In Search of Reasonable Doubt: S1-E5

Summary

KAREN: THE RETRIAL – Episode Summary: "In Search of Reasonable Doubt: S1-E5"

Release Date: November 13, 2024

---

Introduction

In the gripping fifth episode of KAREN: THE RETRIAL, titled "In Search of Reasonable Doubt," listeners are taken deeper into the high-stakes retrial of Karen Reed, who stands accused of the fatal vehicular assault that killed Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. This episode meticulously dissects the unfolding courtroom drama, highlighting critical testimonies, contentious evidence handling, and the relentless tug-of-war between prosecution and defense teams as they vie to sway a polarized jury.

---

Opening Statements

The trial commenced with Prosecution Attorney Adam Lally outlining the case against Karen Reed. Dressed in a black suit with a checkered tie, Lally presented a stark narrative:

“Defending Karen Reed is guilty of murder in the second degree, striking Mr. O’Keefe with her car... causing the bleeding in his brain, swelling, and then leaving him there for several hours in a blizzard with temperatures in the teens.” (07:22)

Lally's portrayal aimed to establish Reed’s culpability by detailing the alleged sequence of events leading to O’Keefe’s death.

---

Prosecution's Case: Allegations and Evidence

The prosecution's case centered on the assertion that Karen Reed intentionally caused Officer O’Keefe’s death. Lally emphasized the severity of the crime, highlighting Reed’s actions immediately after the incident:

“Ms. Roberts... left him there... makes her look worse by comparison.” (05:25)

The prosecution also introduced evidence deemed irregular, such as the use of red solo cups for collecting blood samples—a point of contention that laid the groundwork for the defense's counterarguments.

---

Defense's Counterpoints: Evidence Handling and Alternative Theories

Attorney Jennifer Roman, representing Reed, contested the prosecution's narrative by questioning the integrity of the evidence collection process. She underscored the lack of concrete evidence directly linking Reed to the crime, suggesting that procedural missteps had potentially compromised the investigation:

“There are so many problems with cross contamination here and the preservation of DNA that it's hard to know where to start.” (24:38)

Roman aimed to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case by highlighting inconsistencies and possible oversights in how evidence was handled.

---

Key Testimonies

1. Paul O’Keefe’s Testimony

   As the brother of the deceased, Paul O’Keefe provided an emotional account of his brother’s character and the state in which his body was found:

   “He had markings on his right arm... But what really stood out to me was the eyes.” (09:22)

   Paul's testimony aimed to humanize Officer O’Keefe and provide insights into the immediate aftermath of the incident.

2. First Responders on Karen Reed’s Statements

   Testimonies from first responders revealed a complex narrative regarding Reed’s behavior at the scene:

   • Firefighter Timothy Nuttall: Affirmed hearing Reed repeatedly state, “I hit him. I hit him.” (10:23)

   • Canton Police Officer Steven Mulaney: Contradicted Nuttall's account, asserting Reed never confessed: “I did not.” (11:27)

   This conflicting testimony created ambiguity around Reed’s culpability, a focal point for the defense to exploit reasonable doubt.

3. Witness Julie Nagel’s Account

   Julie Nagel, a party attendee, recounted seeing a dark object on the front lawn, later speculated to be Officer O’Keefe’s body:

   “I would have called 911 if I thought... it was a body.” (48:52)

   However, her delayed testimony, delivered two and a half years after the event, raised questions about its reliability and prompted skepticism regarding its impact on the jury.

4. Homeowners’ Testimony

   Brian and Nicole Albert, the homeowners, testified about their relationships with both Karen Reed and Officer O’Keefe. Brown Albert’s credibility was challenged when contradictions surfaced regarding his familiarity with Reed:

   “That portion of that sentence is false.” (44:04)

   These discrepancies aimed to undermine the Albert family's statements, fueling the defense's narrative of potential bias or cover-up.

---

Evidence Collection Issues: Solo Cups and Leaf Blower

A pivotal point of contention was the unconventional methods used by law enforcement to collect evidence:

1. Use of Red Solo Cups:

   • Prosecutor Adam Lally: Criticized the use of non-sterile solo cups for collecting blood samples, highlighting potential contamination risks:

     “Nothing about the scene was standard.” (24:22)

   • Lieutenant Paul Gallagher: Defended the improvised approach due to the harsh weather conditions:

     “We decided on finding some type of temporary plastic evidence container.” (19:51)

2. Employing a Leaf Blower:

   • Prosecutor Adam Lally: Questioned the effectiveness of using a leaf blower to clear snow, suggesting it might have disturbed crucial evidence:

     “How far deep into the snow were you able to go with using that leaf blower?” (26:58)

   • Lieutenant Gallagher: Justified the method as a controlled way to manage the severe snowstorm:

     “It was a unique scene. There was snow.” (26:08)

These issues underscored the defense’s argument of procedural flaws, potentially leading to mishandled or contaminated evidence.

---

Allegations of Police Bias and Cover-Up

The defense meticulously attacked the integrity of the local police department, insinuating bias due to familial connections:

• Brian Albert’s Ties: Questions arose about the relationship between Sergeant Michael Lank and Detective Kevin Albert, suggesting long-standing friendships might have influenced the investigation:

  “They go way back.” (31:41)

• Failure to Search the Home: The prosecution highlighted the refusal to search the Albert home, attributed to a lack of probable cause but viewed by the defense as a deliberate omission:

  “We didn’t have probable cause.” (32:12)

These allegations aimed to portray the investigation as compromised by personal relationships within the police force.

---

Credibility of Brian Albert

Brian Albert’s testimony came under intense scrutiny as inconsistencies emerged:

“I didn’t know her before.” (43:42)

Yet, it was later revealed that Albert had met Karen Reed once, contradicting his initial statement:

“That portion of that sentence is false.” (44:04)

Such contradictions were leveraged by the defense to question his honesty and the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.

---

The Defense's Alternative Theories: Dog Attack and Others

Expanding their repertoire of reasonable doubt, the defense introduced alternative scenarios:

• Dog Attack Theory: Allegations that the family’s German Shepherd, Chloe Bryan, might have attacked Officer O’Keefe, prompted by scratches and bites found on his body:

  “John o’ Keefe was moved from the basement... and then ultimately he was left in the front yard to die in the snow.” (37:23)

  However, the absence of animal DNA on the victim's body weakened this hypothesis:

  “There's no dispute that there was no animal DNA present on John O’Keefe's body.” (45:15)

• Possible Altercation: Sergeant Lank acknowledged the possibility of a fight occurring, though it was never substantiated:

  “If it had been of confrontation, it could have started anywhere.” (36:09)

These theories served to fragment the prosecution’s narrative, emphasizing the case’s inherent uncertainties.

