So Says the Jury: S2-E9

Summary

KAREN: THE RETRIAL — “So Says the Jury” (S2-E9)

Host: Law&Crime | Wondery, Kristin Thorne
Date: September 22, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode recounts the dramatic close of the Karen Read retrial—the high-profile case in which Karen Read stood accused of murdering her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, by allegedly striking him with her SUV. Investigative reporter Kristin Thorne takes listeners step by step through closing arguments, jury deliberations, community reactions, the emotionally charged verdict, and the aftermath. The episode explores not just the verdict rendered, but what it says about power, truth, justice, and the integrity of the system itself, with real-time analysis and reactions from both sides, culminating in a wide-ranging discussion of what justice now means in this case.

---

Key Discussions & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Tension Before Closing

• Karen Read’s father, William Reed, squarely addresses the press outside the courthouse, denouncing “corruption” and pleading for a focus on the science underpinning the case.

  “Just look at the injuries. They don't correspond to being struck by any vehicle.” (00:36, William Reed)

• This sets the emotional and thematic tone: the defense team’s claim of a cover-up and investigative misconduct versus the prosecution’s reliance on forensic evidence and motive.

---

2. Defense Closing Argument: “There Was No Collision”

• Lead Attorney Alan Jackson’s refrain—“There was no collision”—serves as the backbone of his closing, repeated for emphasis.

  “There was no collision. There was no collision. There was no collision.” (02:18, Alan Jackson) “They cannot prove a collision. John O’Keefe was not hit by a car. There was no collision.” (02:49, Alan Jackson)

• Jackson reframes the trial from “whodunnit” to “what even happened”—insisting that the absence of hard forensic evidence means no crime was proven.
• Corruption & police misconduct: He targets former lead investigator Michael Proctor, recently fired for misconduct, as emblematic of a compromised and biased investigation.

  “Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Reed. He dehumanized this woman.” (03:57, Alan Jackson)

• Omitted evidence: The defense criticizes law enforcement for ignoring key leads—including injuries, a potential dog bite, and evidence in the home—that might suggest alternate suspects or causes.
• Forensics failings: Jackson ends by emphasizing the absence of blood or telling crash evidence.

  “Show me some blood. Then we’ll talk. They can’t.” (06:10, Alan Jackson)

• Pleads for the jury to speak "truth" and acquit:

  “Find Karen Reed not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.” (06:28, Alan Jackson)

---

3. Prosecution Rebuttal: Data Over Distraction

• Special prosecutor Hank Brennan pivots back to the central allegation—asserting Karen Read hit O’Keefe and left him to die, focusing heavily on data, not biases or investigative faults.

  “She was drunk. She hit him, and she left him to die.” (07:14, Hank Brennan)

• Data as “the historian”: Brennan argues vehicle logs, GPS, black box data, debris patterns, and DNA form a timeline that is scientifically “beyond dispute.”

  “The timeline in this case is beyond dispute. ... Data is data.” (09:36, Hank Brennan)

• Key testimony: Jennifer McCabe’s assertion (new in the retrial) that Karen Reed said three times, “I hit him.”
• Addressing Proctor’s misconduct: Brennan acknowledges but downplays its impact on the evidence-driven case.

  “You should [be disgusted]. They’re not defensible…But that doesn’t change the physical evidence, the scientific evidence and the data.” (11:24, Hank Brennan)

• Brennan frames the jury’s choice as between “reasonable doubt” and “undeniable truth.”

---

4. Jury Deliberations: Questions and Tension

• The jury is handed the case after nearly three months of trial, with hundreds of exhibits in tow.
• Their deliberation questions show confusion over timing of charges, the status and use of video evidence, and procedures for partial verdicts—suggesting internal debate and complexity. (12:06–15:11)
  • E.g., “What is the time frame for the OUI charge?”
• Outside, supporters maintain vigil, with both sides anxious, the crowd quieter and more subdued than in earlier trial days.

---

5. The Verdict: A Divided Community

• June 18, 2025: The jury finds Karen Reed not guilty on murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene—but guilty of operating under the influence (OUI).

