement, not even the front entrance where his body lay just feet away. Outside things weren't any better. Blood was collected from the snow but not with proper tools.
- [11:45]
Alina Burrows
We have police officers collecting blood evidence in plastic cups that were borrowed from a neighborhood. There are so many problems with cross contamination here and the preservation of DNA that it's hard to know where to start.
- [12:00]
Kristin Thorne
The plastic cups weren't the only unorthodox tool used on the scene.
- [12:05]
Alina Burrows
In addition to collecting blood evidence in plastic cups, police used a leaf blower to move snow away from the crime scene. Now, the problem with this is you could potentially move evidence away from its position, and that's critical in the investigation.
- [12:21]
Kristin Thorne
Any trace evidence, tiny fibers, footprints, blood spatter, glass shards, could have been blown away. In a case where every inch of snow might have told a story, investigators were working in a storm and wiping the pages clean before they could even be read.
- [12:39]
Alina Burrows
We know that forensic evidence doesn't lie, but in this case, we have to look at what happens when we can't trust the integrity of the evidence and when the evidence wasn't collected. So the Albert residence was never examined. And I'm left wondering, do we have a full picture here?
- [12:56]
Kristin Thorne
Jurors clearly were left wondering that, too. The deeper Karen Reed's defense team looked, not just at the evidence, but at who was handling it, the more cracks began to show. And soon all eyes turned to one man, Michael Proctor, the lead investigator assigned to the case. A Massachusetts state trooper, the person responsible for guiding the entire investigation from day one. But instead of building trust, Proctor's actions and his personal text messages would ignite a firestorm behind the scenes. Proctor wasn't just skeptical of Karen Reed. He was openly hostile, disparaging, crude.
- [13:42]
Alina Burrows
It's revealed through a series of text messages sent by Trooper Michael Proctor that he's clearly biased against Karen Reed and willing to cover for fellow law enforcement officers.
- [13:54]
Kristin Thorne
These weren't just off the cuff remarks. These were personal texts sent during the investigation where he called Karen Reed a, quote, whack job, mocked her appearance, and joked about her health conditions. Worse, these weren't private diary entries. He shared them with friends, colleagues, and even family while actively building the case.
- [14:19]
Alina Burrows
Against her lead investigator, Trooper Michael Proctor, indicates through a series of text messages from his personal phone that he is in close alliance with law enforcement.
- [14:30]
Kristin Thorne
In a case where fellow officers were present at the scene. Proctor had known social ties to the people. Karen Reed's defense was now implicating The Alberts, the McCabes, the very community under scrutiny. And yet he was leading the charge. The defense didn't just argue that Proctor was unprofessional. They said he was compromised. And it turned Out. Canton PD had recused themselves from the investigation, with exception of one outlier.
- [15:01]
Alina Burrows
At a point during the investigation, Canton PD believes that there's a conflict of interest between the investigators and John o'.
- [15:08]
Kristin Thorne
Keefe.
- [15:09]
Alina Burrows
They call in state police to handle the incident. And unfortunately, Michael Proctor has the same conflict of interest, but doesn't voice this.
- [15:18]
Kristin Thorne
The defense team beat the same drum over and over again. That from the beginning, Proctor wasn't looking for the truth. He was looking for a conviction. And in a trial built largely on circumstantial evidence, that kind of bias wasn't just a liability, it was dangerous. They claimed Proctor didn't just fail to follow the evidence, he followed a script. A script that protected his own and made Karen Reed the fall woman. It fit neatly into the defense's broader theory that John o' Keefe was killed inside the Alpert home, possibly during an altercation involving Brian Alpert and his nephew Colin, and that his body was staged outside after the fact to make it look like Karen did it. Proctor, they said, was part of the cleanup crew, not in uniform, but in silence. The prosecution, meanwhile, had a very different take. Yes, they admitted Proctor's texts were crude, inappropriate and unprofessional. There was no defending his behavior. But they argued that his bias didn't change the facts. They said, look past the investigator. Look at the evidence. Namely a shattered taillight. Red and clear plastic fragments found near John o' Keefe's body. The Commonwealth said it came from Karen Reed's Lexus SUV and that it proved she backed into him, hit him and drove away. It was supposedly their smoking gun. But for the defense, that taillight was just the beginning of a much bigger mystery.
- [16:56]
Alina Burrows
When police find pieces of broken taillight around John o' Keefe's body, does this indicate that he was struck by this suv? Or does it indicate that pieces of taillight were planted on the scene to frame Karen Reed?
- [17:09]
Kristin Thorne
That's not just a forensic question, it's a foundational one. Because if the taillight pieces were planted, then the entire narrative of the crash begins to unravel. And there was more.
- [17:21]
Alina Burrows
Doorbell camera video captures Reed backing into John Okeefe's vehicle in their driveway. This was at 5:03am Before John's body was found. Is this where the damage to the tail light occurred? If so, does this prove that law enforcement planted taillight at the scene?
