Impasse: S1-E8

Summary

KAREN: THE RETRIAL - Episode "Impasse: S1-E8" Summary

In the eighth episode of Season 1 of KAREN: THE RETRIAL titled "Impasse", the high-stakes retrial of Karen Read reaches a critical juncture culminating in a mistrial. This detailed summary captures the key moments, discussions, insights, and conclusions from the episode, providing a comprehensive overview for listeners.

---

1. Introduction to the Trial

The retrial of Karen Read for the alleged murder of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, intensifies as the courtroom drama unfolds. After a first trial ended in a hung jury, the stakes are higher than ever in this second courtroom showdown. The episode delves into the prosecution's and defense's strategies, the credibility of witnesses, and the mounting evidence—or lack thereof—that both sides present.

---

2. Prosecution’s Case

a. Key Prosecution Witnesses

Lieutenant Brian Tulley takes the stand as the prosecution's 58th witness. His testimony focuses on the investigation's findings, particularly the absence of evidence placing John O’Keefe inside the residence at 34 Fairview Road. Tulley states at [03:40] “Yes, I didn't have any,” denying any nexus between O’Keefe and the house:

Lieutenant Brian Tulley [03:40]: "I didn't have any."

However, Tulley's judgment is scrutinized during cross-examination, revealing potential oversights. Defense attorney Alan Jackson probes Tulley about inconsistent witness statements, such as Brian Higgins's sighting of a Ford Edge SUV near the crime scene, casting doubt on Tulley's thoroughness ([09:39]).

Trooper Joe Paul, an accident reconstructionist, provides the prosecution’s version of events. At [15:54], he explains how the Lexus SUV allegedly backed up into O’Keefe, leading to his fatal injuries:

Trooper Joe Paul [15:54]: "The car backed up in reverse 60ft, 24 miles an hour, creating the Commonwealth's version of events."

However, his testimony is challenged by inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence, particularly concerning the condition and movement of the vehicles post-collision.

b. Defense Cross-Examination and Challenges

Defense attorney Elizabeth Little and Alan Jackson aggressively cross-examine Tulley and Paul, exposing flaws in their testimonies. Tulley's lack of evidence linking O’Keefe inside the home is contrasted with conflicting witness accounts. Paul’s reconstruction lacks timestamps and is contradicted by ring camera footage, suggesting Karen’s SUV was responsible for the injuries, not the prosecution’s theory ([17:03]).

Notably, at [20:50], Jackson challenges Trooper Paul’s understanding of physics in accident reconstruction:

Alan Jackson [20:57]: "Trooper Paul, if you were qualified to, quote, look into all this stuff, I would probably know these answers."

This line of questioning highlights the prosecution's reliance on questionable expert testimony.

c. Issues with Evidence and Witnesses

Key issues emerge regarding witness reliability and evidence integrity. Brian Higgins's eyewitness account is undermined by his later admission of colorblindness ([45:32]). Additionally, inconsistencies in witness statements about the Ford Edge SUV and its presence at the crime scene raise significant doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Medical evidence presented by Dr. Irene Scordi Bello confirms O’Keefe's cause of death as blunt force trauma and hypothermia but leaves the manner undetermined between homicide or accident ([35:58]). The lack of definitive cause complicates the prosecution’s narrative.

---

3. Defense’s Strategy

a. Alternative Theories

The defense constructs a theory that diverges sharply from the prosecution's case. They propose that O’Keefe was involved in a physical altercation at the Albert residence, was attacked by the family's dog, Chloe, and subsequently succumbed to his injuries and hypothermia outside the home without any vehicular involvement. This theory is built on undermining the prosecution’s physical evidence and witness credibility.

b. Key Defense Witnesses

Brian Lucky Laufren, a snowplow driver, serves as a crucial defense witness. Testifying at [44:05], Laufren describes seeing a Ford Edge SUV parked near the crime scene during his third pass, a detail that supports the defense’s alternative narrative. However, his reliability is questioned when it's revealed he is colorblind ([45:35]).

---

4. Closing Arguments

a. Prosecution’s Closing Argument

Prosecutor Alan Jackson passionately asserts Karen Read’s guilt, emphasizing witness statements where Read allegedly confessed to hitting O’Keefe. At [58:28], he states:

Alan Jackson: "The defendant killed John Reed."

Jackson argues that despite procedural missteps, the cumulative evidence supports Read’s culpability, urging the jury to see through the defense’s obfuscation.

b. Defense’s Closing Argument

Defense attorney Elizabeth Little delivers a forceful rebuttal, accusing law enforcement of a cover-up and systemic bias. At [49:21], Jackson (likely a transcription error, should be Little) warns:

Elizabeth Little: "... a cover up in this case, plain and simple... look at the facts and the evidence because if you do, it will ineluctably lead you to is that the defendant is guilty..."

Little emphasizes the lack of concrete evidence and the prosecution's reliance on unreliable testimonies, calling for the jury to acquit Read based on reasonable doubt.

---

5. Jury Deliberations and Mistrial

After extensive deliberations marked by intense division, the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict. At [68:38], Judge Beverly Kanoni declares a mistrial due to the impasse:

Judge Kanoni: "Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse... I'm declaring a mistrial in this case."

The announcement is met with contrasting reactions inside and outside the courtroom—empathy from the O’Keefe family and jubilation from Read’s supporters.

---

6. Reactions and Aftermath

a. Public and Family Reactions

Trooper Joe Paul describes the courtroom tension and the polarized sentiments among spectators:

Trooper Joe Paul: "The look on the juror's faces, that was the moment I saw a juror shake her head..."

Outside, Karen Read’s supporters celebrate the mistrial as a setback for the prosecution, while O’Keefe’s family grapples with continued grief and frustration over the unresolved case.

b. Internal Investigations

The trial exposes critical flaws within the Massachusetts State Police. Trooper Proctor, responsible for key missteps and unprofessional conduct, is relieved from duty pending an internal investigation. Lieutenant Brian Tulley, Lieutenant John Fanning, and Sergeant Yuri Buchenik also come under scrutiny for their roles in the flawed investigation process.

c. Potential Retrial and Future Steps

With the mistrial declared, the possibility of a retrial looms. Judge Kanoni sets a tentative new trial date for January 27, 2025. Legal experts debate the merits of a second trial, considering the defense’s robust challenge to the prosecution’s case and the likelihood of another hung jury.

---

7. Conclusion

The mistrial in Karen Read’s retrial underscores the complexities and systemic issues within the case. With unresolved questions about witness credibility, evidentiary gaps, and prosecutorial conduct, the legal battle remains far from over. The episode highlights the profound impact of investigative integrity and the judiciary’s pivotal role in upholding justice.

As the legal saga continues, KAREN: THE RETRIAL promises further exploration into the quest for truth, the battle for justice, and the intricate dynamics of high-profile courtroom confrontations.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Trooper Joe Paul [15:54]:

  "The car backed up in reverse 60ft, 24 miles an hour, creating the Commonwealth's version of events."

• Alan Jackson [20:57]:

  "Trooper Paul, if you were qualified to, quote, look into all this stuff, I would probably know these answers."

• Elizabeth Little [49:21]:

  "It’s about the truth... When you stare the truth down, you’ll see that the Commonwealth has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt into a moral certainty. Not even close, ladies and gentlemen. Karen Reed is innocent."

• Judge Beverly Kanoni [63:46]:

  "Every person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime... you must determine whether the commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits."

---

This episode of KAREN: THE RETRIAL masterfully captures the tension and complexity of Karen Read’s retrial, emphasizing the intricate interplay between evidence, witness credibility, and legal maneuvering. As the case progresses, the pursuit of justice remains fraught with challenges, reflecting broader issues within the legal and law enforcement systems.

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.

[Carrie]

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.

[Carrie]

Can't believe? Sign. Good. Hi, my name is Carrie. I'm calling because my friend Bo. Friend did not come home last night. We were at Waterfalls and now she is calling me hysterical because she doesn't know where he is. You didn't pick anybody up by the name of John o', Keefe, did you? John o'? Keefe? Yeah, he's a Boston cop and he would be on foot, but no. And where does he live? He lives on Meadow, right off the present. Okay, and the wife Home, you said? His girlfriend? It's his girlfriend, yeah. They were out having drinks and then she. She left and expected him to come home at some point and he never did. 91 1. What's emergency? I need someone to come immediately to 34 PFU 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. Yeah, I just pulled up and found him. Yeah, 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?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Is that someone related?

[Carrie]

Okay, that's. That's his, his girlfriend. His name is John. Okay, how old is he? John is 46 years old. 46. How long has he been outside?

[Paula Barros]

I don't know.

[Carrie]

I, I don't know. He got out of the car and. Is he breathing?

[Paula Barros]

A couple of hours.

[Carrie]

Is he, Carrie, is he. I don't, I, I, I don't. I don't know if he's breathing. There are two women trying to heat to his body heat and they're hysterical. Okay, can you just try to ask him? I know it's tough, but we already have the fire department going. They just got to know if he's breathing. Is he breathing, you guys? No, it doesn't seem to be breathing. Okay, do they know how to do cpr? Do they want to attempt cpr? Can you guys. Sorry. Get. Can you guys do cpr? No, I guess he's gone. Okay. They don't feel comfortable doing so.