  “On 001 is not guilty. On 002 is guilty of operating the influence of liquor and 003 not guilty.” (18:51, Court Clerk)

• Emotional reactions:
  • Reed in tears; defense elated.

  “The moment the murder charge was dismissed, Reed was in tears. Her attorneys gripped her shoulder. ... The crowd outside erupted into cheers.” (18:55, Kristin Thorne)

  • Supporters describe “justice served,” but also equate the case with systemic corruption and distrust of the police and prosecution.
  • Supporters chant Reed’s name, describing her as “framed.”
• O’Keefe family & prosecution supporters: React in stunned silence and issue a statement calling the verdict “devastating” and driven by conspiracies, lamenting the case as a “miscarriage of justice.” (21:51, Kristin Thorne)

---

6. Legal Analysis and Wider Implications

• Ian Runkle, legal analyst and defense attorney, provides in-depth perspective on the verdict and the failed investigation:
  • Argues acquittal was inevitable, describing the trial as “the most expensive OUI case in history.”

  “This may actually go down in history as the most expensive oui case in the history of ever, because the prosecution is probably well over a million dollars at this point.” (24:23, Ian Runkle)

  • Criticizes police “tunnel vision” and specific failures—such as not seeking warrants for the house or examining destroyed phones.

  “Why wasn't this investigation done properly?...Had they done a proper police investigation, we would have had a much clearer case.” (24:51, Ian Runkle)

  • Casts doubt on prosecution’s glass evidence; suggests evidence may have been planted, shifting his own perspective from skepticism of a “framing” defense to gradual acceptance that the framing theory was, in his view, never disproven.

  “I would love to hear a convincing explanation for it [the glass evidence], but I just haven't heard one.” (26:28, Ian Runkle)

  • Concludes that justice for John O’Keefe was denied as much by investigative failures as by the verdict.

  “They should be furious at the Commonwealth and the police, and that's where their anger is properly aimed. The defense team did their job. The police didn't, and that's the issue.” (28:29, Ian Runkle)

  • Skeptical that anything will change in the justice system as a result:

  “I would love to be able to tell you that this is going to lead to a proper cleanup...It won’t.” (29:34, Ian Runkle)

  • Reminds listeners that the acquittal is what the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” demands.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This is what corruption is all about. Just look at the injuries. They don't correspond to being struck by any vehicle.” (00:36, William Reed)
• “There was no collision. There was no collision. There was no collision.” (02:18, Alan Jackson)
• “Show me some blood. Then we’ll talk. They can’t.” (06:10, Alan Jackson)
• “She was drunk. She hit him, and she left him to die.” (07:14, Hank Brennan)
• “You should [be disgusted]. They're not defensible… But that doesn't change the physical evidence.” (11:24, Hank Brennan)
• “I think maybe it'll be tomorrow. I don't know, though.” (15:16, Unattributed—community tension)
• “On 001 is not guilty. On 002 is guilty of operating the influence of liquor and 003 not guilty.” (18:51, Court Clerk)
• Family statement: “The result is a devastating miscarriage of justice.” (21:51, Kristin Thorne, reading O’Keefe family statement)
• “This may actually go down in history as the most expensive OUI case in the history of ever...” (24:23, Ian Runkle)
• “If you're sitting there and you're saying, I want to see what's right for the family, what was right...was a proper investigation...We will never know...” (28:29, Ian Runkle)

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:36 – William Reed addresses the press
• 02:18 – Alan Jackson launches defense closing (“no collision” mantra)
• 06:28 – Defense's concluding plea for acquittal
• 07:14 – Prosecution closing: “She was drunk. She hit him...”
• 11:24 – Prosecution acknowledges, but downplays, Proctor’s impropriety
• 12:06–15:11 – Jury receives case, deliberation begins, community waits
• 17:32–18:51 – Jury returns with verdicts
• 21:51 – O’Keefe family and prosecution release statement
• 24:00 – Ian Runkle’s post-verdict legal analysis

