Loading summary
Transcript180 lines
- [00:00]
A
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. Before the jury even walked into the courtroom on Friday, May 29, December, day 24 of the retrial of Karen Reed, the defense made their first move. Attorney Alan Jackson asked the judge for what's called a required finding of not guilty on all charges. His argument? There's simply no evidence that supports the Commonwealth's theory. Full stop.
- [00:48]
B
Even taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, what evidence have they proven that that Karen Reed intended to kill or harm John o' Keefe or that she intended to leave him for dead in the snow? The answer is none. Zero. No reasonable jury could find Karen Reid guilty. This case never should have been brought in the first place. This was a vindictive prosecution and I believe that the court is duty bound to dismiss all three counts.
- [01:14]
A
But prosecutor Hank Brennan pushed back hard.
- [01:17]
C
We see the text messages, evidence of attempted breakup and and we hear the words of Karen Reid when she leaves numerous voicemails that night. And any reasonable person could find that her conduct that night created a plain and strong likelihood of death.
- [01:33]
A
Boston based criminal defense attorney Will Corman explains this step in the process.
- [01:39]
D
At the conclusion of the government's case, it is incumbent upon defense counsel to raise a motion to dismiss. And for appellate purposes, it's one of the things you need to do. In other words, if the ultimate argument down the road is that there is a factual component missing from the government's case and therefore there should have been an acquittal. One of the things the appeals court will look at was did you move for a directed verdict at the close of the government's case? They're rarely granted. The standard is very, very, very high. But it's one of those things that you always have to scribble a note to remind yourselves to do because if you don't do it and there is a conviction, it gets harder on appeal. And if you didn't raise the issue.
- [02:21]
A
Earlier on, Judge Kanone didn't spend much time deliberating. She swiftly denied the defense's motion, clearing the way for the trial to continue. And with that, we're off to the races. The baton has officially passed to Karen Reed's defense team, and now it's their time to strike back. Their mission undermined the Commonwealth's narrative, poke holes in the timeline, challenge the credibility of key witnesses, and most importantly, sow reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. From here until closing arguments, the defense is at the wheel, steering the jury toward their version of what happened that cold night in January 2022. For law and crime, I'm Kristin Thorne and this is Karen. The retrial. Let's get into it. The defense's first witness, accident reconstructionist Matthew De Sogra, took the stand to address the prosecution's digital forensic timeline, Specifically the now heavily scrutinized lock event on John o' Keefe's phone. The digital forensic trail here is murky simply because the technology itself is imperfect. The times displayed on our electronic devices, they aren't always exact and they don't always sync up. Phones and vehicles often have an internal clock drift, and even a few seconds of misalignment can matter.
- [04:01]
E
Fundamentally, the phone, Mr. O' Keeffe's phone, and the vehicle, Ms. Reed's vehicle, they're separate clocks, and it's very unlikely that they're going to be aligned perfectly in time.
- [04:10]
C
Right.
- [04:10]
E
If I compared my watch to your watch, it would probably be off. And that's the same case for any two independent clock sources.
- [04:16]
A
According to Desogra, the prosecution's original report, authored by forensic expert Shannon Burgess in January 2025, left out a crucial piece. The final calculations reconciling the different clocks. It wasn't until a supplemental report released in May 2025. Yes, during the retrial that Burgess completed his analysis and reached conclusions that differed significantly from his initial impressions.
- [04:49]
B
Explain to the court and for the jurors, what were the main differences that he changed in the May 2025 report?
- [04:56]
E
In the original report, he laid out some methodologies for correcting the clock using phone calls that were shared between the vehicle and Mr. O' Keefe's phone. And in the supplemental report, he moved away from the phone call analysis and moved. Attempting to align the clocks using a shared maneuver between the vehicle and the phone.
- [05:20]
A
Attorney Jackson boiled the situation down to a well known phrase in tech and forensics.
- [05:26]
B
Garbage in, garbage out. Basic scientific postulate.
- [05:29]
E
Correct, General? Yes.
- [05:33]
A
In that supplemental analysis, Burgess abandoned the idea of a single exact timestamp and instead introduced a range of possibilities, creating what's called an interaction window. According to Desogra's independent reconstruction, the final lock event on Okeefes phone happened after Karen Reed's SUV performed the backup maneuver.
- [05:59]
E
I'm going to go through all of those ways that aperture has proposed and show if we align the clocks based on how they laid out does the phone interaction always occur after the end of the vehicle event? And what did you determine based on the initial reports? Yes, the phone interaction always occurs after the end of the vehicle event.