[Paula Barros]

I think he's passed away from law and crime. I'm Paula Barrows and this is Karen. Trooper Proctor's shocking two days on the witness stand catalyzed a renewed interest in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Karen Reed. If folks hadn't yet heard of the mysterious Death of John O' Keefe by mid June of 2024, their social media feeds were likely dominated by highlight reels of the trial's most bizarre moments and armchair takes on whodunnit. So when the trial reached day 24, spectators hadn't lost their steam. In fact, their eyes were arguably the most peeled they'd ever been. Next in the queue was the prosecution's 58th witness, commander of the Norfolk County District Attorney State Police Detective Unit, Lieutenant Brian Tulley. Tulley wore a black suit and red tie on the stand as Adam Lally directly examined him. Regarding the decision to forego entering Nicole and Brian Albert's home, What, if any.

[Alan Jackson]

Information did you have related to specific evidence of a crime in relation to interior of the residence of 34th Fairview Road?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I didn't have any. When thinking about residence and search warrants and evidence, I need to put the evidence inside the house, and so I don't believe that Mr. O' Keefe entered the home. So I had no nexus to the house.

[Alan Jackson]

And what, if any, evidence did you have that Mr. O' Keefe had ever entered the home, 34 Fairview Road, on January 29th or on any other day?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I don't. On the contrary, I have evidence that he was outside, but I don't have anything putting him inside the residence.

[Paula Barros]

But Lieutenant Tulley's judgment that there wasn't sufficient evidence placing John o' Keefe inside the house differed from the opinions of Karen's defense. In cross examination, Alan Jackson highlighted evidence that they felt strongly warranted searching inside the home.

[Carrie]

In the initial moments of the beginning of the investigation, you were aware that John o' Keefe had been invited to a party inside a home?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

You knew that that home was located at 34 Fairview?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

You also knew that John O' Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

We believe so, yes.

[Carrie]

You also knew at the time that he had been, for want of a better phrase, partying with the individuals who were inside the home, Correct. Expected to meet at the house, they.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Were at a bar previous to that? Yes.

[Carrie]

You're aware that a drinking glass was found in the yard attendant to or close to, adjacent to where Mr. O' Keefe's body was found?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

That drinking glass had been broken, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

You're aware that drinking glasses are commonly found inside homes, Right.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

As well as bars?

[Carrie]

As well as bars, Right. But at that Point. You didn't know. It's just a broken glass. Correct.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It's a broken glass. Correct.

[Carrie]

You also know that he was found without a coat on?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Are coats normally worn outside or inside?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It's user's choice.

[Carrie]

Fair enough. 18 degrees, you would expect that if someone was outside, they'd have a coat on. Correct.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I'm the kind of person that wears shorts throughout the year. I'll often go without a jacket.

[Carrie]

All right. The true Bostonian.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes, sir.

[Carrie]

He didn't have any coat, gloves, scarf, nothing like that?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Correct.

[Carrie]

He had no winter gear on whatsoever. Correct.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Correct.

[Carrie]

Under ordinary circumstances, and you may be the exception, but under ordinary circumstances, if someone was out in 18 degree weather, you might expect they would have some winter garb on. Correct. You certainly would expect that if someone took their coat, their glove, their hat, their winter gear off, you might leave it inside the house. Right. Rather than outside the house.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It's probably predicated on where you take it off.

[Carrie]

Right.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

And your relationship to the location.

[Carrie]

Reasonable assumption. Might be the winter gear might be inside the house. It's not reasonable that he would have his jacket inside the house. You wouldn't just assume that.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Using the term the house. You talking about any house? 34 Fairview, correct. No, it's not reasonable.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

All right.

[Carrie]

You didn't think it was reasonable at the time. Still don't to even ask, could he have had a jacket off inside the house? And I'm talking about at the time, the initial stages of the investigation.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Who am I asking this question to?

[Carrie]

So I'm asking if you believe it was reasonable. If a man is found 30ft outside the front door of the home and he's got no winter gear on whatsoever, that perhaps he came from inside the home, not having donned his winter gear.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It's not reasonable. Given other information I had.

[Carrie]

You also know that he didn't have a shoe on, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Where might you look for the shoe if you didn't find it out by his body initially?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Well, the question's not accurate to the facts we had at the time.

[Carrie]

Well, the facts you had at the initial stages, I'm talking about just after 6:37. 7:30 in the morning when the investigation was beginning. During those times, you didn't have any information about where the other shoe was except he just didn't have a shoe on at the hospital. Correct.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

We didn't know there was a shoe not accounted for until after noontime.

[Carrie]

So when you did find out that there was a shoe unaccounted for, one place to look Might be outside, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

And another place to look might be inside the hall, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

We looked at the former and we located it there.

[Carrie]

You also are aware that a body that's being dragged by the shoulders could easily lose a shoe. Have you ever experienced a homicide in which a body is dragged and you're aware of a shoe being pulled off while the body's being dragged?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I don't have experience with that.

[Carrie]

Certainly not outside the realm of possibility. As a professional investigator, it's possible. You were also aware that at least initially, it appeared from accounts that Don o' Keefe may have been involved in a physical altercation, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Possible.

[Carrie]

As a matter of fact, that was reported by one of your subordinates, Yuri Buchenik, to the medical Examiner's office, right?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

As a possibility?

[Carrie]

Yes, as a possibility. And you're aware that your other subordinate, Trooper Proctor, according to certain information he had gotten from first responders, also believed that a physical altercation was possible?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It was possible, yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Okay.

[Carrie]

And you also knew that the house would be a normal location to have other individuals who might have been involved in that physical altercation?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

An altercation could take place anywhere.

[Carrie]

Exactly.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

And people can often travel from the location of the altercation miles away to another location.

[Carrie]

Or they could travel 30ft outside as well, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Okay. In the early morning hours following your Massachusetts State Police initiation or engagement in this investigation, you became aware of Brian Higgins, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

That name was bantied about as a potential witness in the investigation, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

And you're aware that Brian Higgins indicated that he saw a tall, dark haired man enter the home after he arrived, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I'm not aware of that.

[Paula Barros]

It seems odd that one of the District Attorney's own commanders was never made aware of testimony that threw a wrench in their working theory. Tully had to answer for never following such a solid lead that a fellow partygoer mentioned seeing someone with a physical description matching that of John o' Keefe enter the home.

[Carrie]

And the reason you're not aware of it, Lieutenant Tully, is because nobody bothered to interview Brian Higgins. February 10th. When was Brian Higgins first interviews?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

February 7th.

[Carrie]

7Th. 10th. Yeah. In February, not January 29th.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Correct.

[Carrie]

Although he was known to be inside the house, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

So had you known that, had you had the information. For instance, if Ryan Higgins admitted to having seen a tall, dark haired man walk in the house, that might have changed the complexion of your investigation at that time.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

In the off chance that Mr. Higgins presumably had said something like that, I would certainly need more information describing this person. I would ask A series of questions to narrow it down to make sure that this person was the. Was John o'.

[Carrie]

Keefe. Right? Exactly. That would just be a normal part of the investigation. You just take evidence A and link it to evidence B to evidence C. That would be the normal way to do an investigation.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

We would normally follow the evidence. Correct.

[Carrie]

But in point of fact, nobody did seek a warrant to seek to go inside the house. Correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Correct.

[Carrie]

Nobody did seek to have a Frenzy team go inside the house. And nobody asked for consent.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Correct.

[Paula Barros]

And Brian Higgins, sighting of a man who looked like John wasn't the only lead. Detectives didn't follow.

[Carrie]

Sasha hated sand. The way it stuck to things for weeks. So when Maddie shared a surf trip on Expedia Trip planner, he hesitated. Then he added a hotel with a cliffside pool 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]

Jackson revealed that Lt. Tully was made aware by another witness at 34 Fairview Road that a Ford Edge was seen parked out front that night. But the owner of that SUV was never identified.

[Carrie]

The eyewitness indicated that the Ford Edge was placed there sometime between 2:30 in the morning and 3:30 in the morning. Correct.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I'm familiar with that.

[Carrie]

As the supervising investigator, did you do anything to investigate the circumstances of that Ford Edge being placed in front of 34 Fairview sometime between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

What did you do?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Well, we determined the veracity of that statement, and we want to make sure that the person who gave it is consistent and accurate and had a good vantage point of it.

[Paula Barros]

Tully alluded to a lack of credibility of the witness as his rationale for not looking further into the lead.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

While the person has given the statement multiple times and it appears to have changed over those times, it also appears that the person observed this vehicle from a distance. And also the identification of a Ford Edge seemed highly suggestive. The way that I had read the account of it. If I had done that as a police officer, this court would throw out that identification.

[Carrie]

So did you find out anybody in the Albert family?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I don't recall off the top of my head.

[Carrie]

Did you look at automobiles registration records?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I did not know.

[Carrie]

Did you ask anybody else to look at automobile registration records?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I believe Trooper Proctor and Sergeant Mechanic had investigated that.

[Carrie]

And do you have any idea what that investigation revealed? I don't did the albums own a Ford Edge?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I don't know.

[Carrie]

As I said here, they did own a Ford Edge, didn't they? But nothing was done further that you're aware of to investigate the circumstances of that Ford Edge being seen placed in front of 34 Fairview. Right. Where the body was found between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning? Right.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

An investigation into the reliability of that witness was conducted.

[Carrie]

So you just decided and that investigation is. I didn't believe him, right?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

No.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor Lally stepped in to take another turn with his witness. He asked Tully how he arrived at his conclusion.