---

Episode Tone & Language

• Tense, methodical, and emotionally charged: The narrative is punctuated by raw moments of personal grief, anger, vindication, and lingering doubt.
• Legalistic and analytical: Detailed breakdowns of trial and procedures, yet accessible to non-lawyers.
• Reflective: The final segments move from the specifics of Reed’s case to systemic critiques of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

---

Conclusion: Justice, Power, and Unanswered Questions

The episode underscores that, regardless of the verdict, the real story of Karen Read’s retrial is the public’s ongoing struggle to trust systems of authority, the power of media spectacle, and the persistence of unanswered questions. Echoing both defense and prosecution closings, Kristin Thorne’s reporting lingers on the community’s divisions and the unresolved nature of John O’Keefe’s death—reminding listeners that in high-stakes justice, the truth is sometimes as contested outside the courtroom as within.

Transcript

[Kristin Thorne]

Wondery subscribers can binge all episodes of Karen early and ad free right now. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. This podcast is a law and crime production. It may contain harsh language and references to violence and death. Please listen with care. Outside the courthouse, just before closing arguments began, Karen Reed's father, William Reed, stood facing the press. His voice was steady, but the weight behind it was unmistakable.

[William Reed]

I wish I wasn't here, but this is what corruption is all about. Just look at the injuries. They don't correspond to being struck by any vehicle. I want justice Vagina o'. Keefe. But that may come at a later day. It's all about the science. You heard Dr. La Posada. You heard the ACA witnesses, the scientists from ACA who were hired by the US Attorney, the Department of Justice. This is the final stage. Attorney Jackson on its closing. Digest it all. Take it in. Because someday it could be your son or your daughter. God forbid.

[Kristin Thorne]

This moment wasn't just personal. It captured the gravity of what was about to unfold inside. And what was at stake. Six weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses, competing narratives. And now, with the jury seated and the gallery packed, it came down to one final argument, one last attempt to shape what the jurors would carry with them into the deliberation room. This week, we take you into that final stage. The defenses closing, the prosecution's rebuttal, and the tension outside as everyone waited, Karen Reed's family, her supporters, the public, for the 12 people inside to decide her fate for law and crime. I'm Kristin Thorne, and this is Karen. The retrial. Let's get into it. The defense didn't waste time easing into their theory. On June 13, they came out swinging.

[Alan Jackson]

There was no collision. There was no collision. There was no collision.

[Kristin Thorne]

That line, repeated like a mantra, was the spine of Alan Jackson's closing. A direct challenge to the commonwealth's case and a final appeal to jurors that everything they had heard, all the testimony, all the data, none of it could prove the single most important allegation, that Karen Reed struck John o' Keefe with her suv.

[Alan Jackson]

They cannot prove a collision. John o' Keefe was not hit by a car. There was no collision.

[Kristin Thorne]

Jackson framed this trial as not just a whodunnit, but as what even happened. He told jurors that if they couldn't prove a crash, then the rest doesn't matter. And from there, he pivoted away from forensics, away from accident reconstruction, and into something else entirely. Motive not for the crime, but for the COVID up.

[Alan Jackson]

You folks are the last line of defense between an innocent woman and a system that has tried to break her, that falsely accused her, that tried mightily to bury the truth.

[Kristin Thorne]

He painted a portrait of a deeply compromised investigation. And at the center of it, a name that's come up again and again. Michael Proctor. The detective who sent crude texts about Reid. The one who was later fired for misconduct in this very case. The one the defense says treated Reid not as a suspect, but as the enemy.

[Alan Jackson]

Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Reed. He dehumanized this woman. He betrayed her as a human being.

[Kristin Thorne]

To Jackson, the case was corrupted at its roots. The evidence was tainted, the investigation rigged. And the motive? He offered that, too. Not in Reid, but in Proctor.

[Alan Jackson]

Make no mistake about it, if you convict Karen Reed of anything, science, the physics, the data, they lose. But tragically, Michael Proctor wins.

[Kristin Thorne]

But this wasn't just a story about bias. It was also, Jackson argued, a story of omission, of all the things police could have followed up on but didn't. He gestured toward what he called the ignored scene. The basement, the garage, the house on Fairview Road and what he implied happened inside it.