- [17:40]
Kristin Thorne
It's a critical moment. Because if her taillight broke after John was already dead, then how could that plastic have ended up next to his body? It would mean someone had to place it there, and that changes everything. And then, just when the case seemed to hinge on whether the taillight shards were planted or not, another piece of evidence emerged. This time, much smaller.
- [18:05]
Alina Burrows
Law enforcement locates a small hair on the bumper of the car that they matched to John o'. Keefe.
- [18:11]
Kristin Thorne
It was meant to seal the connection between him and the vehicle, to suggest that she hit him and that his body made contact with her car. But once again, the defense had serious doubts.
- [18:23]
Alina Burrows
Now we're left wondering, is it possible for this hair to have clung to the bumper as this vehicle was flatbed, driven from the crime scene back to storage, which is at least 14 miles in blizzard conditions?
- [18:37]
Kristin Thorne
To the defense, that wasn't just unlikely. It was almost unbelievable. Another piece of evidence that raised more questions than answers. So now the physical evidence was on shaky ground. The taillight may be broken at a different time. The hair may be too improbable to be real. And if you can't trust the debris on the ground or the trace on the bumper, then you're left with the only evidence that doesn't lie. The body. John okeefes injuries told a story. But like everything else in this case, that story was anything but simple. According to the medical examiner, John died from a combination of blunt force trauma and hypothermia. Simple enough explanation, But Alina explains where this gets complicated.
- [19:28]
Alina Burrows
One of the things we have to look at in this case is that the cause of death being blunt force trauma and hypothermia was established, but the manner of death caused could not. So we don't know if this is homicide or an accident at this point. And if we can't determine the manner of death, how do we charge somebody with it? They can't tell you if this was an injury received accidentally or if these were injuries that were received with intent being the difference between an accident and a homicide.
- [19:57]
Kristin Thorne
The forensic pathologist documented the trauma in detail. Minor abrasions, a bruise on the back of the hand, but more significantly, multiple skull fractures and two black eyes consistent with head trauma. It painted a violent picture, but not a clear one because none of the injuries could definitively tell investigators whether John o' keefe was hit by a car, fell in a fight, or was attacked some other way. You see, John didn't just have head injuries. He also had wounds on his arm, specifically on the outside of his right forearm. Some believed they were the result of a struggle. Others believed they looked like something else entirely. The defense and prosecution barked up that Tree.
- [20:45]
Alina Burrows
Because John has injuries on the exterior side of his right arm that look consistent with animal activity, pawing or biting of potentially a dog. Investigators swab the clothing from this area to look for dog DNA.
- [21:00]
911 Operator
And?
- [21:01]
Alina Burrows
And none is found. But what I will say is this is a method of indirect testing, meaning the clothing itself wasn't directly testing. We're looking at a swab of the clothing. So it doesn't necessarily mean that dog DNA isn't present. It means that dog DNA isn't present on the swab.
- [21:19]
Kristin Thorne
So even the dog evidence, like everything else, was inconclusive. So far, the physical evidence hadn't told a clear story. The taillight fragments, questionable. The hair on the bumper, dubious. The autopsy, inconclusive. Even the injuries on John's arm, possibly from a dog, had no DNA confirmation to back that up. But what about the digital trail? What about the one thing that doesn't forget? Phones, texts, location data, and one late night Google search that sent shoot shock waves through the courtroom.
- [21:57]
Alina Burrows
Jen McCabe has googled how long to die in cold?
- [22:01]
Kristin Thorne
But McCabe had an explanation for this inquiry.
- [22:04]
Alina Burrows
This was supposedly done at the request of Karen Reed.
- [22:07]
Kristin Thorne
That's according to McCabe. However, digital forensics told another story.
- [22:12]
Alina Burrows
The problem was the search was made prior to either one knowing that o' Keefe was deceased.
- [22:17]
Kristin Thorne
According to the defense, that search was made around 2:27am on the morning of January 29, hours before O' Keefe's body was discovered. And if that time stamp was accurate, it was devastating because it suggested that McCabe knew John was outside in the freezing cold. To the defense, that was consciousness of guilt, a sign they were already trying to figure out what might happen to a body left in the elements. But the prosecution saw it differently. They said the timeline was off, the data extraction was flawed, the phone was synced to the wrong time, and that McCabe didn't make the search until after they found John, not before Karen's attorney said the prosecution was twisting the digital evidence to fit their theory. And in a trial where nearly everything relied on inference, those six words, how long to die in cold? Hung heavy in the air. But that late night Google search wasn't the only line that raised eyebrows. There was another phrase, short, raw and just as contested. Did I hit him? That's what Jennifer McCabe said she heard Karen Reed say at the scene after John's body was found in the snow. To the prosecution, that was a confession. To the defense, it was grief, panic, guilt. Not of a crime, but of leaving him there, of assuming the Worst, we're.