[Alan Jackson]

So as far as that last line of questioning, as far as the witness in the Fort Edge, you mentioned that there were several different stories, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Alan Jackson]

Several different versions of the statement. And what were those different versions?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

The first was that this person saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 Fairview. The next one that I can recall is that the person stated that they were not on Fairview but on Cedar Crest some distance away, looking at this vehicle in a blizzard. Person also self reported that he was colorblind and he was operating a larger motor vehicle. The third story was a concern about the time as he arrived. The Canton police had the street blocked off at about 4am and he places this Ford Edge outside the residence at a time before that. So we know through our investigation that the Canton police didn't arrive until shortly after 6am so the witnesses times are off as well.

[Alan Jackson]

As far as the what he termed as a highly suggestive ID with the Fort Edge, can you explain what you mean by that?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

As I read the report, the investigator had asked the person first a question. They stated that there was a vehicle in front of 34 Fairview Road. The witness was then brought outside and the investigator allegedly pointed to a motor vehicle that was in a parking lot. And it said is that it? And the witness said yes, that's it. And so it's suggestive in the fact that it would be a single photo identification which as a police officer I would not give somebody one thing and be suggestive. Is this it? Because as the courts have ruled, that's highly suggestive. And the person's more likely to adopt that description of whatever they're describing opposed to if you use other methods.

[Paula Barros]

Although Tully might have been right to avoid suggestive witness testimony, the reveal of this information through cross examination by the defense only heightened the suspicion that there could be another plausible suspect besides Karen, possibly even implicating the owner of the Ford Edge in John's death. The day closed with brief testimony from the prosecution's DNA analysts. In an attempt to dispel the defense's theory that investigators had planted evidence, three DNA experts, Nicholas Bradford, Tess Chart and Andre Porto, all emboldened the argument that John o' Keefe's DNA was found on Karen's taillight. Going against their typical form, Jackson and Yannetti declined to cross examine all three experts. But they certainly turned up the heat the following day when the person who had been tasked with reconstructing the collision that allegedly killed John o', Keefe, Massachusetts State Trooper Joseph Paul, took the stand.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Trooper Joe Paul, a Massachusetts State trooper accident reconstructionist, on direct examination, seemed like he really tested the car and he really did some forensic digging on the car and he was able to put together through the Lexus black box data essentially showing that the car backed up in reverse 60ft, 24 miles an hour, and really creating the Commonwealth's you know, version of events.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

And he's a critical witness because they're trying to explain that this is a motor vehicle impact with a pedestrian, and they're trying to provide a coherent explanation for how that happened.

[Paula Barros]

But there are two issues with Trooper Paul's testimony. One, there is no timestamp for the alleged 24 mile an hour reverse of the SUV. And two, ring camera footage from inside John O' Keefe's garage shows Karen's SUV backing into John's vehicle. And the defense claimed that's what caused the infamous tail light crack. When Adam Lally addressed the ring camera footage on Trooper Paul's direct examination, here's how he justified his conclusion. That the SUV was instead damaged when Karen hit John.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

And there's no damage to that vehicle. So if the tail light breaks, it should leave some sort of scratching, maybe a dent, some sort of damage to that vehicle should have occurred, meaning because.

[Paula Barros]

John's vehicle had no significant damage, in his mind, that couldn't be where her tail light was cracked. Trooper Paul's report also determined that the scratches observed on Karen's vehicle were not visible until the alleged incident on January 29, something Alan Jackson immediately took issue with, as Trooper Paul had actually not inspected the Lexus SUV until after that date.

[Carrie]

Is there any way that you could, in general, look at a scratch and say that scratch is from such and such date?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

You cannot, you can look at evidence and shows that it may have been older than what the newer evidence would be, but there's no way to say that specific date and time and that a scratch would come from.

[Carrie]

And it's possible that any or all of those scratches on the Lexus could have predated January 29th, correct? No, that's not possible.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

The ones that are on from the tail light and the other parts of it.

[Carrie]

Scratches anywhere on the car?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Depends on what you got to pick the other scratches. You got to show me other scratches on the car.

[Carrie]

I'm saying it's possible. Since you can't date a scratch, it's possible that any or all of those scratches could predate January 29th. Simple question, right? It's possible.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

You're being pretty broad on your scratches here.

[Carrie]

I'm not being brought that. Let me ask it a different way. Let me ask it again. Is it possible that any or all of the scratches noted on that car.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Pre date January 29, any and all of the scratches. See that's. I'm saying you're being pretty broad. Any and all scratches on the car.

[Carrie]

Testify that you noted glass on the rear bumper of the suv, correct?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

And you said something about that glass being coming from the cup, Correct. You also said that you did not see anything on that SUV that could be the source of those glass pieces on the bumper, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

When you did your reconstruction and your analysis, were you informed that none of the glass pieces, not one of them could be matched to the cup?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I don't know anything about the. I don't know that.

[Carrie]

So if you knew that the glass pieces on the buffer do not match the cup, that changed your opinion?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

It's what was told to me as evidence.

[Carrie]

Got it. By whom?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

By the crime scene. Who told you as crime scene. That was there. It says his glass from the cup when I there my initial inspection. That's what it was on from.

[Carrie]

That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me.

[Paula Barros]

Jackson grew more and more unconvinced of Trooper Paul's expertise. And it seemed he wasn't the only.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

One with doubts on cross examination when he is forced to really testify step by step to what he believed happened that day. The look on the jurors faces, that was the moment I saw a juror shake her head and mouth what out loud.

[Paula Barros]

Given the vague testimony of how Trooper Paul concluded the scratches were made the night of the 29th, Jackson was curious how he determined how John O' Keeffe's body wound up where it did.

[Carrie]

Can you describe for the jurors exactly what calculations you would need to employ to determine how far a body at rest would travel having been struck by an object in motion.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

So in this collision, it's more of a sideswipe. So he did not get enough speed of the vehicle post impact with the vehicle to build calculations. His center of mass was offset from the vehicle. So it would vastly underestimate his speed. So that's why I did not do a formula. If he was more in line with behind the vehicle, he would have been projected forward and using that projection forward when he would have had down to get more closer to the actual speed of the vehicle during that post impact travels.

[Carrie]

Well, that presumes a couple of things. That presumes that he was quote unquote satisfied. Right.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Presumed.

[Carrie]

Presumed by you. You didn't see how he was it, did you?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Based on the evidence, it appeared to be a sideswipe.

[Carrie]

That's your opinion?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

That's disagreeing the evidence.

[Carrie]

You're saying that the principles of physics as we know them today, modern mathematics is thwarted by a sideswipe.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

The calculations that are out there. You can get a speed. It would just underestimate the speed.

[Carrie]

You would have to know what the initial momentum of the object is that's in motion. Correct.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Of what object?

[Carrie]

The truck.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I would have to know that speed.

[Carrie]

Yeah, you'd have to know what the initial momentum is, not speed momentum. There's a difference. Okay, right. Do you agree with that?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

No.

[Carrie]

You wouldn't have to calculate what the initial momentum is of the object in motion to determine the distance of the body at rest would move.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Well, in that sense, are we talking about trying to find the speed of the vehicle? That's usually what we're trying to do.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Right.

[Carrie]

Okay. Well, let's put the speed of the vehicle aside. Let's talk about initial momentum. What's the formula for calculating initial momentum?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

There's different types of momentum formulas.

[Carrie]

Well, there's actually one type of momentum formula is MIT. True to ProPaul that, there is a singular calculation for determining initial momentum. That is P equals M times Z, where P is the momentum. You're solving for that M is mass. You multiply that by velocity. Is that right? Pretty simple.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

You wouldn't use that in a pedestrian collision.

[Carrie]

Oh, because the pedestrian's somehow magically out of the realm of physics.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

No, it's the weight differential between the pedestrian and the vehicle.

[Carrie]

So if the vehicle is too heavy and the body is too light, you can't calculate the initial momentum of the vehicle.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Got it. Where'd you learn that?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

It's in my math class. Since it's. We only use momentum for a vehicle to be.

[Carrie]

Math class.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

The math. The crash reconstruction classes. I have taken.

[Carrie]

Would you need to apply the theory of conservation of momentum in calculating these data?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Do I need to calculate the conservation of momentum?

[Carrie]

Conservation of momentum, yes. Even know what that is? There's an equation for that as well, right? Yes. You know what that is?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Not off the top of my head, but yes.

[Carrie]

Based on the basic principles of physics, is the total momentum before the collision, is it greater or less than the total momentum after the collision? Basic question.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

What type of collision?

[Carrie]

They're exactly equal in all respects under the principles of physics, right? That's the theory of the conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't change from one body to another. Yes, correct.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Correct.

[Carrie]

Why didn't you say that to the jurors? Trooper Paul, if you were qualified to, quote, look into all this stuff, I would probably know these answers. Are there any other calculations that you'd need to figure out the stuff that you were talking to about with the grand jury? How about calculating the final velocity of the objects after the collision? Would that be important?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

What objects?

[Carrie]

That would be John o' Keeffe's body, sir. The object you claim was flying through the air 30ft. How about calculating the displacement using kinematic equations? Would you be able to do that?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

The displacement of the body, in order.