[Alan Jackson]

So what happened inside that house or that basement or that garage?

[Hank Brennan]

What happened?

[Alan Jackson]

What evidence was there for the investigators to look into? What did they ignore? Laceration over John's right eyelid. Black eyes. A large dog at the home. An obvious dog bite on John o' Keefe's right arm. A head injury from falling backward onto a hard surface. Alleged surface. A text from Higgins, one of the last people to ever communicate with John o'.

[Hank Brennan]

Keefe.

[Kristin Thorne]

He couldn't say the names, not directly, not under the judge's orders. But jurors knew the insinuations that someone else in that house could have been responsible and that police had chosen not to look. Jackson moved back to the injuries, to the science, to what didn't add up.

[Alan Jackson]

There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. How much more reasonable doubt could there be? This case should be over right now. Done. Because there was no collision.

[Kristin Thorne]

And then he drilled into one final forensic detail. The thing he said jurors should have seen. If this really were a hit and run.

[Alan Jackson]

Show me some blood. Then we'll talk. They can't.

[Kristin Thorne]

That was the note he left them on. Not just doubt, but disbelief. The idea that not only did the state fail to prove Karen Reed guilty, but that they never even proved a crime.

[Alan Jackson]

Let your voice be heard, not in whispers, but in truth. Let the Community, feel through your verdict that justice cannot be bent and that it will not be buried. Find Karen Reed not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.

[Kristin Thorne]

Then it was the commonwealth's turn to reclaim the narrative, to remind the jury that this wasn't about bias or broken protocols. It was about what happened on one specific night and who left a man to die in the snow. Their closing was built on one core idea. That Karen Reed didn't just hit John o' Keeffe with her suv. She knew she did, and she left him there.

[Hank Brennan]

That one person who could help him that morning was this defendant right here, Karen Lee. And she made a decision. In her Lexus with the shattered taillight, debris failed all over the front yard, and John o' Keefe lying helpless like a child on the front yard. She made a choice. She didn't call 911. She didn't run to his aid. She didn't knock on a door. She made a decision about herself in her Lexus. She drove away. She was drunk. She hit him, and she left him to die. She was drunk. She hit him, and she left him to die.

[Kristin Thorne]

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan didn't dispute that emotions were high, that this was a case about anger, heartbreak and mistrust. But in his telling, none of that mattered as much as what the data said.

[Hank Brennan]

On the way from the waterfall to 34 Fairview, Ms. Reed is driving drunk. Mr. O' Keefe is in the passenger side of the car, and they're heading their way to 34 Fairview, and they get lost. And now we have more data because John o' Keefe has a cell phone. And I said this at the beginning. It is. A historian doesn't suffer from bias. It doesn't suffer from prejudice. It doesn't suffer from memory loss.

[Kristin Thorne]

For Brennan, this wasn't about a botched investigation or office gossip. This was about GPS metadata, black box, vehicle logs, DNA, glass, and a timeline reconstruction. And the picture it painted, he said.

[Hank Brennan]

Was clear when Karen Reed, in the midst of that tension and fight after she drove away and was gone, disengaged. When she came back for the last word in the darkness, the beginning of the snow, under the influence of alcohol, and decided to stop her Lexus, decided to put it in reverse, decided to accelerate 75% in the exact same direction of where she left him and then hit him. And he died. I suggest to you that is second degree murder.

[Kristin Thorne]

He told jurors the collision wasn't just probable, it was undeniable.

[Hank Brennan]

She hit him. The timeline in this case is beyond dispute. You can Accuse, assault, characterize, malign, twist. The timeline doesn't change. It is data. Data is data. The black box, the forensics from the SD card. We know exactly, step by step, where they were. We know in that window, she hits him because he never moves again. His health care data, the temperature on the battery of the cell phone, the physical evidence, the debris failed, the DNA, the hair. And then she left him to die.

[Kristin Thorne]

And then Brennan brought it home with a piece of testimony that to him mattered more than almost any other. Jennifer McCabe.