---

Conclusion: Current State of the Trial and Ongoing Doubts

As the trial progressed, the cumulative effect of conflicting testimonies, questionable evidence handling, and the defense’s strategic introduction of alternative theories significantly deepened the layers of reasonable doubt surrounding Karen Reed’s guilt. With each passing day, the trial left the jury grappling with more questions than answers, underscoring the complex interplay between evidence, perception, and justice.

“In Massachusetts, the foundation of America. This is everybody. We are here of our own free will, our own minds.” – Nicole Albert (02:55)

The episode ends on a cliffhanger, hinting at further revelations and strategic maneuvers that promise to intensify the courtroom battle as the fight for truth and justice continues.

---

Special Thanks

This episode was produced by Paula Barros with contributions from executive producer Jessica Lowther, producer and writer Cooper Maul, editor Corey Hiltman, and research by Stephanie Doucet. Legal and fact-checking services were provided by Elizabeth Vouli.

Listen to KAREN: THE RETRIAL exclusively on Wondery+ via the Wondery App, Spotify, or Apple Podcasts. Follow the show page to stay updated on all the latest developments in this riveting legal saga.

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.

[Ted Daniel]

This is a Law and Crime Network presentation.

[Paula Barros]

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

[Adam Lally]

During the time that you were on scene and you heard Karen Reid screaming and yell in this distraught and hysterical manner, you never once heard her say, I did it. Correct? I did not.

[Jennifer Roman]

They said that they felt like they didn't have probable cause to go into the home and conduct a search, but they said that they didn't see anything out of the ordinary in at least the kind of the foyer area or where they entered and spoke to some of the people there.

[Ted Daniel]

Do you think it's standard practice for a police department to borrow red solo cups from a neighbor to gather evidence?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Of course not. Nothing about the scene was standard.

[Alan Jackson]

So we don't know if this is homicide or an accident at this point. And if we can't determine the manner of death, how do we charge somebody with it?

[Paula Barros]

From law and crime. I'm Paula Barros, and this is Karen. Outside Norfolk County Superior Court on the brisk morning of April 29, 2024, a massive crowd was forming. The Free Karen Reid Movement, sequestered to their sanctioned area, were gathered, sporting pink shirts and holding handmade signs showing their support on this fateful spring day, the first day of Karen Reid's trial.

[Nicole Albert]

We are fighting a fight to help free someone that's innocent. Karen could be any single one of us.

[Alan Jackson]

She's just a normal person.

[Nicole Albert]

She's getting blamed for something she didn't do.

[Alan Jackson]

She could be you, she could be.

[Nicole Albert]

Her, she could be me, she could be Karen Reed, could be any one of us. The only difference is I wouldn't have the backing. I'd be in jail, convicted and put away wrongfully if it was me, because I wouldn't be able to afford this. And we are everyday people take the time to look into all the documents in court, all the motions, all the findings, all of that, and then you're going to come out of there going, what in the world is going on in. In Massachusetts, the birthplace of America? What is going on here? A woman's being railroaded and framed for a murder she didn't commit. And you can look at the evidence there. You have people here that are varying from school age, children that are learning civics right now because of this, all the way up to people in their retirement right now. All Walks of life. You have people that are probably waitresses, garbage collectors, PhD people. You got everybody. This is what America is. This is the. We're in Massachusetts, the foundation of America. This is everybody. We are here of our own free will, our own minds. We made our decisions by the receipts that Turtle boy brought up. And that's why we're here. Let's get it factually straight. This is not a movement of. We do not back the blue. We do not like police officers. Absolutely not. There's wonderful good police officers out there, and then there's terrible ones. This isn't fixing a parking ticket for Uncle Joe. This isn't, oh, aunt whatever drank a little bit too much. We're gonna drive her home, you know. This is a murdered police officer. And the facts of the case are showing that Karen Reed is getting railroad in his murder.

[Paula Barros]

Inside the cramped wood paneled courtroom, a jury of 12 was seated. Six women and six men holding the fate of one of their peers in their hands. Judge Beverly Kanoni opened the day emphasizing that the future of the defendant, Karen Reed hung in the balance and that their attention to every detail would be crucial to bringing about justice in this case. However they interpret justice. You folks are the most important people in this courtroom. You determine the facts of this case. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You alone determine what evidence to believe, how important any evidence is that you do believe, and what conclusions all the believable evidence leads you to. You will have to consider and weigh the testimony of all the witnesses who will appear before you. And you alone will determine whether to believe any witness and the extent to which you believe any witness. You can believe all of what a witness says, some of it or none of it. It's entirely up to you. Attorney Jennifer Roman says this was not an enviable position to be in.

[Alan Jackson]

I have to think that they've got.

[Paula Barros]

A lot to weigh on both sides. A lot in this case could be considered an understatement.

[Alan Jackson]

They're going to have to go through all this evidence, 74 witnesses, hundreds of pieces of physical evidence.

[Paula Barros]

They're going to have to go through.

[Alan Jackson]

That and take their time with it.

[Paula Barros]

And render their decision with no guarantee of a unanimous verdict.

[Alan Jackson]

I think that the jury is a sampling of the population and this case.

[Paula Barros]

Has been so polarizing for so many.

[Alan Jackson]

People that I think that there's going to be at least one juror who says, I'm not sure. You know, I'm not sure it's beyond reasonable doubt or the opposite.

[Paula Barros]

Right.

[Alan Jackson]

That there's going to be one or two people who think beyond a reasonable doubt. And the other jurors say, no, we.

[Paula Barros]

Don'T think so, making the ultimate decision more difficult for them. Despite the deafening buzz around the case, the two people at the heart of it remained somewhat of an enigma.

[Jennifer Roman]

So John o' Keefe is going to occupy a somewhat sainted position in this trial and nobody lives up to the things that they will say about you after you've passed. Typically, I'm sure that he probably had his wrinkles, but by all accounts he seems to be a pretty good guy and I'd say a very good guy. And so every bit where the jury might feel that she's wronged him in some fashion makes her look worse by comparison. The jury sometimes wants to hear from the accused just to hear them say, I didn't do it. We don't really get a whole lot of the defense saying who she is. What we heard a little bit was that she was lovey dovey, sort of appeared to be getting along with John o' Keefe in the moments up to and that she didn't appear drunk. That's really what the defense was able to sort of establish. And also that John o' Keefe's family thought she was a good influence.

[Paula Barros]

And the lack of information about John Okeefe's cause of death created another perplexing hurdle this jury would have to maneuver.

[Alan Jackson]

One of the things we have to look at in this case is that the cause of death being blunt force trauma and hypothermia was established, but the manner of death could not. So we don't know if this is homicide or an accident at this point. And if we can't determine the manner of death, how do we charge somebody with it?

[Paula Barros]

The jury was looking at a projected six to eight weeks to get to the bottom of that question. In opening statements, the prosecution and defense could not have presented more paradoxical arguments. Prosecutor Adam Lally approached the stand first. Wearing a black suit with a checkered tie. Karen sat between her attorneys David Iannetti and Alan Jackson, as Adam presented his side's position.