[Carrie]

To calculate how far the body would move based on the mass of the object striking the body, could you use displacement using kinematic equations?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

So, like I said before, the sideswipe, he would not have gotten 100% of the speed of the striking vehicle. It would have actually underestimated this vehicle. You couldn't hit a person inside, swipe and spin them off to the side and get sp from that calculator.

[Carrie]

Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining with the proper calculations how far Jon o' Keeffe's body would have moved given the collision at issue?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Objection.

[I]

Is that what you're saying, Trooper?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

No.

[Carrie]

Well, you just said because it was a sideswipe, all these calculations, these physics calculations are inadequate, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I'm saying I would underestimate the speed, the distance.

[Paula Barros]

Incredulous. Jackson then questioned Trooper Paul's qualifying credentials.

[Carrie]

The truth is, Trooper Paul, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you? You've not been trained in physics formally, have you?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes.

[Carrie]

You have been.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

It's incorporated into the classes, Right.

[Carrie]

You had a few classes that use the word physics, but you haven't been formally trained in physics, have you? Haven't been formally trained in kinematics. Correct.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

It's in the aspects of all our crash Reconstruction classes.

[Carrie]

You haven't been formally trained and hold no degrees in biomechanics, do you?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I do not have a degree in biomechanics.

[Carrie]

In fact, basically what you did in this case was calculated initial cycles, and you even got those wrong.

[Paula Barros]

Jackson's line of questioning ends in a sustained objection. Yet again, Judge Kanoni asks him to get to the appropriate part of the question, but Jackson pivots.

[Carrie]

Based on your reconstruction, nearly two year investigation. Exactly how was that tail light shattered? Explain it to us.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

So the tail light in this case was shattered when it was struck John Okeefe's arm.

[Carrie]

Exactly what part of his arm, based.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

On what I saw for his injuries, was from its upper part of his arm down.

[Carrie]

Was his arm out and just struck the arm on a hinge in front of him. He did the reconstruction. Sure. Is exactly how his body was positioned when he was struck by that.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

So it looks like his arm was more kind of like this. If I can try to get done.

[Carrie]

You're indicating out by his side, correct?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

All right. And the tail light would have struck his arm, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Not his torso?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

Okay, so the full mass, the full weight of that truck hit him basically at the elbow, is that right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I said yeah. From the upper part of the arm down? Yeah.

[Carrie]

Elbow and the biceps.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I didn't see anything that shows an indication that this lower torso was struck. But it's not saying it could not have been a possibility, But I just didn't see anything.

[Carrie]

So his torso was spared from being hit, but the arm took the brunt. Full force of the vehicle, Correct.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Like arm and shoulder?

[Carrie]

Yes. Okay, and you said he then did a spin, like a sort of a pirouette?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yeah. Spun around counterclockwise. The way he struck it looks like it could have gone turned around counterclockwise.

[Carrie]

Okay, so if he turns around counterclockwise, is he turning around in the air counterclockwise?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes, initially.

[Carrie]

So it gets hit on the upper biceps, shoulder area, and down to the forearm, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

By an unbroken tail light, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes.

[Carrie]

In other words, it's nice and smooth. No shards of plastic or anything broken at the time that it made contact with his arm, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Correct.

[Carrie]

Okay, so how does arm get all cut up?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Because when his arms struck the tail light, the tail light then cracked. And I see the car is driving past him. The tail light could scratch it.

[Carrie]

Got it. So he gets hit by the car, not his torso, just the arm. The taillight cracks, and as it passes by, his arm stays with it long enough to get Striations, those scratches that you see, right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

In a sense, yes.

[Carrie]

And at the same time he does a pirouette and flies 30ft to his final point of rest.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

I don't know if he did a pirouette.

[Carrie]

Well, I'm usually where pirouette.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

He spun around, he started rotating counterclockwise. I don't know how far he ran counterclockwise, but he started rotating corn that would push him to rotate counterclockwise. When he went counterclockwise all the way to his back toward the ground, seems like a most likely possibility.

[Carrie]

Did you account for the fact that his arm is on hinge?

[Paula Barros]

Alan Jackson continues prodding Trooper Paul as the trooper becomes increasingly flustered.

[Carrie]

The truth is, Trooper Paul, you know, having investigated auto pedestrian accidents in the past, John o' Keefe's injuries do not look anything like an automobile pedestrian accident, do they?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

Yes, they do.

[Carrie]

Isn't it true, Trooper Paul, you came to these opinions from concluding conclusions because Trooper Proctor told you to come to these opinions with conclusions in furtherance of his investigation.

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

That is not true.

[Carrie]

That's why you have these opinions and conclusions that just don't make sense. Right?

[Trooper Nicholas Guarino]

That is not true.

[Carrie]

And you're just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[Paula Barros]

The scenario Trooper Paul painted left both trial spectators and followers perplexed, to say the least.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

Trooper Paul didn't seem to understand what he was applying. He noted that he had 120 hours of study and when he was asked questions he just really struggled. His explanations were things like, well, that's just how it happened. And he was forced to amend his sort of version of how things happened to move John O', Keefe, his sort of initial starting point, another 10ft. And the problem is that this gets us to what ends up being a very implausible vision of how this vehicle collision happens. Because of course they're not alleging that it's an accident. Their theory is, is that the vehicle hits sort of just his arm, breaks the plastic, the polycarbonate there, and then somehow from that throws him quite a substantial distance to hit his head and ultimately come down to arrest some 30ft away. When you just picture that in your head, it looks ridiculous. It looks on its face to be sort of cartoonish. So I found that to be striking because he is critical to the prosecution's case. This is their whole theory of what happened and he's the linchpin of it.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

The jury seemed befuddled by his description of John o' Keefe getting hit in the, the Arm and his body rotating and getting thrown many feet in the air. It just seemed hard to follow.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

And couldn't they have found somebody better than that? It was so bad.

[Paula Barros]

John o' Keefe's movements were investigated further by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, who was tasked with investigating data from both Karen and John's phones. GPS data from John's phone showed him traveling from the Waterfall Bar and Grill to 34 Fairview Road. And health data indicated John could have been walking up and down stairs at around 12.22am this certainly supported the defense's theory that John made it into the Alberts basement. Here's Trooper Guarino explaining his findings to Adam Lally on direct examination.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

So it marks when he's taking steps, ascending stairs and distance traveled.

[Alan Jackson]

And so from that period at 12:11 to 12:32, there are essentially four time periods that you delineated, is that correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes, that's correct. So at 1211 and 9 seconds in the morning to 1221 and 5 seconds on the 29th, that shows that he's taking 170 steps, going 99.6 meters or 326ft. At 1221 and 10 seconds to 1224 and 22 seconds it shows 80 steps and 87.74 meters or 287ft. At 12 21, 14 seconds to 1224 and 37 seconds it stated ascending, descending three floors. And then at 123156 to 12 32, 16 in the morning, 36 steps, 25.46 meters or 85ft.

[Paula Barros]

And as far as John's exact location goes, well, according to the Massachusetts State Police, the data doesn't explain much.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

So from 1225 and 30 seconds to about 1235 and 36 seconds, the GPS accuracy is tight on them for the first few seconds and then blows out. Encompasses pretty much the neighborhood. 34 Fairview, 32, 31. Signal weakens, it blows out and then as signal gets stronger, it shrinks back in. The GPS coordinates themselves are all still right where Mr. OKeefe's body was found.

[Paula Barros]

Karen's phone proffered more data. Subject to speculation too. On direct examination, Trooper Guarino testified that Karen's phone connected to the WI fi at John's home at 1 Meadows Avenue around the exact time his phone placed him at 34 Fairview Road. If this were true, it could be a surefire way to prove Karen was in fact not with John at the time of his death. During Guarino's cross examination, Iannetti sunk his teeth into this revelation, you had testified.

[Carrie]

On direct examination that Karen Reed's phone connected to the wi fi at 1 Meadows Ave. At approximately 12:36 in the morning.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes, sir.

[Carrie]

So you can testify based on that that by 12:36 in the morning, Karen Reid was not at 34th Fairview, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

That's correct.

[Carrie]

And that was the first of those voicemails that you testified to, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

That was the I hate you voicemail? Yes. That's 1237? Correct.

[Carrie]

Okay. And that voicemail and every other voicemail that the jury heard was left after Karen had left the 34th of February, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Yes, sir.

[Carrie]

And except for the one after six.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

In the morning, the four minute one when she went back, we heard that one.

[Carrie]

But all the other ones were apparently left when she was at one Meadows, correct?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I can't speak to where she was, but. But she wasn't at 34, 30? Yes, that's correct. She wasn't at 34.

[Paula Barros]

Your ears aren't deceiving you. The prosecution's own witness went on record that Karen could not have been at 34 Fairview at 12:37am eight minutes before their other witness, Jennifer McCabe, stated she saw the SUV drive away. Trooper Guarino may have added another layer of confusion. And Trooper Paul may not have been their most credible witness. So the prosecution pivoted to someone more integral to the investigation as their last word before officially resting their case on June 21. Medical examiner Dr. Irene Scordi Bello, who performed John Okeefes autopsy, testified to the case's most concrete and unanimously agreed upon detail. John's cause of death was ultimately blunt force injury to the skull and hypothermia. But how those injuries were inflicted was still up for debate. And that's where things get complicated. Because Dr. Scordi Bello said after 90 days of applying her expertise, her options for the manner of death were left between homicide or accident. Though how he could have been murdered or how he could have accidentally met an untimely death was never concluded. Elizabeth Little, one of Karen Reed's defense attorneys, cross examined doctors Gordy Bellow, having her walk through each part of John's body she physically inspected.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

You testified regarding a number of injuries that you referred to as blunt impact injuries, correct?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And to be clear, blunt impact injuries are a very, very large category that includes contusions, lacerations, abrasions and fractures.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you've testified similarly that a blunt object can also refer to a large range of objects, Is that right?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And I think yesterday you gave the example of a microphone being a blunt object.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

It could also include something like a baseball bat.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

A dumbbell could be the ground?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Or a German shepherd's claws.