[Hank Brennan]

Remember what happened to her on the stand when she had the audacity to say. I heard her say it. What happened to her? This woman who never even wanted to leave her home that day, pulled out into a storm to see her best friend dead. What happened when she had the audacity to say that? And now we know that the defendant herself said the same thing.

[Kristin Thorne]

It was a line the jury hadn't heard in the first trial. But McCabe now claimed that in the chaos of that morning, Karen Reed said it three times. I hit him. And Brennan told the jury that while the defense wanted them focused on distraction, on conspiracy, on bad texts, on third party hypotheticals, the facts had not changed. Even when he addressed the ugliest part of the case for the Commonwealth, Michael Proctor, he didn't try to excuse it. He acknowledged it, then told the jury, it still doesn't outweigh the evidence.

[Hank Brennan]

Let's talk about Mr. Proctor. You were invoked with this emotion early in the opening that this is a cancer. That's a tough word. Trying to evoke that primal reaction. Disgust. Not saying you shouldn't be disgusted by the text messages. You should. I should. They're not defensible. I don't stand here and defend impropriety. I don't. But that doesn't change the physical evidence, the scientific evidence and the data. He was terminated. He paid a penalty. He was held responsible for what he did. He should have been. He should have been. But that doesn't get the free pass. That doesn't change the facts. It doesn't change the physical evidence. It doesn't change the science.

[Kristin Thorne]

For Brennan, this wasn't a story of who to trust. It was a story told by data points. He left jurors with a choice between a world of reasonable doubt or one grounded in what he called undeniable truth. Two stories, two closing arguments, and then it was up to 12 jurors to decide which one they believed. By Friday afternoon, just after 2:30pm, the courtroom emptied. The evidence was in. The lawyers were Done. And the jury got the case. They filed out of the jury box and into a deliberation room, carrying with them nearly three months of testimony and hundreds of exhibits. Cell phone maps, crash reconstructions, photos of injuries, Proctor's text messages, SUV telematics, Karen's media interviews and hours of conflicting expert analysis. By Monday morning, they were back at it. During deliberations, the jury asked, what is the time frame for the OUI charge? Offense 002, Section 5, OUI at 12:45 or OUI at 5:00am? Are video clips of Karen's interviews evidence? How can we consider them? Does convicting guilty on a sub charge example offense two, number five, convict the overall charge? If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge? Their questions offered a glimpse into the points that gave them pause, but they didn't reveal how close or how far they were from agreement. This was a case that had polarized the public from the beginning. It was live streamed, dissected and debated. Outside the courthouse, supporters chanted that Karen Reed had been framed. Inside. The jury was sworn to shut all of that out, because at that point, it was just them, the facts, the law, and a verdict that would either convict Karen Reed of killing her boyfriend or clear her of every charge. And as the hours stretched on, one question hung in the air. Did they see this as a crash or a cover up? Outside, a wall of pink stretched along the sidewalk in front of the Dedham courthouse. Flags in hand, phones out, scanning for any update. The trial was over. The jury had the case. And now all anyone could do was wait. Some sat in folding chairs. Others stood quietly by the barricades. It wasn't like the early days of the trial, when chants of Free Karen. Rang out across the lawn. This was different, quieter, tighter, more uncertain. The more the day ticks on, the more you're like, oh, I think maybe it'll be tomorrow. I don't know, though.

[Alan Jackson]

One minute, you think, well, they should.

[Kristin Thorne]

Have came back very quick with the.

[Alan Jackson]

Verdict of not guilty, but maybe they're.

[Kristin Thorne]

Just really crossing all their T's.

[William Reed]

I think the jury knows what the decision is and I think they're letting.

[Kristin Thorne]

It go a little bit longer so.

[William Reed]

That they're not questioned.

[Kristin Thorne]

Each hour that passed seemed to stretch longer than the last. Still, they stayed convinced that what was happening inside the courtroom had implications far beyond it.

[Ian Runkle]

I think it's about getting justice.

[Alan Jackson]

Yeah, that's what this is really about.

[Kristin Thorne]

At its core, to Me, to me personally, that's what this is about. It's about freeing Karen Reed, and it's about getting justice for John o'.