- [23:50]
Alina Burrows
Left to interpret somebody's statements. You know, Karen Reed made statements to the effect of I hit him, or this is all my fault. This could really be an expression of guilt that she was feeling. This was all my fault that I left him at this party. Or is it I hit him or is it I hit him? There are very different ways that we can interpret these phrases.
- [24:10]
Kristin Thorne
So what did it really mean? Was it a confession or a moment of emotional collapse? Because in a case where hard evidence is elusive, words matter, timelines matter, interpretations matter. And for the jury, trying to decide which story to believe was like reading a novel missing half its pages and being asked to write the ending. After weeks of testimony, clashing experts, and conflicting timelines, the jury reached a breaking point. After deliberating for 27 hours, they would later share that they'd reached a unanimous verdict on two charges. Clearing Karen Reed of 2nd Degree Murder and leaving the scene, but couldn't come to a consensus on involuntary manslaughter. But they were never officially polled. Jurors said they were confused, tripped up by the legal jargon in the judge's instructions. Some said they didn't understand the difference between murder and manslaughter. Others weren't clear on what intent really meant. A few even believed they had to prove Karen Reed's innocence themselves. When it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they just couldn't come to a firm conclusion. And to Alina, it's because they didn't have a clear story to agree on.
- [25:31]
Alina Burrows
I think what influenced the jury's decision most in this case has to be, you know, one that we have divergent opinions from experts. So if we don't have a medical examiner that can specifically tell us what these injuries are from, how they occurred, how do we expect a jury to come to a decision that a medical professional could not?
- [25:51]
Kristin Thorne
The jury wasn't just wrestling with evidence. They were wrestling with its integrity. A broken taillight that might have been planted, a Google search with a timeline in question, a lead investigator in disgrace.
- [26:07]
Alina Burrows
They're also affected by the unprofessionalism that was revealed through this case. You know, how are they left to weigh these pieces of evidence when the integrity of that evidence is really at question here?
- [26:19]
Kristin Thorne
And ultimately, the burden wasn't to prove what happened. It was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen Reed did it.
- [26:28]
Alina Burrows
We don't even know for certain that this wasn't an accident. The decision that a jury is left to make is that have they Been presented with a case that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Karen Reed committed this murder.
- [26:39]
Kristin Thorne
That's where the trial broke down. Not because the jury knew who was lying, but because no one could say for sure who was telling the truth. And as the evidence unraveled, so did the certainty. Because in this case, everyone was under scrutiny. Not just the accused, but the investigators, the friends, the people inside that house.
- [27:03]
Alina Burrows
This case garners a lot of attention. You know, it's very similar to the the game of Clue. Was it the Alberts in the basement that killed John o', Keefe, or was it Karen Reed with the suv? We have all these pieces and all of the players, but we're not yet sure who did what.
- [27:20]
Kristin Thorne
Add in clashing expert witnesses, and you get a jury left in the fog. After the foreman delivered an eloquent message informing her of their indecision, Judge Kanoni declared a mistrial. Now the case resets. A new jury, a new chance to tell the story. And this time, the stakes might be even higher. And as Karen Reid prepares to stand trial again, the questions haven't gone away. They've multiplied.
- [27:48]
Alina Burrows
Really, in this case, we're left with more questions than answers. First of all, was this an accident or a homicide? And what was it that o' Keefe actually went through? Was he struck by a vehicle? Were his injuries the result of some type of altercation? What's the motive here? While you don't need motive in court, people want to know what. Why this would have happened, this incident would have happened to such a wonderful young man. So we don't really know at this point.
- [28:16]
Kristin Thorne
We don't know who to believe. We don't know what really happened in those missing hours. And we still don't know why a respected officer ended up face down in the snow. But we do know this. Another trial is happening.
- [28:32]
Alina Burrows
Really, this is terrible for a lot of reasons, because the family members of John o' Keefe have to be put through this tragedy a second time around, as does, obviously, Karen Reid will, reliving.
- [28:43]
Kristin Thorne
It all again, finally get us to some real answers. Was it murder? Was it a tragic accident? Or was it something more complex and more corrupt than anyone is willing to admit? The retrial is here, and the courtroom drama continues. In our next episode, we'll go deeper into what happened with that lead investigator, Michael Proctor, and what it means for this new trial. Week by week, we'll dissect every twist and turn as this high stakes case gets a second chance. Will justice prevail? Can the truth finally be unearthed. Don't miss a single detail. Subscribe now for exclusive in depth coverage on the retrial. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Kristin Thorne. This episode was written and produced by Cooper Maul. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our editor is Anna McLean. Our associate producer is Tess Jagger Wells. Legal review by Elizabeth Voulai. Key art designed by Shawn Penzera. And special thanks to Alina Burrows for her contributions to this episode. 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.