[Adam Lally]

Defending Karen Reid is guilty of murder in the second degree, striking Mr. O' Keefe with her car, knocking him back onto the ground, striking his head on the ground, causing the bleeding in his brain, swelling, and then leaving him there for several hours in a blizzard with temperatures in the teens, the wind swirling around, snow piling up on his body. The defendant is the only one who sees Mr. O' Keefe yells and screams at Ms. Roberts to stop Roberts and Ms. McCabe, I anticipate will testify that they did not see Mr. O', Keegan not only as they were driving past him, but even after they got out of the vehicle. Until the defendant gets out of the backseat and makes a beeline essentially right over to where Mr. O' Keeffe's body was found.

[Paula Barros]

But that couldn't be further from the way David Iannetti saw things.

[Adam Lally]

She did not cause his death. And that means that somebody else did. You will learn that it was no accident that John O' Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29th of 2022. You will learn that at that address lived a well known and well connected law enforcement family in Canton, the Alberts. Because the Alberts were involved and because they had close connections to the investigators in this case, Karen Reed was framed for a murder she did not commit.

[Paula Barros]

Keen ears noticed that omitted from Yannetti's opening statement was any explicit mention of who the someone else could be. But all that was required was enough reasonable doubt that it was not Karen. John Okeefe's brother Paul was the first person called to the stand. In a blue checkered button down, he began his testimony painting a picture of his adoring older brother John, a dedicated family man and a loving partner to Karen, despite a few arguments between the two he had witnessed here and there. Then he emotionally recalled the moment he saw John's lifeless body at Good Samaritan Hospital.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I mean, he was pretty banged up. He had. His eyes had swelled up. He had a breathing tube in a mask. Anyway, blood come down his nose, blood come down his mouth. But what really stood out to me was the eyes. It was almost as if, like they were ping pong balls under his eyelids, they were that swollen. So most of the injuries that we observed was to the head area and face area. He had markings on his right arm.

[Paula Barros]

And Paul remembered John wasn't the only person he observed at the hospital that morning.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We saw Karen Reed being restrained by hospital employees saying, screaming the same things, is he alive? Is he alive? Is he alive?

[Paula Barros]

Karen's emotional exclamations came under further scrutiny on day two when Timothy Nuttall, Canton firefighter and paramedic who treated John o' Keefe the morning his body was discovered, was cross examined.

[Ted Daniel]

You claim to have heard this statement, I hit him. I hit him.

[Adam Lally]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

Several times. From the woman with blood on her face. Correct. You indicated that she was erratic.

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Hysterical.

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

You said for lack of a better term, running around in circles? Yes. She seemed despondent or distraught? Very distraught. Very upset? Yes. Was she saying anything else that you recall? To me. I heard I hit him. I hit him. And then I went back, obviously, continuing on patient care, focusing on patient care. Did you. Did you hear her say, could I hit him? I heard I hit him. I hit him. That's what you believe at this point? That's what I heard.

[Paula Barros]

But this isn't what every first responder heard.

[Adam Lally]

During the time that you were on scene and you heard Karen Reed screaming and yelling in this distraught and hysterical manner, you never once heard her say, I did it. Correct.

[Paula Barros]

Yannetti directed this line of questioning to Strawberry Blonde Canton police Officer Steven Mulaney. He was there the morning of January 29, 2022.

[Adam Lally]

I did not. You never once heard her say, it's my fault? Correct. I did not. You never once heard her say, I hit him, I hit him. I hit him. Correct. I did not.

[Paula Barros]

The confusion as to whether or not Karen confessed at the scene continued when another first responder, Canton Fire Department Lt. Anthony Flammati, recounted a conversation he had with her in which he alleged, she uttered, I hit him. Oh, my God, I hit him. But attorney Jackson called attention to video from the scene that would cast doubt on Flumati's memory.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you see any place in that video where you had any sort of detailed conversation with my client?

[Adam Lally]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you see any place in that video where you engaged my client and said, how'd you get here? What happened? And she said, I hit him. And you said, how'd you hit him? All the stuff that you testified earlier to.

[Adam Lally]

I didn't see that in the video. No.

[Paula Barros]

While their conversation wasn't caught on tape, there was apparently evidence that Flamatti related to a police officer in the investigation.

[Ted Daniel]

You indicated in a police report during an interview that you had with Yuri Bupnik on February 8, that my client said, I hit him. Correct. Correct. You remember having that conversation with Sergeant Pink?

[Adam Lally]

I don't recall the conversation, but I'm trusting that your records are accurate.

[Ted Daniel]

We've talked a little bit about that report. There's an area in the report for a narrative.

[Adam Lally]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

About your observations, your experiences with this patient.

[Adam Lally]

Correct. Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Your job as a lead paramedic is to be as detailed as possible. Correct?

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

You want to provide and impart the most detail you possibly can about an incident to assist in medical intervention.

[Adam Lally]

Correct?

[Ted Daniel]

Correct. Take a look at page three of five of your report.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

You see that narrative area? I do. Can you point to that portion of your report where you indicate that my client said the words I hit him?

[Paul O'Keefe]

It doesn't say that.

[Paula Barros]

Onlookers of the trial thought it was curious that the exchange was notable enough to share with an officer, but somehow was overlooked in the official report.

[Ted Daniel]

Can you point to the portion of your report where you indicate that you told the doctors and nurses that she said I hit him?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Doesn't say that.

[Ted Daniel]

Can you point to that portion of your report where you indicate that your concern for the patient was that he had been hit by a car?

[Adam Lally]

Doesn't say that.

[Paula Barros]

It's hard to imagine that a detail as crucial and memorable as a confession could be omitted. Here's attorney Matt Timpanek with how he understood the confusion here.

[Jennifer Roman]

That comes in under one potential hearsay exception as well as potentially two. One is an excited utterance, but it easily comes in as an admission as it is the defendant's own word. And there's kind of this dispute which says, like, I hit him, I hit him, or did I hit him? And stuff like that. So it still kind of says the same thing. One is, I'm admitting to it. The other is, I'm aware that I hit something on the night in question. I didn't know exactly what I did was, oh, my God, did I actually hit John? I just thought I hit maybe like a mailbox or something. That's definitely how it kind of played into it. It wasn't like this. When it's not on video and it's not recorded in, like a police report or an incident report, it's definitely always causes one to pause. But given the sheer number of people who actually heard it, and it kind of different variations.

[Ted Daniel]

Remember, it was two and a half years ago.

[Jennifer Roman]

So I definitely think that at worst, the admission was, I knew there was a possibility I hit something, or I.

[Ted Daniel]

Guess I hit John, and I didn't mean to.

[Paula Barros]

Karen's utterances in the wake of discovering John's body were further probed on day three of the trial when Adam Lally called upon firefighter and paramedic Francis Walsh to draw on his memory of that traumatic morning. Frances recalled there were three women on the scene who we now know to be Carrie Roberts, Jennifer McCabe and Karen Reed, all of whom were visibly shaken up, especially Karen.