[Hank Brennan]

Keefe.

[Kristin Thorne]

Some believed Karen Reed was framed. Others saw the trial as proof of something larger, something broken. I really believe there's a lot of corruption here, and I believe it runs deep. And I've got three girls, and this could be one of my kids. This is a true injustice. I mean, we're true crime fans. Could have been anybody. It could be me.

[Ian Runkle]

I would have done everything she did, exact same thing.

[Kristin Thorne]

You know, it could be you, me. It could be any one of these ladies. Most said they came for Karen, but many stayed for something more. I think that we're all here for.

[Hank Brennan]

Karen, but also I think more so for justice for John, too. John needs to have justice.

[Kristin Thorne]

By late afternoon, the pink flags were still waving. The crowd hadn't moved. They didn't know when the jury would return with a verdict. But Karen's supporters were going to be there when they did. For four days, the jury deliberated behind closed doors, 12 strangers now tasked with answering the question that had consumed a town and sparked a movement. And then, just after 3pm on June 18, 2025, word spread the jury had reached a verdict. Inside the courtroom, it was standing room only. Spectators clutched tissues. Reporters whispered into cell phones. Karen Reed sat at the defense table, fists clenched, tears already welling. The clerk stood. The four person rose. And one by one, the charges were ready.

[Court Clerk]

Mr. Foreman, members of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict?

[Hank Brennan]

Yes.

[Court Clerk]

Thank you. May I see the papers, Mr. Foreman? Have the verdict placed in this envelope. And have they been in your presence ever since?

[Hank Brennan]

Yes.

[Court Clerk]

Mr. Foreman. On docket number 2282 CR 117001, murder in the second degree. What say you? Is the defendant, the bar, guilty or not guilty?

[Hank Brennan]

Not guilty.

[Court Clerk]

So say you, Mr. Foreman. So say you? No.

[Hank Brennan]

No.

[Court Clerk]

Do you agree?

[Hank Brennan]

Get it?

[Court Clerk]

Do all of you agree? Thank you. 002. What say is the defendant at the bar? Not guilty or guilty?

[Hank Brennan]

Not guilty.

[Court Clerk]

Not guilty or guilty of that charge or any lesser included charge.

[Kristin Thorne]

Thank you.

[Court Clerk]

Specifically, number five. Operating under the influence of liquor by operating a motor vehicle. The blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater, correct?

[Hank Brennan]

Yes.

[Court Clerk]

So say you, Mr. Foreman. So say you all.003. What say is the defendant at the bar, leaving the scene after accident resulting in deaths? Defendant. Not guilty or guilty. So say you, Mr. Foreman. So say you. All jurors, hearken your verdict. As the court records that you upon your oath, say the defendant on 001 is not guilty. On 002 is guilty of operating the influence of liquor and 003 not guilty. Thank you.

[Kristin Thorne]

All right, jurors. Everybody please be seated.

[Alan Jackson]

Jurors, we thank you for your service.

[Kristin Thorne]

The moment the murder charge was dismissed, Reed was in tears. Her attorneys gripped her shoulder. Behind her, friends and family gasped audibly and the crowd outside erupted into cheers as the other not guilty counts followed outside the courthouse. Supporters surged forward. They waved flags as they chanted her name. Some had been there every day for weeks, breathing rain, heat and police presence to proclaim her innocence. I think that it was the right verdict. Definitely. Way too much reasonable doubt. And I'm just happy that justice was served today and Karen can be free. I already had my own run ins with the justice system in Worcester. I knew that they were corrupt and this just slammed it home for me.

[Alan Jackson]

I'm so happy about the verdict.

[Kristin Thorne]

It's great. I have no faith in the justice system at all, unfortunately.

[Alan Jackson]

It's not a good way to be, but it's how it has to be. I'm gonna say it was the cops.

[Kristin Thorne]

In the investigation that did it for me. I feel like they planted evidence. I feel like they did things that, I mean, we all know. Come on, I don't have to go through everything right. Reed's face crumpled into tears as cheers erupted.

[William Reed]

I want to say two things.

[Hank Brennan]

Number one is that you could not.