- [06:18]
A
Desogra points out that Burgess had identified nine possible times for when Okeefes phone could have been locked. And in the majority of those seven out of nine, his phone locked after Reed's vehicle had already completed its motion. That timeline matters. It's critical to the defense's theory that o' Keefe was still moving, AKA still alive, after the Lexus had finished backing up. So what did the jury hear and could they make heads or tails of any of it? Attorneys Matt Timpanek and Kathryn Loftus have some thoughts.
- [06:56]
F
He was essentially just critiquing Dr. Welcher and Shannon Burgess findings and he wasn't really explaining it well. He was like, well, they're wrong there. And oh, this is nine seconds off and this is off. And it's like, I don't think you're getting what you need to out of this witness.
- [07:10]
G
What we had really was this like ping ponging back and forth of experts opining as to what the timeline was and this idea of clock drift and lining things up and trying to show why one clock, say 20 seconds later versus the Lexis data. It's fairly complicated stuff for the layperson to understand that there's all these sort of different pieces of data and they're trying to fit them to paint a story. And so ultimately you have to wonder how much are they paying attention to when we have all of the evidence that's been introduced in the rest of the case, are they really going to be nitpicking down to the second, you know, is it 8 seconds? Is it 19 seconds? Is the 29 seconds? I'm not sure that they will dive in quite that deep.
- [08:00]
A
The defense's next witness wasn't a forensic expert. He didn't witness anything that happened on January 29th. But he did grow up with Michael Proctor, the now former state trooper who led the investigation into Karen Reed. His name is Jonathan Diamandis. Diamandis and Proctor have known each other since they were boys. Over 30 years of friendship. But it's not their shared childhood the defense was interested in. It was their group chat.
- [08:32]
D
Proctor's texts had to be read into the record.
- [08:35]
A
The texts in the group chat show Proctor mocking Karen Reid. Her accent, her body, her medical problems. To the defense, these texts suggest a predetermined narrative and a bias early and strong. And attorney will corman agrees.
- [08:55]
D
I think they're very important. I think they show bias on behalf of the investigators. I believe it helps coalesce the defense around the not only was the investigation sloppy, not only was the investigation haphazard, but there are some undercurrents as to why we think this investigation was so half assed.
- [09:14]
A
Karen Reed's team say they're a window into Proctor's state of mind as he investigated or perhaps failed to investigate other potential suspects. David Yannetti explains, we have Michael Proctor's.
- [09:29]
B
Words about why he did or didn't interview people separately. Why he waited, for instance, a year and a half to interview a plow driver who was out there on January 29th. Why he treated some people with kid gloves and other people with brass knuckles. He's stating it in these text messages. She's gonna go down for this. We're gonna pin it on the girl. We're going to make sure that there are some serious charges. She's effed. Those are the statements he makes about Karen Reid in the infancy of this investigation.
- [10:04]
A
The defense argues this wasn't an investigation at all. In fact, from day one, they say the fix was in a blueprint for bias.
- [10:14]
C
Could you read Mr. Proctor's two comments?
- [10:17]
B
She waffled him.
- [10:18]
A
I looked at his body at the hospital.
- [10:20]
B
He was banged up.
- [10:21]
C
Somebody in the group asks another question. What do they ask?
- [10:24]
B
I thought he was drunk. Did he get beat up?
- [10:26]
C
In Mr. Proctor's response, nope.
- [10:29]
A
But the prosecution wasn't going to let this witness spend their time on the stand just reading some texts in their cross of Diamandis. They fired back, arguing that he couldn't really authenticate these messages that were allegedly written by Michael Proctor on his personal cell phone. In fact, Diamandis barely remembered them at all. And on top of that, the witness had only contributed one message to the entire thread. So how could he vouch for their accuracy? The Commonwealth argued the only person who could truly explain the context, the intent, and whether any of this influenced the investigation was Michael Proctor himself. And that raised an even bigger question. Why won't the defense call him? Kathryn Loftus has some thoughts.
- [11:19]
G
The colonel doesn't appear to be running away from Michael Proctor. They're just trying to control it a little bit better. What Brennan did was by not calling Michael Proctor, allowing what otherwise would come in from his testimony to come in through Sergeant Buchanan and other state police trooper, it forces the defendant's hand to potentially call him. The problem with the defense calling him is that there is a world where Hank Brennan could rehabilitate him enough to the point that a jury could believe that this is not a good guy, he deserved to be fired. He said all these terrible things. At the same time, he's never been found liable for any wrongdoing. Despite two multi year investigations. He's never been accused of framing, of planting of any of that kind of stuff. Which is not what defense wants to think about Michael Proctor.