[Adam Lally]

As far as the one that you observe screaming or crying, do you recall specifically what, if anything, that person said?

[Paul O'Keefe]

All I recall her saying was, is he alive?

[Paula Barros]

Yannetti got his chance to cross examine Lally's witness.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I just want to ask you about.

[Adam Lally]

The woman that you saw on scene who appeared to be screaming and crying. Would you agree with me that she.

[Ted Daniel]

Stood out to you because she appeared.

[Adam Lally]

To be the most upset?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes, I would agree with that.

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

And the loudest. Yes. She appeared to be crying more than others.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

And she was screaming, right? Yes. And what you heard her say, I understand your testimony was that she just said, is he alive? Correct. That's what I recall. Correct. In a loud voice, yes.

[Paula Barros]

Is he alive? Is a far cry from a definitive I hit him. Paramedic Matthew Kelly testified that he heard a similar utterance.

[Ted Daniel]

I heard someone say, fucking dead.

[Paula Barros]

But that wasn't the end of the I hit him back and forth. On day four, ambulance driver Katie McLaughlin, a friend of Brian Albert's daughter, Kaitlyn Albert, reignited the debate on the stand.

[Ted Daniel]

What she told Trooper Proctor was, quote, karen then turned to her friend and stated, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. I hit him.

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. Is that yes?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes. If you're saying that's in quotation marks.

[Paula Barros]

In that, then yes. Katie told Trooper Proctor what she had heard, but Jackson wanted to get a sense of who else she reported it to.

[Ted Daniel]

You then went back to the ambulance after you heard that statement that you believed you heard my client state? Yes. You opened the ambulance door, correct?

[Paula Barros]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

That was the back door? The side door? The side door. And there were two firefighter paramedics in that ambulance at the time, correct?

[Paula Barros]

I believe there were more than two at that time.

[Ted Daniel]

Two of them included firefighter Nuttall and Firefighter Flamont? Yes. And at that point, you told them what you believed you had just heard.

[Paula Barros]

So I went into the back of the ambulance.

[Ted Daniel]

I said, this is his name.

[Paula Barros]

This is his date of birth.

[Ted Daniel]

She says, he doesn't have any medical.

[Paula Barros]

History or allergies, doesn't take daily medications.

[Ted Daniel]

And then I said, she's saying I hit him. So the answer to my question is yes. You told in front of Slumati and Nuttall the phrase I hit him.

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Paula Barros]

The problem with Katie's testimony is that again, this wasn't noted in any report. So there are two people that will.

[Ted Daniel]

Write reports in my department on a.

[Paula Barros]

Call, one being the lead paramedic and the other being the officer who's on scene. So those are the people that write reports, and I was neither of those. So I did not write that in a report.

[Ted Daniel]

That's correct. So let me ask the question again. You didn't write it in any report. No. You didn't write it in any notes? No. You didn't document that statement in any way whatsoever?

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Paula Barros]

Other than my interview with Proctor, you.

[Ted Daniel]

Didn'T document that statement in any way yourself, did you? No.

[Paula Barros]

The I hit him debate that dragged for four days of the trial ultimately amounted to little. Nothing caught on camera, nothing noted in reports, only hearsay. Once what was said at the scene of John Okee's death had been belabored. Attention was then called to what was done. Remember how the evidence was collected and handled following the discovery of John's body had raised questions from the jump.

[Alan Jackson]

I think the first moment where it was kind of like a what is going on Moment was the solo cups.

[Paula Barros]

The moment that Canton police officers testified.

[Alan Jackson]

That they collected evidence of bloody snow in solo cups that they borrowed from a fellow officer who lived on the street in the middle of a blizzard and then put them in a stop and chop brown bag.

[Paula Barros]

On May 6, day five of the trial, Lieutenant Paul Gallagher, who was responsible for preserving the scene, was called to the stand to explain some of the questionable evidence handling.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We took six blood samples. Yes.

[Adam Lally]

How were you able to sort of collect the blood samples on scene?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Well, blood samples because they were frozen. We debated on how to collect it. We didn't think swabbing was going to be easy to do if it was frozen. So we decided on finding some type of temporary plastic evidence container. We were able to find large cups, and we took six samples. We bagged the six samples and Sergeant Lank transported them back to camp police headquarters.

[Adam Lally]

And with respect to those samples and glass that you located eventually, what, if anything, was done with those? Well, first and foremost, when you came back to Cannes police station, what, if.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Anything, Chief Berkowitz was at headquarters and we had a meeting in the detective sergeant's office.

[Adam Lally]

What I'm asking, sir, is with reference to those items that you took back from Fairview when you got back to the station, what, if anything, Sergeant Link.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Placed them into evidence.

[Adam Lally]

And then subsequent to Sergeant Lank placing them into evidence at some point, where did they go?

[Paul O'Keefe]

They were turned over on February 1st to the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab.

[Paula Barros]

Alan Jackson had his chance to cross examine Gallagher.

[Ted Daniel]

And where did you get those red solo cups?

[Paul O'Keefe]

We got them from Lieutenant Kelleher.

[Ted Daniel]

So in other words, you got to use your words, the evidence containers from a neighbor.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

He had some solo cups in his house.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We asked him if he had any plastic containers, any type of plastic container that we could utilize.

[Ted Daniel]

How far were you from Canton PD from 34 Fairview to Canton PD. Give me a. Give me an idea. Mile.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Mile and a half.

[Ted Daniel]

So even in really bad weather, four minutes, five minutes. Is that right? To drive?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Sure.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't go back to Canton PD to get actual evidence containers?

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We wouldn't have temporary plastic containers that what we were looking for. We're looking to take samples of snow we wouldn't have had. I know for a fact we did not have those. If we needed bags, needle containers, things of that nature, we're all set. But as far as plastic containers that we wanted to utilize, we didn't have them.

[Ted Daniel]

Do you have any glass containers?

[Adam Lally]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

So KPPD does not have or utilize evidence collection containers that are plastic.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We have needle containers that are plastic. We have blood swabs that are in plastic containers. But for what? We wanted to take a sample we did not have, so we improvised.

[Ted Daniel]

My next question is certainly Canton PD Employs and owns sterile swabs.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Sterile swab is in a container that's long, and usually the swab is connected to the lid. Correct. Out. And then it's sealed.

[Paul O'Keefe]

That's correct.

[Ted Daniel]

And forensically stable.

[Adam Lally]

Correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

And the reason that it's sealed and forensically stable is so nothing can contaminate the sample. Correct?

[Adam Lally]

Sure.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

Just as importantly, the blood sample can't contaminate anything else.

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you go to Canton PD a mile away and get sterile swabs for the blood collection?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Blood was frozen. We didn't think it would be viable.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't think it would be viable?