[Carrie]

Claws, possibly, yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

You'd agree that John o' KE had a number of blunt impact injuries on his face, on his head and his right arm?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Besides his right arm, which we'll discuss in a second. Taking his body from the neck down, he did not have any significant injuries.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

From the neck down? Not significant, no.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Let's take those one at a time. No injury whatsoever to his shoulders?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries whatsoever to his chest area, aside from sort of the CPR related injuries that you described?

[Carrie]

Yes. Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And that was in the sternum, is that right?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

It was in the ribs just adjacent to the sternum?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Okay. No injuries to his torso other than that?

[Carrie]

No.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his back?

[Carrie]

No.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his hips?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his pelvis?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his thighs?

[Carrie]

No.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his knees?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his shins?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his ankles.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

No injuries to his feet.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

From the neck down, he did not have a single broken bone. Again, aside from those CPR related injuries you discussed, correct?

[Carrie]

That's correct. Not a single fracture other than cpr? Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you spoke earlier about how the bumper was a little higher than on, say, a regular sedan, correct?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And so usually in a pedestrian collision, you would see injuries to the knees.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Depending on the kind of car, depending on the speed, depending on the height.

[Carrie]

Of the individual and the car, you.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Might see injuries to their lower extremity.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Yeah, but in this case, you didn't see any injuries to his thighs, to his pelvis, anything, even at the height of the bumper, is that correct?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Had a very minor abrasion to the side of his right knee.

[Paula Barros]

Attorney Little then brought it back to Trooper Paul's accident reconstruction testimony in another attempt to discredit his assessment.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Would you agree that John o' Keefe's injuries, or lack thereof, are inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 miles per hour?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I would say it's likely and unlikely at the same time, depending on the position of the body and the vehicle in question.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Would you agree that John o' Keeffe's injury to his arm are inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 miles per hour?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I don't know. I am not a reconstruction expert. I'm not a biomechanics expert. I never personally inspected the car, so I can't offer an opinion on that.

[Paula Barros]

Attorney Little Pivoted back to something on which Dr. Scordi Bello could opine.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

I'd like to talk about the injuries to John O' Keeffe's face. You testified that Mr. O' Keeffe had a laceration on his right upper eyelid.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

You also described multiple abrasions on his nose.

[Carrie]

Two. Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Although these injuries may not have been the ultimate cause of his death, you'd agree that less severe injuries can still be very important in interpreting the manner or the context in which that person died, correct?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And in furtherance of that, you've been taught that when doing an autopsy, details matter, Correct. No matter how small?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And that's one of the reasons, as a medical examiner, you have to notate every single injury you find on a person?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Paula Barros]

Little drew the doctor's attention to a gut wrenching photo of John o' Keeffe's lifeless face.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Do you recognize that photograph?

[Carrie]

I do.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And is that a photograph that was taken in connection with your autopsy?

[Carrie]

Yes. It was taken at the time of.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Autopsy after the face was cleaned.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Are these the facial injuries were testifying to earlier?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Could you describe in that photograph what injuries you observed in space?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

The orbital ecchymosis on both eyes, the small laceration to the right eyelid, the.

[Carrie]

Abrasions on the nose.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you testified that the injuries, his face, were also the result of a blunt force trauma.

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

So that's the laceration to the eye and the two abrasions that we see there on his nose?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you agree that those injuries don't just manifest out of nowhere? Right?

[Carrie]

Absolutely.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

They have to originate from something.

[Paula Barros]

Yes, but from where and what exactly?

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Would you agree that his injuries to his face are consistent with having been punched?

[Carrie]

That is a possibility.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Your internal examination notes also cite a tongue laceration on the right front of the victim's tongue. Do you recall that?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you'd agree that a tongue laceration can be also caused by blunt force trauma?

[Carrie]

Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And that could also include something like a punch to the victim's face or jaw?

[Carrie]

That's a possibility.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

In addition to the facial injuries, you described that Mr. O' Keeffe had a significant laceration on the back of his head.

[Carrie]

He had one laceration to the back of his head? Correct.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

We saw a photograph of that a little bit earlier. You testified that the skin around the laceration on the back of his head was also scratched.

[Carrie]

Yes, I do.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

But you did not testify as to how you opined that might have happened.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

No.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Would you agree that someone could Certainly get scratched on the back of their head if they were, for instance, dragged on the ground.

[Carrie]

Possible.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

You described the open wound to the back of his head as a laceration, which is sort of a blunt force injury that's not the result of sharp force trauma, is that right?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And you'd agree that Mr. O' Keeffe's head injury came from some sort of blow to the back of the head, whether it be an object or the ground, is that right?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

And that injury could be the result of falling backward from a standing position onto concrete? It's possible. It could also be the result of being struck with a large object, such as a baseball bat or a barbell.

[Carrie]

It's possible.

[Paula Barros]

These myriad of possibilities would were all the defense needed to fulfill their one and only job, to cast reasonable doubt.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

If I were in this pickle, I would want my defense attorney to do anything they could to extricate me from the situation. If we've got to talk about dogs, okay, we'll talk about dogs. Yeah, we'll go down that road. But at the end of the day, you still can't prove that that is in fact what happened. Is there enough significantly there that you can literally hang your scientific hat on? And the biggest measure of the science here is the hesitancy on the part of the Commonwealth's medical examiner to want to classify this as a homicide. They didn't want to do that. They didn't want to step over that, and they didn't want to go accident either. So what are you left with? Well, undetermined.

[Paula Barros]

Now that the prosecution had finally exhausted their witnesses, the defense began to call a few of their own. First up, Canton snowplow driver Brian Lucky Laufren. He happened to know the Albert family and was familiar with Nicole and Brian's home from his days delivering pizzas there. The night of January 28th into the morning of January 29th, 2022, Loughran was dispatched to work for the imminent blizzard. His plow route included passing 34 Fairview Road three times. He testified that during all three passes he had a clear view of their front yard.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

How much light did your headlights illuminate.

[Carrie]

Of the Albert's front lawn as you were coming down from Chapman Street?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Just about the entire front lawn.

[Paula Barros]

Lafren's seat was raised and he described his headlights as bright, like a spotlight. With this vantage point, Inetti pressed him on whether during his first pass around 2:45am Anything jumped out to him when he observed the front lawn.

[Carrie]

With regard to that area around the Flag pole. Did you see anything on the lawn?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Nothing.

[Carrie]

Did you see a body? No.

[Paula Barros]

And during his second pass, did you.

[Alan Jackson]

See anything on the front lawn at that time?

[Carrie]

No.

[Paula Barros]

Then on his third pass at about 3.30am Loughran witnessed something that wasn't there before. A Ford Edge SUV parked eerily close to the flagpole where John o' Keefe's body was later found.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

The Alberts never had cars that were parked out front. It just stuck out as weird.

[Paula Barros]

Lafren said that in February 2022 he made investigators aware of the unusual sighting but wasn't interviewed by law enforcement until May of 2023. But the reliability of his sighting was called into question during his cross examination by Lally.

[Alan Jackson]

Now, do you know the difference between, if you were to see a Ford Edge at nighttime in a snowstorm, the difference between a Ford Edge and a Jeep Cherokee?

[Carrie]

Yes.

[Alan Jackson]

What's the difference?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

The tail lights in the back.

[Alan Jackson]

What about it?

[Carrie]

Ford Edge is a more round.

[Alan Jackson]

The whole back facade is a little bit more round.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

A Jeep Cherokee are more square.

[Alan Jackson]

Now, what color was this SUV that you come.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I can't tell you that. I am colorblind.

[Alan Jackson]

As far as your colorblindness, can you tell whether or not an object is dark or light just by looking at it?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I can see things that are light. I can see things that are dark. I can see true colors.

[Carrie]

I can't see shades of true colors.

[Paula Barros]

Although his testimony during direct examination was compelling, the revelation of Brian Loughran's colorblindness casts doubt on his reliability as an eyewitness, potentially affecting how the jury perceived his credibility. By day 29 of the trial, the defense had presented their complete working theory of what resulted in John o' Keefe's death. Here's what they think happened that night, a fight broke out inside Nicole and Brian Albert's home. He was bit by their German shepherd mix, Chloe. Then dragged out to the front lawn by the flagpole where the Ford Edge was allegedly parked. There John o' Keefe succumbed to hypothermia and injuries related to blunt force trauma.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Based on your extensive training and experience, what is your opinion regarding whether those injuries are consistent with an individual being struck by a vehicle?

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

If you mean struck in that part of the body, on the arm, yes.

[Carrie]

Directly, I would say no, it doesn't look like that at all.

[Paula Barros]

In Dr. Frank Sheridan's opinion, if John O' Keefe had in fact been hit by an SUV, his body would have sustained significantly more bruising. However, he did find his injuries consistent with something Else, in your professional opinion.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

Are those injuries consistent with an animal attack?