[Kristin Thorne]

Be standing here without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially and more importantly amongst emotionally for almost four years. And the second thing I want to.

[William Reed]

Say is no one has fought harder for justice for John o' Keeffe than.

[Kristin Thorne]

I have and my team. Thank you. But it wasn't just her moment. Her father, standing beside her, took the microphone and tried to absorb what had just happened.

[William Reed]

I want to acknowledge the strength of our daughter Karen, the support of the entire we extended family. I want to acknowledge the greatest team of attorneys. Our first one that we found is David Ganetti. We have it. Alan Jackson and Liza, Little Bob Alessi, you know about.

[Hank Brennan]

All right.

[William Reed]

It was a fantastic team, but we needed them all to defeat this. We thank everybody for their support. From our heart, we love you all, all of the content providers you help spread the word. Thank you so much. God bless you. The investigation.

[Kristin Thorne]

For the reads, this was a victory not just in court, but in public. A battle won both inside the legal system and outside it through media protest and relentless pressure. But inside the courtroom, it wasn't a celebration for everyone. Members of the o' Keefe family and friends of John o' Keefe sat in stunned silence. To them, this wasn't justice. It was a gut punch. In a joint statement released by Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, Chris Albert, Julie Albert, Colin Albert, Nicole Albert, Brian Albert, Carrie Roberts, and Kurt Roberts, they called the verdict a miscarriage of justice. Today, our hearts are with John and the entire o' Keeffe family. They have suffered through so much and deserve better from our justice system. While we may have more to say in the future, today we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality of that. This prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Reed, her defense team, and some in the media. The result is a devastating miscarriage of justice. Unquote. When jurors were dismissed, they left the courthouse under escort. No questions taken, no statements made. Their decision was final, but its ripple effects were only beginning. The verdict was in. The headlines were written. But for many watching, it didn't feel like the end. It felt like the end of something. But not everything. Because as the courtroom emptied and the crowd outside erupted, there was still one lingering question. How did we get here? What unfolded over the last three years wasn't just a criminal case. It became a referendum on police power, prosecutorial discretion, and public trust. And to understand the implications, we turn to someone who's followed both trials from the beginning, legal analyst and criminal defense lawyer Ian Runkle.

[Ian Runkle]

Honestly, as this trial has developed, it has become more and more clear that an acquittal was the proper response. The oui charge I've got no issue with, but I think justice was done on the larger charges.

[Kristin Thorne]

For Runkle, the jury's verdict didn't come out of nowhere. It was the natural end of a case that, in his view, never should have gone this far.

[Ian Runkle]

This may actually go down in history as the most expensive oui case in the history of ever, because the prosecution is probably well over a million dollars at this point.

[Kristin Thorne]

He called it a textbook case of tunnel vision. A prosecution locked into a single suspect, a lead investigator, Michael Proctor, fired for misconduct, and an investigation that Runkle argues ignored the most basic tools of truth finding.

[Ian Runkle]

Why wasn't this investigation done properly? I mean, the texts that Proctor sent are just unjustifiable. Why did this turn into the thing it turned into? Had they done a proper police investigation, we would have had a much clearer case. Let's imagine that they had even applied for the warrant to go in to the house, because I suspect that they could have gotten into the house if they'd applied for a warrant. It could have been real simple, hey, we found a person deceased on the front lawn. We want to go inside and see if there's evidence to collect here. But they never even bothered to ask for it.

[Kristin Thorne]

This wasn't just incompetence, Runkle said it was a failure of duty.

[Ian Runkle]

If you think Karen Reid is guilty, some of the best evidence on that might have been found inside the house. There's one of two possibilities. They go in the house and they find a big blood splotch and people trying to clean up sitting there, or like a fresh smell of bleach. Or they find nothing except the aftermath of a party. You know, if all of these phones hadn't been destroyed, we'd either find text messages saying, we got to cover this up, or they'd find text messages saying things like, this is really sad and remember to buy groceries. We will never know which scenario we're in because the police failed to investigate. And in that case, an acquittal is the only just and proper response.