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

If you touched the swab, it's a cold blood. You think you might get some blood on that swab?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I wasn't sure it would be efficient for testing.

[Ted Daniel]

So what you did instead was you gathered red Solo cups from a neighbor, unsterilized, and scooped up the snow with what you thought the blood was and just carried them back to the truck?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Nope. We took six samples. Individual samples. Our philosophy was we'll let the crime lab extract it the way they best see fit. Those six samples were bagged and then transported back to camp police headquarters and placed into evidence.

[Ted Daniel]

Were they covered?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, not that I recall.

[Ted Daniel]

They weren't sealed in any way? No. So if somebody sneezed over the top.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Of one of those cups, they were sealed in a bag. Brown evidence bag. At that time, nobody was going to sneeze over the cup.

[Ted Daniel]

Before you took possession of the red Solo cups, you have any idea how many people before you had handled those Solo cups?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I took them out of a package, so probably None.

[Ted Daniel]

How about before they were packaged?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I assume Solow doesn't sell contaminated cups. I would say none.

[Ted Daniel]

So they're certainly not forensically stable. They're not sterile by your.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I don't know what definition you're looking for, but I would agree.

[Ted Daniel]

Do you think it's standard practice for a police department to borrow red solo cups from a neighbor to gather evidence?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Of course not. Nothing about the scene was standard.

[Paula Barros]

Former crime scene investigator Alina Burrows says standard crime scene or not, how the blood was collected created what she deemed to be a particularly glaring issue.

[Alan Jackson]

There are so many problems with cross contamination here and the preservation of DNA that it's hard to know where to start. In an instance like this, when police are not properly equipped with methods to take blood evidence, you would ask what should have been done other than borrowing plastic cups from a neighborhood. If you have a 24 hour pharmacy or even a hospital, they carry sterile gauze that's kept in individual packages. That way we know that that is sterile. Otherwise, we have no idea of knowing if these plastic cups were contaminated with somebody else's DNA. Certainly they came from a household. We don't know if they had been drank from and washed and reused. We don't know about how they were manufactured at the plant and if somebody could have sneezed into one of these cups. So it's critical that sterile methods are used to collect evidence. And if you have a hospital or a pharmacy around, you've got sterile gauze.

[Paula Barros]

And Alina highlights the fact that the cups weren't the only atypical and problematic tools used for evidence that day.

[Alan Jackson]

In addition to collecting blood evidence in plastic cups, police used a leaf blower to move snow away from the crime scene. Now, the problem with this is you could potentially move evidence away from its position, and that's critical in the investigation.

[Paula Barros]

But Lt. Gallagher gave his rationale for the leaf blower.

[Adam Lally]

As far as the leaf blower was concerned, why was that a decision as far as that being an implement to use in this particular scene?

[Paul O'Keefe]

It was a unique scene. There was snow. I had never processed a scene in the snow. I had seen a leaf blower used in the snow, and it's quite effective at being controlled, so that's why it was readily accessible. The scene was debilitating. As we're on scene with the weather, snow was piling up, and I thought that was the best method at that time. Our concern was there were some light pink spots in the snow and we thought it may be blood. So we were discussing how to get to that, uncover the blood safely. We decided we were going to process the scene with a leaf blower. I figured we could direct the snow off the area in a controlled fashion.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor Lally, referencing a video playing in the courtroom, asked about the efficacy of Gallagher's snow blower method.

[Adam Lally]

How far deep into the snow were you able to go with using that leaf blower?

[Paul O'Keefe]

In that manner, we get almost to.

[Adam Lally]

The ground, bare ground, as far as sort of a surface area. Like how. How much of that area where Mr. O' Keefe was found were you able to use the leaf blow off?

[Paul O'Keefe]

It was approximately a 6 by 6, 7 by 7 type area.

[Adam Lally]

From that area, what, if anything, in addition to the cocktail blast pieces that you already testified to and these red spots on the ground, what, if anything else, would you observe?

[Paul O'Keefe]

And we didn't observe anything at that point.

[Adam Lally]

Anything else? Just the blood in the glass.

[Paula Barros]

Remember in the pre trial hearings, the prosecution presented pieces of Karen's taillight that were allegedly found too, but that's not what Lt. Gallagher remembered. Attorney Jackson grills him.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't see any bright red taillight material anywhere else?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I did not.

[Ted Daniel]

You did not see any clear tail light material?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I did not.

[Ted Daniel]

You did not see any black plastic material? You certainly didn't see 45 pieces of plastic material?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I did not.

[Paula Barros]

No taillight pieces, just glass. This revelation sparked an entirely new avenue for the defense to go down. Why investigators never entered Nicole and Brian Albert's home.

[Ted Daniel]

If you find a broken glass on somebody's yard in a situation like this, did that seem out of place to you?

[Paul O'Keefe]

They were coming from a bar. It didn't seem totally out of place.

[Ted Daniel]

Now, at the time that you found the broken glass, would you rationally think, well, maybe the rest of this glass is inside the residence?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Uh, no.

[Ted Daniel]

You did not think that?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, there was a reason that I didn't think that.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you ever go inside the house to search for the other part of the glass?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Absolutely not.

[Ted Daniel]

Because you made up your mind initially where that glass came from? No. Did you search the house for any other matching glasses? No. Matter of fact, you didn't search the house for any physical items, did you?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Of course not.

[Paula Barros]

Alan Jackson saw this as an opportunity to support his team's cover up theory and pivoted to a rather provocative question.

[Ted Daniel]

Is that because that house belonged to a Boston police officer?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, it's because it requires probable causes, you know, which we did not have.

[Ted Daniel]

Or at least you didn't think you had at that time.

[Paul O'Keefe]

We knew we didn't have it.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you seek it from a judge?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I'm familiar with what probable cause is.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you seek a probable cause warrant from a judge?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, I did not.

[Ted Daniel]

Right. Did you ask for consent to search the house?

[Paul O'Keefe]

We wouldn't do consent, and that's in a death investigation.

[Ted Daniel]

That wasn't my question.

[Adam Lally]

My question.

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, I did not.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. Is that because you were at the house of a Boston police officer?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, it's because we wouldn't do it. Because if consent is denied, we still don't have probable cause and we still couldn't search the house.

[Ted Daniel]

But you never asked, did you never asked.

[Paula Barros]

Reporter Ted Daniel, who covered the trial, remembers the probable cause issue was raised by multiple first responding officers.

[Jennifer Roman]

The defense has made that a sticking point that why didn't any of these officers ever search the house? A couple of officers did go in, I think to the front of the home, but there was never a search done of the home. And I think that's a pretty good argument made by the defense. What a number of police officers said on the stand is, hey, we need probable cause. We need some reason to go into that home and search it. And at least they said that they felt like they didn't have probable cause to go into the home and conduct a search. But they said that they didn't see anything out of the ordinary in at least the kind of the foyer area or where they entered and spoke to some of the people there. But this is a community where Brian Albert is a Boston police officer. He's the owner of that home. His family is well connected in that town and especially with the law enforcement there. And I think the initial word from them was, hey, we were sleeping. We know that Karen dropped him off, or at least Karen's car was out in front of the house and that we didn't see her anymore.