- [12:10]
A
Brennan made it clear if the defense was going to suggest to this new jury that Proctor was biased, reckless or corrupt, they should bring him in and let them hear from him directly. Otherwise, he warned, these texts would just be fuel for speculation.
- [12:27]
C
It invites manipulation. They are trying to gain the advantage of putting information in front of the jury that has no context.
- [12:34]
A
But Diamandis presence on the stand and more importantly, Michael Proctor's absence could leave jurors wondering why the defense is using background players and tangentially connected witnesses to build their case.
- [12:48]
F
David Ionetti stated that they made a team decision not to call Michael Proctor and I just didn't believe either side could get away with it. The Commonwealth, on the basis that it looks like you're hiding him and it makes it look like it allows the jury to think, is this guy the boogeyman? Does he have to say, is the Commonwealth really that scared about what he's going to say in this case? And allows them to go to places that juror's mind shouldn't. They can be given all the instruction in the world, they're going to be thinking about him when they're doing their deliberations. Did he actually plant this stuff? Could he have? He's just kind of this almost like Voldemort, this individual who you only hear about but you never actually really see until it's too late.
- [13:36]
A
Typically when the defense calls a witness, it's someone whose testimony supports their theory. Someone expected to offer evidence or insight that challenges the prosecution's narrative. Will Corman explains the strategy. As a seasoned defense attorney, you have.
- [13:54]
D
A fundamental outline of what you want the witness to say. And you also have an outline as to what you expect the witness will say. And the goal is to try to keep witnesses in that lane.
- [14:04]
A
These witnesses are often cooperative, if not outright favorable to the defense. But the next witness, she defies all of that. Instead of bolstering the defense's case, she arrived on the stand on day 25 with tension in the air, resentment in her tone and answers that sometimes felt more combative than cooperative.
- [14:28]
H
I don't know why I'm here. I have no Connection to this case.
- [14:31]
A
That's Officer Kelly Dever, a Boston police officer. In 2022, she was working as a patrol officer with the Canton Police Department. Let's be clear. Dever was never at the scene where John o' Keefe was found. She didn't interview witnesses, she didn't file a report, and she was not called as a witness by any anybody in the first trial. But in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022, she was on dispatch duty. And the defense wanted her to confirm what she had already told, quote, unquote, outside investigators, that she saw two key figures. Canton Police Chief Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins alone in the Sally Port with Karen Reed's suv. It's the only reason the defense put her on the stand. But once she was there, she flipped, and the defense responded in kind.
- [15:29]
B
Did you observe something in the Sally port garage on January 29, 2022, that you found unusual, that stuck out in.
- [15:37]
H
Your mind given factual information that makes it so? I know I did not.
- [15:41]
B
So the answer is no.
- [15:42]
H
Correct.
- [15:43]
B
Do you remember being interviewed on August 6th 9th, 2023?
- [15:47]
H
I do.
- [15:47]
B
That was by a separate law enforcement agency, correct?
- [15:50]
H
Yes.
- [15:51]
B
Two separate law enforcement agents, is that right?
- [15:53]
H
Yes.
- [15:54]
B
Were you advised that lying to those officers would be a crime?
- [15:59]
H
So it was a willing conversation. I've spoken with their legal team because of the fact I was provided factual information that showed a statement of mine was a false memory. It was not a lie. Therefore, I made it in good faith, and I retracted. Given information that it could not be accurate.
- [16:13]
D
When a witness begins to veer from that lane, it's your job to try to direct them back.
- [16:19]
A
But Dever pushed back harder.
- [16:21]
H
You threatened to charge me with perjury during our phone call prior to the first trial if I didn't lie on the stand. Right now, I'm telling you I did not see anything factually. I've been provided evidence by a timeline that is not correct.
- [16:34]
A
And if this sounds like something out of a legal thriller, buckle up.
- [16:38]
B
Fact of the matter is, nobody ever threatened you with perjury, did they?
- [16:42]
H
Oh, they did? Yes. I contacted the FBI regarding it.
- [16:46]
B
Oh, did you?
- [16:46]
H
I did.
- [16:47]
B
You have a report?
- [16:47]
H
I have an email conversation where I sent the two questions I had. She responded, I will pass these along. I was contacted by their legal team. They reassured me perjury was not applicable because I made a statement in good faith. Upon further information, I retracted it, corrected it, and made it clear that I could no longer say it because I knew that it was not a clear reflection of the events that took place.
- [17:10]
A
Catherine Loftus watched this whole thing between Dever and Jackson go down.