[Carrie]

I would say they are, yes. I'm not 100% sure.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

I didn't get a chance to analyze.

[Carrie]

It right there on the spots, so to speak.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

But my basic impression that these were consistent with marks caused by, say, a dog using his paws or claws, if.

[Carrie]

You want to put it that way.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

And possibly the teeth as well.

[Paula Barros]

But remember, the investigators in this case didn't perform any sort of physical examination of Chloe the dog before she was rehomed in May of 2022. Before resting their case, the court heard from two more experts, Daniel wolf and Andrew rentschler.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

The defense at the end of the trial called in two witnesses that they had never spoken to before. They were these two accident reconstructionists, and they were not hired by the defense. They were not hired by the prosecution.

[Paula Barros]

Both men came from independent forensic engineering consulting firms and maintained that the damage observed on Karen's taillight could not have caused the injuries John okeefe suffered on both his head and arm.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

It was just interesting, just strictly from a neutral perspective, that the defense was basically taking a gamble and having not really prepared with these witnesses, they didn't know what kind of answers they were going to get. And so, you know, they took that shot. And ultimately, I think with their conclusions being that the injuries to John o' keefe were not consistent with being struck by a car and the damage to the car were not consistent with hitting a pedestrian, I thought that was just an incredible way to sort of end the trial. Calling up two witnesses they've never spoken to before and learning in real time what their conclusions were.

[Paula Barros]

After 30 full days, 74 witnesses and over 600 items entered into evidence. It was finally time for closing arguments. Each side was given one hour to neatly wrap up their case. Alan jackson went first.

[Carrie]

Look the other way, four words that sum up the Commonwealth's entire case. Four words that sum up the hopes of those who have tried to deceive you. Conflicts of interest doesn't matter. Just look the other way. Magic hairs, magic glass look the other way. Late night calls and google searches. Falsified affidavits, Inverted videos, Butt dials galore. Just look the other way. That's what they want. That's what they're counting on. But the uncontrovertible fact is you have been lied to in this courtroom, and your job is to make sure you don't ever, ever look the other way. Preparing for today, I was reminded of a quote. It's a quote about the truth And I want to share it with you. It is of great importance to set a resolution, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible. And those who permit themselves to tell a lie once find it much easier to do it a second time. And a third. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time it depraves all its good dispositions. What does that mean? It means that it's been observed that to tell an untruth, to exaggerate, to make a false claim, it's a cancer. One lie begets another. And it's a malignancy that grows over time. And that, folks, is how a cover up is born. That's how a Massachusetts state trooper says in whispered tones to his friends when he thought no one was looking or listening. How he would make it cut and dry, no matter the truth. How he would make sure to put, quote, serious charges on the girl. In other words, penn it on the girl. You may ask yourself, how does this happen? How could this happen? It's 2024. Surely people aren't going to come to this courtroom, this hall of justice, and lie to us, just give us false information. They wouldn't do that. They wouldn't try to cover up the truth. The Alberts, the McCabes, Higgins, Lank, Michael Proctor, Yuri Buchanak, Brian Tully. You don't have to wonder if they would lie to support their narrative. You need only wonder how many times they did lie. Over and over and over. They and others were caught deceiving you. Big things, small things, it didn't really matter. They feared nothing. They'll look you in the eye and deny phone calls. They'll deny secret meetings. They'll claim that calls are butt dials and butt dials are answered. They'll show you a video and tell you left is right and right is left. They'll magically turn three pieces of plastic into five right before your eyes. And even when they're caught with their own lies, they won't blink. They don't sweat. They won't. They'll just look you in the eye and demand, pay no attention. You folks look the other way. Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover up in this case, plain and simple. You'll surely say to yourself, I don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that can happen in our community. But sadly, over the past eight weeks, you've seen it right before your eyes. So how does a cover up happen? How could that happen? Well, let's count the ways, shall we? Hand pick your investigator. Make sure it's someone we know, someone on our side. Keep him close. Offer them help. Offer him a gift. Have secret friends and family meetings. Get your story straight. Delete your call history. Make mysterious Phone calls at 2:22am Delete Google searches. Monitor police activity. Get rid of evidence. Get rid of your dog. Destroy your phones. Destroy your SIM card for the investigator. Decide on a narrative early on. Don't go to the crime scene. Don't take witnesses in for questioning. Question all the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who don't fit your narrative. Allow friends and family to contact those same witnesses. Don't record interviews. Write vague and false police reports. Omit witnesses names. Omit witnesses interviews altogether. Don't photograph the evidence. Don't conduct any forensics. Don't document the evidence. Don't document the logs. Don't create any logs whatsoever. And don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the hands of one person and then manipulate that evidence. Videos. Don't turn over videos. Invert videos. Turn 4:16pm into 5:30pm in affidavits. Turn three pieces of taillight into five pieces of tail light. Delete 42 minutes of surveillance footage. Hide personal relationships. Make this case cut and dry and ensure the homeowner, quote, never sees any shit because he's a Boston cop. But most importantly, pick your patsy. Pin it on the girl. It's not that it could happen. It's that every single one of those things I just mentioned did happen right in front of you. But this sort of injustice can't happen in a vacuum. So what about the prosecution? What about the Commonwealth? What does it look like when the government picks a narrative and then tries to form a prosecution around the narrative instead of the other way around? Looks a lot like this. If you don't have actual evidence, just throw every single thing you can against the wall to see what sticks, drag her through the mud and make sure you attack her character. And that's what you saw.

[Paula Barros]

In this case, he compared evidence entered by the prosecution to the evidence entered by the defense. To further drive his point home, what.

[Carrie]

Evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John? The answer is none. They don't have any. There's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Reed's vehicle ever struck John o' Keefe or that Karen Reed ever wanted to strike John o'. Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite. John went into that House. That SUV was not damaged by hitting John. And John's injuries did not come from being hit by a car. That's what the evidence actually shows.

[Paula Barros]

And Jackson wrapped up his closing argument by posing important questions for the jury to consider.

[Carrie]

Ladies and gentlemen, how did this happen? How did we end up here? We ended up here because of relationships, insider trading, playing the who you know game, and building a tall blue wall, which takes decades of generations. But the real question is, is it going to continue with this festering malignancy that allows a lead detective and his supervisor to gloat and sneer while looking over naked pictures or looking for naked pictures of the woman that they've targeted? Will that continue? And the answer should be not if you have anything to say about it. Michael Proctor is the lead investigator in this case. And much as the Commonwealth might try, they kill cannot distance themselves from the stench of him on this case and this investigation. Those secret group chats illustrate the quality and character of his investigation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you frame someone. That's how you dehumanize someone so viciously that you can just pin it on the girl and cover for the homeowner because he's a Boston cop. That's how you rip a person's life apart and sleep like a baby while doing it. And then further that by saying, I hope she kills herself. Ladies and gentlemen, I just began the discussion this afternoon or this morning with a quote about the truth. And I did that because that's what this case is about. Top to bottom, tip to tail. It's about the truth. Not hiding it or concealing it, but exposing the truth. The truth is immutable. It's not a feeling. It's not a whim. It's unflinching. It's unchanging, and it's everlasting. That's why the law is steady. That's why it's not captive to the whims of people drunk with power who think they're above the law, who think they're above scrutiny. That's why you stand as the guardian of justice and the protector of justice. The law demands the very integrity that Trooper Proctor and his investigation lacks. And it requires that you cannot convict Garrett Reeds unless the Commonwealth has met its incredibly high burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. You may not have asked to be here, but each of you have given something very special of yourselves. You've agreed to do that which is the highest calling a citizen can answer in any way and My question to you is, what will you do with this moment? Ignore the lies and the manipulations, the misogyny, the bias, the lack of evidence? Could you ever do that? Would you ever do that? Or will you say with your verdict, I see the truth and I will not ever look the other way. When you stare the truth down, you'll see that the Commonwealth has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt into a moral certainty. Not even close, ladies and gentlemen. Karen Reid is innocent. Do justice and find her not guilty. Thank you.

[Paula Barros]

It was then prosecutor Lally's time to shine.

[Alan Jackson]

I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. Those are the words of the defendant. Four times you heard testimony from four different witnesses who overheard and observed those statements from the defendant. On January 29, 2022, you heard testimony from firefighter Timothy Nuttall. He was trying to bag valve mask Mr. O'.

[Carrie]

Keefe.

[Alan Jackson]

He's working on resuscitative efforts to try to save Mr. O' Keefe's life. He asked if anyone saw anything or knew what happened. And the defendant said, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. Firefighter Anthony Fumadi was asking if anyone had information on why Mr. O' Keefe was there in the snow. The defendant repeatedly said, I hit him. I hit him. Oh, my God, I hit him. Firefighter Katie McLaughlin was tasked by firefighter Lamotti with asking for biographical information and for what the cause was of the traumatic injuries that all the firefighters testified they observed on Mr. O'.

[Carrie]

Keefe.