[Paula Barros]

And on day seven of the trial, suggestions were made by Karen's defense that the house wasn't properly searched due to the ties between the Albert family and the Canton Police Department. Sergeant Michael Lank, in a blue suit and spiked hair, graying at his temples, was cross examined by attorney Jackson, honing in on his relationship to the Alberts. Specifically Kevin, a detective with the Canton police. The two go way back.

[Ted Daniel]

How long have you known him?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Probably since 14, 15 years old.

[Ted Daniel]

And you also consider him to be a friend as well as a co op?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I do.

[Paula Barros]

Jackson brought Lieutenant Lank back to the morning of January 29th.

[Ted Daniel]

Now I want to fast forward to the incident in question. What was the exact time that you arrived at the location, if you know.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I believe it was around 6:24. 6:25.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. And you indicated that that was in response to a call that you got from Sergeant Good?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes, that's correct.

[Ted Daniel]

What made you decide, or did you. Could you have decided to take this particular call? Was it up to you, in other.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Words, I would never not take that call.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay, fair enough. So once you got the call, you knew that you were going to respond because there was something very serious afoot.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you know at the time you got the call that that very serious incident was occurring at 34 Fairview?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

When did you realize that?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Upon speaking with Sergeant Good.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. I was asking whether or not Sergeant Goode told you before you actually arrived that it's at 34 Fairview.

[Paul O'Keefe]

He did.

[Ted Daniel]

At some point before your car came to a stop, you knew. This is 34 Fairview. This is the Albert household.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I knew that. That was Brian Albert's house. Yes.

[Paula Barros]

And when Sergeant Lank arrived, he made a curious decision. He allowed all witnesses at the scene to talk amongst themselves. At most crime scenes, this is not standard practice.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't think that it was more important to separate the witnesses and not let her talk to other witnesses?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

You thought that it was appropriate to let all the witnesses get together and just scare. Discuss the facts before you have an opportunity to interview them separately?

[Paula Barros]

Jackson's question drew a sustained objection, but that didn't make Lank's judgment call to not separate witnesses any less mystifying. The defense pivoted to Lank's other reported observations at the scene.

[Ted Daniel]

You indicated some trauma to his head area, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

That's correct.

[Ted Daniel]

You said, quote, I'm not sure if he's been in a fight or whatever. Our medics don't believe he's going to make it.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

Sergeant, like you never saw John o' Keefe's body, Correct?

[Adam Lally]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

So somebody disclosed to you that it appeared that he had been in a, quote, fight or whatever. At least at that point. That was your thought?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't say to dispatch, the victim appears to have been shot, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

You didn't say here that he'd been stabbed? No. He had been strangled?

[Adam Lally]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

Didn't say he appeared he'd been hit by a car, Correct? You said it appeared that he'd been in a fight or whatever?

[Adam Lally]

Correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I stated that he had some trauma to his head. And I said, I don't know if he has been in a fight. And then I believe I described it as a. I don't remember my exact terminology, but it was a crazy scene, chaotic scene, possibly. I don't recall my exact words, something to that effect.

[Ted Daniel]

But you do recall your exact words to dispatch being. I don't know if he's been in a fight or whatever?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I.

[Ted Daniel]

Correct.

[Adam Lally]

Okay.

[Ted Daniel]

You knew that you were dealing with a violent incident, correct? No. You thought maybe it was just a heart attack?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I didn't know what it was at that point. At that point in time, I didn't know what it was. Could have been a multitude of things.

[Ted Daniel]

But what was going through your mind at that point was it could have been a fight or whatever because he had trauma to his head. Those were your words?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Those were my words, yes.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. Did you believe that there were any indicators that Mr. O' Keefe had been involved in some sort of a physical altercation?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Possibly.

[Ted Daniel]

Okay. And that's because you use the phrase and trauma to his face and head, right?

[Paul O'Keefe]

That's what I had been told, yes.

[Ted Daniel]

So based on what you had been told, you knew that there was a person laying out unconscious just outside a residence that may have been involved in a physical altercation. That's fair.

[Paul O'Keefe]

It's a possibility, yes. Again, there were a multitude of things that were going through my head as possibilities.

[Ted Daniel]

That's one of the premier possibilities, right?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I wouldn't say it's premier. It was one of the possibilities.

[Paula Barros]

The defense now had a first responding investigator say out loud that the alternative theory wasn't out of the question. Lenk himself ascertained that day a fight could have broken out at 34 Fairview Road.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you believe in your mind that it was possible, given the fact that a violent confrontation was possible in your mind, that it could have started inside the house?

[Paul O'Keefe]

If it had been of confrontation, it could have started anywhere.

[Ted Daniel]

Right. The house is part of anywhere, right?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Correct.

[Ted Daniel]

So in other words, the house is not excluded in your mind at that point as a starting point for the investigation, is that right?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Well, the starting point would have been where Mr. O' Keefe had been discovered. And then, based on speaking with the witnesses, there was no indication that he had ever made it into the house.

[Paula Barros]

But that indication wasn't given until days later.

[Ted Daniel]

Well, you didn't know that until you followed up on your investigation, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I learned that by speaking to Ms. McCabe.

[Ted Daniel]

So you just took Ms. McCabe's word.

[Paul O'Keefe]

For it at that point in time? That was the only person I had spoken to. And she gave me a timeline of events from that night where Mr. O' Keefe was supposed to Come back to the house, but never made it.

[Paula Barros]

By the looks of it, lank took Jennifer McCabe's recall as fact, giving Karen's defense a perfect opportunity to cast more reasonable doubt.

[Ted Daniel]

In your course of investigating cases, have you ever been lied to by a witness?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Paula Barros]

Unlike Lieutenant Gallagher, Sergeant Lank did enter Nicole and Brian Albert's home. Jackson saw this as an excellent opportunity to explore another one of his team's theories.

[Alan Jackson]

This theory purports that John o' Keefe was moved from the basement of the Alberts residence to the backyard, and then ultimately he was left in the front yard to die in the snow.

[Paula Barros]

But Lenk made it nowhere near the basement.

[Ted Daniel]

You indicated on direct examination that you didn't notice anything out of place in the home. No. But you didn't go downstairs to the basement and look, did you? No. Didn't look for broken furniture down there?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I didn't enter the basement at all.

[Ted Daniel]

How about anywhere in the house? Did you look for broken furniture or torn clothing or blood evidence or DNA.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Evidence at that point in time? I never made it past the front foyer area.

[Ted Daniel]

So the answer to my question is no, you did not.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I never made it past the front foyer area.