[Kristin Thorne]

And it wasn't just about what wasn't done. It was about what was done.

[Ian Runkle]

They bring in a glass expert who says that the piece of glass that is found on the bumper is not a match to the glass that supposedly would have been in John o' Keefe's hand according to their theory. And the only thing it matches is a piece of glass found at the scene found by Trooper Proctor. And I go, I don't know how this glass ends up on the bumper. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation for that that isn't. Trooper Proctor planted it. And I would love to hear a convincing explanation for it, but I just haven't heard one.

[Kristin Thorne]

That Runkle said was the moment the framing theory stopped sounding far fetched, he hadn't always believed it.

[Ian Runkle]

I came into this at the first trial. I wasn't planning on covering it. And what got me to cover it was Yannetti opening up with Karen Reid was framed. And what I thought was, it's never that somebody was framed. Like, this is such an unusual thing. And basically I covered it because I thought he was going to fall on his face. I thought that we were going to get to the point where the frame argument was ridiculous. And the problem is I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for that moment when the Karen Reid was framed argument would just fall on its face and be ridiculous. And it never came.

[Kristin Thorne]

The deeper he followed the evidence, he said, the more he saw the Commonwealth's case eroding. And by the Time it reached a second jury, the damage was done.

[Ian Runkle]

Some of the most powerful pieces of evidence here have actually been pieces from the Commonwealth's own investigation and from some of the things Commonwealth witnesses have said.

[Kristin Thorne]

But what about justice? What about John o'? Keefe? For many, that was the banner they carried into the courtroom. But Runkle argues that justice for John and Karen aren't mutually exclusive.

[Ian Runkle]

There's a lot of people out there who want justice for John o'. Keefe. And unfortunately, other than the fact that justice for John o' Keefe and justice for Karen Reed are sort of tied together and that I don't think John o' Keefe would have wanted Karen Reed to be wrongfully convicted. But if you're sitting there and you're saying, I want to see what's right for the family, what was right for the family was a proper investigation, proper crime scene control, a lead investigator who wasn't manifestly corrupt. All of these things were the requirements to get justice for John o'. Keefe. And so everybody out there waving that flag should be furious, but not at the defense team, not at Karen Reed, not at anyone who was commenting on this. They should be furious at the Commonwealth and the police, and that's where their anger is properly aimed. The defense team did their job. The police didn't, and that's the issue.

[Kristin Thorne]

Still, he's not optimistic this case will change much.

[Ian Runkle]

I would love to be able to tell you that this is going to lead to a proper cleanup of corrupt officers, of sloppy officers, and that they will clean house and that everything will be much better afterwards. It won't. And at the end of the day, things will continue largely as they are.

[Kristin Thorne]

And for those who still believe Karen Reid is guilty, some people are never.

[Ian Runkle]

Going to be convinced. I mean, people are allowed to think whatever they would like to think. At the end of the day, our system actually depends on the possibility of scenarios where many people think somebody's guilty and yet we get an acquittal because the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Kristin Thorne]

Karen Reid was acquitted of second degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene. She was found guilty only of driving under the influence. She'll serve one year of probation. But the verdict didn't erase the damage to the people, to the system, or to the man whose death set all of this in motion. For Karen Reed, the verdict was a moment of vindication, but not a full exoneration. A guilty finding, albeit for a lesser charge, remained on the record. And questions about what really happened to John o' Keefe still linger in the public's mind. Because this was never just about one woman and one man. It was about the system, about trust, about what evidence means in the digital age. And now, after years of headlines, hearings and heartbreak, the courtroom is quiet, but the country still divided. Unless someone talks, unless something breaks. Until then, the story is over and still unresolved. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Kristin Thorne. This episode was written and produced by Cooper Maul. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our editor is Anna McLean. Our associate producer is Tess Jagger Wells. Guest booking by Diane Kay and Alyssa Fisher. Legal review by Elizabeth Voulais. Key art designed by Shawn Panzera. Follow Karen in the Wondery app. You can binge the entire series early and ad free right now by joining Wondery plus in the Wondery App. Apple Podcasts or Spotify.