[Alan Jackson]

She asked the defendant. The defendant said, I hit him repeatedly. Firefighter McLaughlin asked for clarification. You did what? And the defendant repeated, I hid him. You heard testimony from officer Sarah, statements that he attributed to the defendant as saying that morning, this is all my fault. This is all my fault. I did this. This is what the defendant is saying on scene. Since then, stories changed a little, but those were the words that came from the defendant's mouth on January 29, 2022, as John O' Keefe lay dying on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road, where the defendant had left after striking him with her motor vehicle several hours before and then left him freezing there in a blizzard. Little things matter. Little things start piling up in this case. Throughout the course of this trial, you've heard a lot of courted evidence or questions of witnesses in an attempt to distract you from the evidence. In this case, it's essentially defense by obfuscation. It's a three card monitor. Facts on the evidence in this case are your card, they're the queen of hearts. Or what the defense wants you to do is not look at that card, look at anything else. Look at movement, look at this person, look at that person, look at text messages, look at this. Don't pay attention to the facts and the evidence because if you do, it will ineluctably lead you to is that the defendant is guilty of each of the three indictments before this court. The evidence and the facts of this case are for you, the jury, to decide. Using your common sense, using your life experiences as your guide through that as you go.

[Paula Barros]

Lally addressed the big elephant in the room too.

[Alan Jackson]

Text messages from Trooper Proctor are unprofessional. They're indefensible.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

They're inexcusable.

[Alan Jackson]

However, as distasteful as those messages are and their content is, admit they had no bearing whatsoever or impact whatsoever on the integrity of the entirety of the investigation that Massachusetts State Police collectively conducted into John o' Keefe's death here, what do you not see in those text messages? You don't see any discussion or any illusion of any conspiracy of inframing of the defendant, of any planting of any evidence? No evidence whatsoever. Why? Because it didn't happen. There is no conspiracy. There is no cover up. There is no evidence of any of that beyond speculation, rampant speculation and conjecture on behalf of the defense. Two things can be true at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. The texts from Trooper Proctor are distasteful, disrespectful, unprofessional. There is no defense to them. And the defendant killed John o'.

[Carrie]

Kee.

[Paula Barros]

And he highlighted something that stood out to him from the jump. While Karen made multiple phone calls the morning John died, there was one in his opinion that she neglected to make.

[Alan Jackson]

No calls to 911 from the defendant. While John O' Keefe is laying freezing and dying from a brain injury and a skull fracture on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road.

[Paula Barros]

Lally's time was running out. This was his last chance to convince the jury that there was no doubt Karen Reed was responsible for John's death.

[Alan Jackson]

John Adams once wrote, facts are stubborn things. Whatever may be our wishes, our interest, inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and the evidence. What the constellation of the facts and the evidence intellectually demonstrate here is that the defendant drove her vehicle in reverse 24.2 miles per hour for 62 and a half feet, struck Mr. Oakley, causing those catastrophic head injuries, leaving him incapacitated from that facts and that evidence. Evidence, I would submit, intellectually demonstrates their guilt. On each of the indictments before you, I would ask you to find us.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Okay.

[Paula Barros]

Before the jury could be released to deliberate, judge Beverly Kanoni painstakingly emphasized all they would need to take into account to reach a verdict.

[I]

As I explained to you at the beginning of the trial, there is a fundamental rule that applies in all criminal cases, including this case. Every person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime. Ms. Reed is presumed innocent of the charges in this case. That means you must consider Ms. Reed to be innocent. Unless the prosecution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence presented during the trial that Ms. Reed committed the crimes charged. After you have considered all the evidence carefully and fairly, if you have a reasonable doubt about Ms. Reed's guilt in a particular charge, then your verdict must be not guilty on that charge. You may find Ms. Reed guilty of a charge only if all 12 deliberating jurors agree that the commonwealth has proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. You folks are the most important people in the courtroom. It all begins and ends with your function. You will determine the facts in this case, and that is your job and your job alone. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You must determine the facts solely and entirely on the evidence as you have heard it and seen it in this courtroom and on nothing else. No prejudice, no bias, no fear, no favor. You must not be swayed by personal likes or dislikes. Your deliberations are no place for emotion or sympathy, passion or prejudice. The commonwealth and Karen Reid have a right to have the case judged by fair and impartial jurors.

[Paula Barros]

And she reminded them that evidence must overrule a motion.

[I]

You may feel sympathy for the family of Mr. O', Keefe, and you may feel sympathy for the defendant as she sits here in this courtroom. But your job is to decide the case without bias, fear, sympathy or favor. To view the evidence with a certain clinical detachment and to decide the case based solely on the evidence and the application of the law to that evidence. Consider the evidence as a whole. Do not make up your mind about what the verdict should be until after you've gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence. Please keep an open mind until then.

[Paula Barros]

Kanoni also addressed what we all couldn't help but notice throughout the near two month long trial.

[Carrie]

Trial.

[Paula Barros]

Karen's silence.

[I]

The defendant did not testify at this trial. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify. Since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty, it is not up to the defendant to prove that she is innocent. The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether she is guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse infant against the defendant because she did not testify. You are not to consider it in any way or even discuss it in your deliberation. You must determine whether the commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits.

[Paula Barros]

Then, perhaps most importantly, judge Kanoni emphasized the weight of Karen's most significant charge and how to determine her fate.

[I]

Ms. Reed is charged with second degree murder. In order to prove murder in the second degree, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements. First, the defendant caused the death of John O'.

[Carrie]

Keefe.

[I]

Two, the defendant intended to kill John o' keefe or intended to cause grievous bodily harm to John o' Keefe or intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. You may consider any credible evidence that the defendant was affected by her consumption of alcohol. If the commonwealth has proven both elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty. If the commonwealth has failed to prove one or more of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty.

[Paula Barros]

At day's end, on June 25, the jury began deliberations. Spectators looked on with bated breath as day after day passed without a verdict. But some anticipated the long deliberation.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I wasn't surprised, in fact, anticipated it. And the reason being that this case has been so polarizing, People either feel really strongly that she did it or they feel really strongly that it was a cover up.

[Paula Barros]

The pressure was on, and after five anxiety inducing days, they finally reached their decision on July 1, 2024. The tension in the courtroom could be cut with a knife as the foreman slipped a sheet of paper into judge Kanoni's hand.

[I]

All right, Mr. Foreman, I am in receipt of your note. Judge Kanone. Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a Lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. I'm not going to do that to you folks. Your service is complete. I'm declaring a mistrial in this case.

[Paula Barros]

When the outcome was revealed, Karen stood up and beeline to her father for a hug. Reporter Christina Rex was in the courtroom when the jaw dropping decision was finally read.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Here's what she observed in that courtroom. It was heavy. I don't know how else to describe it. It was heavy, it was tense. It felt like you could hear a pin drop. Even the judge seemed somber. Mrs. O', Keefe, John's mother was crying. And then even the jurors when they came in. The jurors have had great poker faces over the course of this trial, but there was definitely a sense of defeat when they came in for the last and the judge declared a mistrial. And the air was so heavy in that room. And then once the mistrial was declared, you could hear inside the courtroom the cheers and the screams from the free Karen Reid supporters outside the courtroom. You could hear that all the way in the courtroom. And so to have this moment that was so sad and bizarre and confusing and felt like a non ending in the courtroom, paired with the faint sounds of cheers outside was just bizarre.

[Paula Barros]

Christina's memory serves her right. Outside the courthouse, hundreds of Karen Reed supporters were erupting with glee. Their sighs of relief reverberating across Norfolk County. But some were still frustrated.

[Carrie]

We are not happy. It's a mistrial. We wanted Karen Reed to be declared not guilty. We know Karen Reed is not guilty.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

A first grader will tell you that she's not guilty. Gary Reed was framed, pure and simple.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

I was disappointed that the jury couldn't.

[Carrie]

Come to a verdict.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

You know, based on what I've seen of the trial and watching all the.

[Carrie]

Pre trial hearings and stuff was very evident that Karen Reed did not do this.

[Paula Barros]

Her detractors were still out too.

[Carrie]

What's the vibe like out here today?

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

It's hostile. I'm here today to stand up for.

[Carrie]

The O' Keefe family, the McCabe family.

[Judge Beverly Kanoni]

The Albert family and the Roberts family.

[Paula Barros]

They have become victims in this terrible game that Karen Reid is playing. It was an absolute spectacle.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

It was unmistakable. They were so loud because I think those people viewed it as positive.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Everyone I've talked to, reporters and lawyers alike have said I've never seen anything like this before. I interviewed an attorney who said, I haven't seen a crowd like this at a murder trial since O.J.

[Paula Barros]

Despite the fact that a mistrial is not a declaration of innocence, Karen Reid's supporters were elated by the non verdict. A mistrial means that the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And to them, this leaves the door open for future legal challenges or a reexamination of the case altogether. To make it plain, it means hope.

[Carrie]

Folks, this is what it looks like when you bring false charges against an innocent person. The Commonwealth did their worst. They brought the weight of the state based on spurious charges, based on compromised investigation and investigators and compromised witnesses. This is what it looks like. Guess what? They failed. They failed miserably. And they'll continue to fail no matter how long it takes, no matter how long they keep trying. We will not stop fighting. We have no quit. I just have two things to say, folks.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

Number one, I am in awe of.

[Carrie]

The strength and courage of this remarkable.

[Alan Jackson]

Client that I've had the privilege of representing since day one.

[Carrie]

And number two, I want to send a message to all of her supporters out there. Your support was invaluable. We are touched and we ask for your continued support. I'm not from Texas like my colleague here, I'm a Boston kid, but I'll repeat what he said, which is, we ain't got no quit.