[Paula Barros]

The furthest he got inside the house was the entryway. No other rooms were entered, let alone searched.

[Alan Jackson]

Was there evidence in there that could have potentially pointed us in a certain direction?

[Paula Barros]

Jackson wanted answers to Alina's question too.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you ever investigate the foyer area or any other part of the house for evidence of a fight?

[Paul O'Keefe]

The only area I was able to observe at that point. Everything appeared to be in order.

[Ted Daniel]

But you didn't search the rest of the house for a fight, Lieutenant, that's all I'm asking.

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, I wouldn't have had probable cause to do so.

[Paula Barros]

There's that probable cause again. By Lenk's own testimony, the search seemed to begin and end there.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you seek guidance from a court as to whether or not you might have probable cause?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Do you mean a search warrant?

[Ted Daniel]

That's what I mean.

[Paul O'Keefe]

I wouldn't fill out an affidavit for a search warrant because it wouldn't have probable cause.

[Paula Barros]

Lenk himself states that he could envision a scenario where a fight occurred resulting in John o' Keefe's death and a body being left outside the house. And yet to him, this wasn't considered probable cause from the outside looking in. This was high key problematic when we.

[Alan Jackson]

Look at how the crime scene itself was handled. To say this was a gross miscarriage of justice would be an Understatement. Law enforcement never enters the home of Brian Albert, where John o' Keefe is found deceased in his front yard.

[Paula Barros]

And there's more that stands out.

[Ted Daniel]

One of the ways to secure a premises, any premises, in a normal crime scene investigation would be to remove the witnesses and animals from that premises to sort of freeze it and lock it down, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

If there was a reason to do so, yes.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you do anything to lock down and secure that premises in any way, shape, form or fashion?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

Did you allow witnesses to go inside the house other than Jim McCabe?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

Who is that?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I believe Matt McCabe entered the house after I had come out.

[Ted Daniel]

And did you seek to separate any of the witnesses or admonish them that they are not to be in each other's presence and discuss the facts of the case before you had an opportunity to interview them?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No.

[Ted Daniel]

And as you sit here, you have no idea when you were not in their presence, you have no idea what the occupants of that house were discussing, Correct. Or what they were doing?

[Paul O'Keefe]

I have no idea what they were doing.

[Paula Barros]

Based on all this, it's clear neither the scene of the alleged crime nor the witnesses were ever properly secured. By day nine of the trial, it finally came time to hear from the homeowners themselves.

[Alan Jackson]

Brian Albert and his wife Nicole owned the home, which was the location of the after party. Brian Albert Jr. The son of the homeowners, was celebrating his birthday the night of the gathering.

[Paula Barros]

Nicole Albert was called to the stand first. In her testimony, Nicole attempted to settle the score once and for all about what occurred in her house the night. John o' Keefe never made it home.

[Adam Lally]

Over the course of the entirety of the evening. At any point, did anybody else other than the people that you've talked about previously come into your house and specifically John o' Keefe or Karen Reed that you saw at the bar earlier that night. At any point in time on the evening of the 28th or the early morning of the 29th, did either of those people come into your house?

[Ted Daniel]

No, they never came into my home.

[Adam Lally]

And at any point in time, even on that evening or that early morning of the 29th, were you aware that they were coming to you?

[Ted Daniel]

I actually wasn't. I didn't even realize that that was happening, that they had any intention to come.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor Lally wanted to get a sense of just how well Nicole and her husband were acquainted with Karen and John in the first place, taking her back to the hours spent at the Waterfall Bar and Grill before the after party.

[Adam Lally]

Let me ask you A little bit about sort of going back to the waterfall just for a brief moment. Over the course of your time there, how would you describe sort of the tone or how was everybody at the waterfall?

[Ted Daniel]

It was fine. It was a nice night. It was nothing out of the usual. Just had a good time.

[Adam Lally]

So nothing abnormal? No arguments, no fighting or anything like that?

[Paula Barros]

No.

[Adam Lally]

Same question as it relates to back at your house now with 34 Fairview Road, how would you describe sort of the atmosphere back there?

[Ted Daniel]

Same thing. We were just hanging out, sitting around the house, talking, having a good time, nothing crazy.

[Paula Barros]

From Nicole's testimony, there was no denying their familiarity with John o'. Keefe. Her husband, Brian Albert, testified to essentially the same thing.

[Adam Lally]

How would you sort of describe your relationship with John O' Keefe at this time, January 28, 2022?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Although I didn't know him well, I considered him to be a friend, and our relationship was very, very good, cordial and, you know, I considered him to be somebody that I could hang out with and have a good time with.

[Paula Barros]

But their familiarity with Karen Reed was a whole nother story. In prior statements, Brian Albert claimed he had never met Karen Reed before. And in an attempt to strip Brian of his credibility, Jackson called his claim into question.

[Ted Daniel]

You knew that there would be questions about your relationship with Karen Reid if it were known that you knew her before her boyfriend ended up dead on your lawn six days later, Correct?

[Nicole Albert]

There would be questions.

[Ted Daniel]

So you lied under oath when you said, I've never met or seen her before, Correct.

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, because that wasn't my whole statement.

[Ted Daniel]

The sentence, I've never met or seen her before, it's pretty unequivocal, isn't it?

[Paul O'Keefe]

That was not the context of my whole sentence.

[Ted Daniel]

Those are the words that came out of your mouth, right?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Initially. And then I remembered that I had met her once.

[Ted Daniel]

Let me just ask it this way. Sure. Is that sentence true or false, that you had never met or seen her before? True or false?

[Paul O'Keefe]

That portion of that sentence is false.

[Paula Barros]

And just like that, suspicion was cast on Brian Albert, and Jackson continued to play into it.

[Ted Daniel]

Did John O' Keefe come into your house at 34 Fairview at any time on January 29, 2022?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Absolutely not. I wish he had.

[Paula Barros]

Jackson cleverly clapped back.

[Ted Daniel]

And you're as sure about that as you are about the statement that you had never met or seen Carrie Reid in your life?

[Paula Barros]

Brian Albert's cross examination bled into May 13, day 10 of the trial. This is when the defense saw an opportunity to tee up another one of their alternative theories for John's cause of death.

[Alan Jackson]

Some of okeefes injuries on his right arm look consistent with that of scratches or bites from a dog. Now, the alberts own a german shepherd With a history of biting strangers. If an altercation took place, could the family dog have been protecting her owners and caused these injuries to john?

[Paula Barros]

But there's a bit of an issue following this lead, Mr. Albert.

[Ted Daniel]

After you learned that there were questions being raised About John's injuries and dog bites and scratches, in May of 2022, you got rid of that dog. No.

[Paula Barros]

Not five months after John o' keefe wound up dead. On Brian and Nicole's front lawn, they rehomed their dog. Chloe Bryan claimed they made the decision to part with their furry friend of nearly seven years after she was involved in a dogfight in May 2022. Attorney Jennifer Roman says this detail piqued the interest of conspiracy theorists and could create even more confusion for the jury.

[Alan Jackson]

Part of the conspiracy theories in this case was what happened to Chloe.

[Nicole Albert]

There's no dispute that there was no.

[Paula Barros]

Animal DNA present on John o' Keeffe's body.

[Alan Jackson]

But was that because there was no animal attack, or was that because the sn snow and the weather conditions washed it away?

[Paula Barros]

Brian's testimony revealed their family dog Wasn't the only one rehomed.

[Adam Lally]

Did the sale of your house have anything to do with what occurred there on January 29, 2022?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Absolutely not.

[Paula Barros]

They sold the house, the scene of the crime. In a case riddled with perceived missteps and holes, Layers of coincidences like these complicated matters further for those keeping a close eye on the trial. With each passing day of the trial of the commonwealth versus Karen reed, It seemed witnesses left the jury with more questions than answers. And day 11 was no different.

[Alan Jackson]

One of the young women leaving the party that night Reported that she thinks she might have seen a dark figure in the snow, but it wasn't noticeable enough for anybody in the vehicle to actually stop.

[Paula Barros]

Prosecutor lally called that young woman, Julie Nagel, to the stand.

[Adam Lally]

Now, like you turn your attention back to January 29th. In the early morning, when you were leaving the house on fer, you indicated that you saw a dark object in an area of the front lawn. Is that correct?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

You had been to the house of 34th Fairview on several different occasions prior to this day, correct?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

Ever been over in that area of that blunt lawn? Was that an area that was used that you observed by the homeowners or anyone there?

[Ted Daniel]

Not really, no.

[Adam Lally]

And what if anything, do you recall about the lighting in that particular area of the yard?

[Paula Barros]

I mean it was dark out, but.

[Ted Daniel]

The snow was kind of. You could see a little bit of a glare.

[Adam Lally]

Now you see this object which you described as approximately five to six feet long, is that right?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes. Correct.

[Adam Lally]

And in the area of the flagpole, is that correct?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

And at the time that you saw it, were you expecting or anticipating something over in that area of the yard?

[Paula Barros]

No.

[Adam Lally]

And when you were driving past it, is that the first time that you saw it?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

Now, if you had realized or had recognized that dark object five to six feet long in that area near the flagpole, had you realized that was body, what would you have done?

[Paula Barros]

I would have, you know, called 911 if I thought. I thought it was an actual body.

[Ted Daniel]

And told everybody else in the car as well.

[Adam Lally]

And your testimony again was that you put sort of two and two together the following day, correct?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes.

[Paula Barros]

Janetti Cross examined Julie Nagel for the defense.

[Adam Lally]

If you realized it was a body, you would have realized that was very important information, correct?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Adam Lally]

And your testimony today is that you realized it was a body the very next day, correct?

[Ted Daniel]

The next day after I had a conversation, yes.

[Adam Lally]

You didn't call 911 at that point, correct?

[Paula Barros]

I did not know.

[Ted Daniel]

You called the police business line?

[Paula Barros]

I did not know.

[Adam Lally]

Did you speak to any police?

[Paula Barros]

Nope.

[Adam Lally]

The first time you've mentioned to anybody that that object was five to six feet long was yesterday to this jury. Two and a half years after you supposedly saw it, correct?

[Ted Daniel]

Yes.

[Paula Barros]

Julie's revelation was likely not the only part of her testimony that piqued the jury's interest. After all, her testimony states that she left with other people. What do they remember?

[Alan Jackson]

Between 12:30 and 1:30 in the morning, at least six partygoers left the Albert residence. Is it possible that a 6 foot 2 man laying in this front yard would be not noticed? Now things that we need to consider are it was a blizzard condition. So was John's body just covered in snow and the lighting conditions were poor or was his body not there? How is it possible that nobody sees the body of a 6 foot 2 man in the front yard?

[Paula Barros]

One of those people in attendance was another member of the Albert clan.

[Alan Jackson]

Colin Albert is nephew to the homeowner Brian Albert.

[Paula Barros]

An additional witness who played nicely into the defense's theory about the Alberts and a possible cover up.

[Alan Jackson]

There were some suggestions that Colin Alpert, who at the time was 17 years old, was a bit of a hothead and that him And John o' Keefe.

[Paula Barros]

Would have gotten into a tussle.

[Alan Jackson]

So does o' Keefe come to the Albert residence, make it inside without being seen, and have some sort of altercation with the Alberts and their nephew, Colin?

[Paula Barros]

Alan Jackson wanted to know.

[Ted Daniel]

You were shown a photo yesterday of you in February of 2022. Correct. And he said he wanted you to pay special attention to your face and hands and extremities. Asked you if there was anything unusual about that?

[Adam Lally]

Yes.

[Ted Daniel]

You said no in that photo? Absolutely Nothing unusual in February 3, 2022, about you, your face, your hands, fists, Nothing? Correct.

[Paula Barros]

The photograph entered into evidence by the defense, taken less than a month after o' Keefe was found dead, showed Colin Albert's right knuckles scraped, scabbed and bruised. Injuries one could possibly connect to striking someone with a fist. But Colin Albert maintained there was no fight and that he had simply slipped on ice and fell, fallen in the driveway, breaking his fall with his right hand. But was his story convincing enough in the eyes of the jury?

[Ted Daniel]

Mr. Higgins, you seem to not want to answer my question. My question is, were you or were you not sexually attracted to my client?

[Jennifer Roman]

Then we get to the Sally port, a sort of structure within the police station for driving vehicles into and then having it sort of secured in there. And the video there, they say, is on motion sensing. So there's gaps in it. There's. There's places where the video just drops out. And further, the video appears to have been inverted, which makes the officers look like they're not getting near this tail light, which turns out not to be true.

[Adam Lally]

You did not extract the three strands of text messages with Nicole Albert, Kevin Albert, and Brian Albert to preserve from that machine, did you not?

[Paul O'Keefe]

No, I did not extract those.

[Adam Lally]

So the only place you knew they existed was on your old phone, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Yes, that's correct.

[Adam Lally]

The same phone that you put into a dumpster on a military base with a SIM card removed from the phone and destroyed, correct?

[Paul O'Keefe]

Well, I did throw the SIM card and the phone on the military base.

[Paula Barros]

John never went in the house.

[Ted Daniel]

It was.

[Alan Jackson]

It wasn't a story.

[Paula Barros]

It was the truth.

[Alan Jackson]

And it is the truth.

[Ted Daniel]

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

[Paula Barros]

That's all coming up on the next episode of Karen. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Paula Barron. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our producer and writer is Cooper Maul. Our editor is Corey Hiltman. Our researcher is Stephanie Doucet. Our bookers are Alyssa Fisher and Diane Kay. Legal and Fact Checking by Elizabeth 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.