[Paula Barros]

While the mistrial wasn't the verdict either the Commonwealth or Karen Reid's attorneys had ultimately hoped for, it illuminated just how complex and difficult this case was to try.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

I have to say that the mistrial was almost anti climatic because I think people were waiting to hear what this jury of 12, okay, they've sat through this whole thing. They've heard all the evidence from both sides. What, where are they going with this? And we never got that.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I think the mistrial is something that legal experts saw coming as a possibility, a hung jury. But at the end of the day, everyone outside that courthouse, Karen and her attorneys, the o' Keefe family, everyone was expecting and wanted a verdict. Everyone in that jury room, I'm sure, was as divided as the public is when they talk about this case. I don't know anybody who has believed one thing on this case and can have a conversation with somebody who believes the opposite and convince them to change their minds. People have very strong beliefs about what they think happened here. And I think that was reflected in the jury.

[Lieutenant Brian Tulley]

The jury is kind of a reflection of kind of the world looking at this case and to use the words of the jury, they were starkly divided. And we've seen that all over the Internet. We've seen that in the courtroom. We've seen it basically everywhere. So if anything, it was just a reminder. This isn't clear cut. This is by no means a simple case. And I think what a lot of people comment on, of course, is just the strategy of the defense and the way that the prosecution took six or so weeks to present their case. The defense was very aggressive during those weeks. And then for them to only call six witnesses and to end in a mistrial, it's just a confirmation of just how complicated this case is.

[Paula Barros]

It also exposed areas across both the law enforcement community and our judicial system that need more attention.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I do think if I'm looking optimistically, maybe a silver lining takeaway from the public spectacle around this case is that people are paying attention and learning about how the court works, about how the police work, about how the trial system is perhaps about poor training and funding of some of our publicly funded police departments and investigators. There's a new awareness that people are developing from paying attention to what is probably the first murder trial. A lot, a lot, a lot of these people have followed.

[Paula Barros]

We asked Christina what she knows, if anything is being done in the wake of the case against Karen Reid to address some of these glaring problems.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

So that's now a big question for following the mistrial is like, okay, clearly, regardless of what you believe happened in this case, bad police behavior was exposed as a result of this trial. Who is going to be held accountable for that? I don't know about any investigations going on at the Canton Police Department. I'm not sure anything is going on there. However, at Mass State Police, the colonel from Massachusetts State Police said for the last year and change, they've already been in the process of undergoing this six point plan that they're working on, including how they handle investigations, how they handle media exposure, public speaking, kind of like a internal revamp that they're working on.

[Paula Barros]

And of course, what about the fate of Trooper Proctor?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I think there's a lot of questions there. Like, is more than Trooper Proctor going to suffer any consequences because he texted his supervisors too? And it's unclear if there needs to be any accountability for that. But other than that, I'm not aware of any active internal investigations right now.

[Paula Barros]

Since we spoke to Christina. Trooper Proctor was relieved of duty from the Massachusetts State Police and is no longer allowed to function as a trooper. An internal investigation into his conduct was revealed to be underway and a disciplinary hearing will ultimately decide his fate. It's possible he could get his job back. And it's not just him. A few of his colleagues are being investigated, too. The Massachusetts State Police confirmed this in a statement. Detective Lieutenant Brian Tulley, Lieutenant John Fanning, and Sergeant Yuri Buchenik are each the subject of an active internal affairs investigation. The department respectfully declines further comment. In fairness to the integrity of the process and pending investigative outcomes, the troopers remain on full duty at this time. The State Police followed up that same day to say that the investigation into Lt. John Fanning was actually no longer active. The department's internal affairs investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation that Lt. Fanning violated rules and regulations by failing to uphold the responsibilities of a supervisory member. This allegation has been classified as unfounded. But what does the mistrial mean for Karen Reid?

[Trooper Joe Paul]

Basically, Karen Reid is now just a defendant out on bail again. Legally, it's like nothing ever happened. It's like the trial never happened if they wanted it to. The trial could be a carbon copy of the one that just happened. However, that's very unlikely. There are multiple options as far as a jury goes. The lawyers could ask for a jury from a different county, which has happened at that courthouse before, for other trials. Very recently this year, even, there have been jurors bused in from another county to try and get an impartial jury, because in this first trial alone, it took over 400 jury interviews to get 17 jurors. So you can only imagine for round two, how that will go. A lot of experts think that second degree murder was an overcharge here. The state could bring different charges against Kira and read or modify the charges or drop some of the charges. They could call fewer witnesses.

[Paula Barros]

Just three weeks after the mistrial was declared in a status hearing on July 22, Judge Kanoni proposed January 27, 2025, as the next trial start date. Believe it or not, they're doing this all over again.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

I can't believe there's going to be another trial. I can, but I can't.

[Paula Barros]

And attorney Matt Timpanik told us who he thinks will have an upper hand in the next round.

[Carrie]

I definitely think at a retrial, the Commonwealth probably has the advantage. Usually it's the defense because there was already one mistrial by reason of a hung jury, that there's a higher probability of another hung jury or an acquittal.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

But I definitely think that the Commonwealth.

[Carrie]

Is going to be able to change how they present their case and make it more succinct and easy to follow in the subsequent case and camero out the bad facts and see lay the trap if it were to see if the defense tries to argue the conspiracy. I don't think they will just simply because if this jury didn't buy it the first time, I don't see another jury buying it either.

[Paula Barros]

Alina Burrows raises perhaps the most important consideration another trial deserves beyond money, time and resources.

[Trooper Joe Paul]

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.

[Paula Barros]

Just as the trial that precluded it, the aftermath wasn't short on confusion and drama. In mid July, the defense alleged that up to five jurors contacted them claiming that they did in fact reach not guilty verdicts in two of the three the second degree murder charge and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle crash caused causing death charge. In affidavits submitted by the defense, the jurors said they were left confused by the judge's instructions and were never asked if they had reached an agreement on any of the three counts. Ted Daniels said he could see how this could be confusing.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

Things can happen so quickly and you kind of wonder like what did the judge just say? What does this necessarily mean for this motion? Or did that get denied or did she approve that?

[Carrie]

So.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

So I guess I kind of understand just from being a bystander in the courtroom how it can go very quickly. And if you're not familiar with the legal process, you may not completely be following exactly to a T what they want you to do, what the jurors have said, at least the ones that have come forward to the defense, they said, hey, this was confusing. We didn't know if we could just make decisions on a couple of the charges and leave one blank. We thought we it was all or nothing. So that's why they say they didn't right then and there find her not guilty of the second degree murder charge. And they said that things ended so quickly they felt they were kind of rushed out of the building at the end of this. Also, we never heard from the defense when the judge declared a mistrial. I think the defense could have stood up and said, hey, can we at least figure out if they made any decisions on any of these charges?

[Paula Barros]

David Iannetti and Alan Jackson saw these revelations by the jury as grounds to dismiss the two charges in a hearing on August 9. Here's what came next.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

First, the defense filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that they Spoke to three jurors who said that, hey, we don't feel comfortable with the way this ended because we all had decided in our deliberations that we were taking two of the three charges against Karen Reid off the table. That they found that the murder charge and the leaving the scene of a fatal crash charge, that there wasn't evidence to support that they were stuck on the felony manslaughter charge. So they filed a motion to dismiss with information from three jurors. And then a couple days later, Alan Jackson files a new motion saying, hey, we have a fourth juror who's come forward who's saying essentially the same thing. And this juror says they will go on the record and testify to the fact that the jury had reached conclusions on two of the three charges, as long as they're not identified.

[Paula Barros]

But here's the problem with that plan.

[Dr. Irene Scordi Bello]

None of these internal votes or decisions by the jury were ever recorded. Recorded were ever put on the record. And it would seem odd to. To bring a jury back and say, you know, hey, you had a chance to check this not guilty box, but you didn't.

[Carrie]

But since this case, the jury has been adjourned, I don't foresee that the judge is going to actually be like, oh, well, if they all agreed, well, we should have acquitted them. That's not how the law works in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That would have been needed to be done before they were released. And they're like, hey, we have a unanimous verdict on two of the counts, But I ultimately don't believe under Massachusetts law, it's going to go anywhere.

[Paula Barros]

Matt Timpanek was right. It didn't go anywhere. On August 23rd, despite five jurors coming forward, Judge Beverly Canoni denied the motion to dismiss. Throughout the sensational trial of Karen Reid, the focus often shifted away from the man whose life was tragically cut short, overshadowed by the intense public fascination with his romantic partner and the colorful cast of characters entangled in the case. Fanfare and opinions aside, a devoted family man lost his life, and his family is still left seeking justice without a solid verdict and the belief in their heart that Karen reed killed John O'.

[Carrie]

Keefe.

[Paula Barros]

On August 26, 2024, the O' Keefe family filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Paul O', Keefe, John's younger brother, is listed as the representative of his estate. The lawsuit claims that Karen Reed spread a narrative about John o' Keefe that misrepresented him and ultimately caused his family aggravated emotional distress. With this development, Karen Reed could now be facing not one, but two more rounds of litigation wherever you might land. With regard to Karen Reed's guilt or innocence, one truth remains clear. John O. Keefes family deserves nothing less than peace and closure. 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 book are Alyssa Fisher and Diane Kay. Legal and Fact Checking by Elizabeth Vouli. 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, Apple Podcasts or Spotify.