- [17:15]
G
The problem with our testimony is she didn't just say, hey, this is what I thought. I wasn't asked until 18 months later. That's the first time I was interviewed. I thought the car was in there when I saw them go in. Now that I know I was off and the car wasn't there, obviously I was incorrect. Instead, she gets up there and is saying, you know, it's a false memory and she was a bad witness all around. And especially as somebody who's a police officer whose job in part is supposed to be able to testify and to do so under pressure doesn't bode well for her.
- [17:45]
A
The defense, meanwhile, tried to paint Dever as being coached by her own department. They pointed out that she had a one on one meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox, a rarity for a rookie officer.
- [17:58]
B
Would you call yourself a rookie back then?
- [18:00]
H
Yes.
- [18:01]
B
Did you find it unusual that a rookie police officer would be called up to the commissioner's office personally?
- [18:08]
H
It was a reflection of how good of a leader he is. It was not anything that I found unusual given the fact he is someone who wanted to show support for his officer.
- [18:17]
B
So all of your, I'm guessing all of your training class or all of your entry classes have possibly. They've all gone up to the commissioner's office as well.
- [18:24]
H
I don't know anyone else who's been in this particular circumstance.
- [18:27]
A
The implication that Dever had been told, maybe subtly, maybe not, how to testify, but Dever denied that over and over. She made this clear in her testimony. Under Cross.
- [18:42]
H
There is discomfort with the way that there's attempting to guide what my testimony is, but I don't feel any need to fall into it because I'm here to speak the truth on the stand. That's my livelihood.
- [18:54]
A
Attorney Katherine Loftus, who lives just outside Boston, has a unique window into Commissioner Michael Cox and possibly into his motives for holding a private closed door meeting with a rookie officer.
- [19:08]
G
When he was a Boston police officer in the 90s and was in the gang unit, he was mistaken for a homicide suspect by his fellow officers at Beaten and then left. And nobody called the police, nobody called for help or anything like that. And when there was an investigation, they all basically went silent. Nobody was ever identified. And now he's Boston Police Commissioner. So he's actually somebody who's the antithesis of like, shh, covered up. He's somebody who'd say Whatever you have to do, you tell the truth and we'll have you back. If you have that context, you might look at that piece of information differently. But because that wasn't introduced, then I think it's fair for the jury to say, oh, that is weird that they had a meeting together.
- [19:52]
A
So we're left with a defense witness attacking the defense, allegations of coaching, FBI name drops and false memories. By the time Dever left the stand, the courtroom felt scorched.
- [20:06]
G
I don't think she did herself any favors at all. She didn't come off likable, she didn't come off cooperative. And she didn't seem to be that way for either side, neither for the defense nor the commonwealth, you know, and the problem really is, listen, it's clear that some of these witnesses don't want to be here. And it's understandable, we as observers, the jurors can understand why somebody doesn't want to be testifying in a trial like this. But sort of the tact she took was just, it was not successful if she was trying to just avoid answering the questions. There's a much better way to do that.
- [20:41]
A
Next, the defense pivoted to a key pillar of their cover up theory, the family dog. They suggest that Chloe, the Albert's German shepherd, may have mauled John O' Keefe inside 34 Fairview, leaving behind those telltale injuries on his right arm, the ones prosecutors claim were caused by Karen reed's shattered taillight. Dr. Marie Russell, a former cop turned ER doctor turned coroner, is the witness Karen Reed's defense team called to support that very specific claim that some of the wounds on John o' Keefe's body were consistent with a dog attack.
- [21:23]
G
She's an important piece of the defense case. She was in trial number one and the same here because she provides the alternate explanation for how John o' Keefe could have received some of his injuries. She's obviously somebody who's very credentialed. She's been a physician for a long time. She has sort of a unique background, was previously a police officer, you know, was an emergency room doctor, also has conducted autopsies, like head of a prison system. So she's somebody who clearly knows what she's talking about.
- [21:54]
A
She also talked about dog bites, something she's uniquely qualified to speak to. Having worked the ER in downtown LA and the jail unit where she saw injuries from police dogs firsthand, I estimated.
- [22:07]
I
It at a very Conservative Number of 500 dog bites. The wounds I saw were extensive. Ripping, tearing, crushing of tissue and many times even injuries to the muscles and blood vessels underneath.
- [22:24]
A
Dr. Russell wasn't just describing what she'd seen in real life, she'd also written about it. She co authored peer reviewed studies on dog inflicted wounds. She edited medical textbooks. She taught a class called Legal Medicine to graduate students in Criminalistics at usc. And yes, she lectured about wound patterns.
- [22:46]
I
We dealt with things such as time of death, post mortem changes, wound analysis on the body. You know, if there's something that might resemble a bite mark, that maybe that area needs to be swabbed or photographed.
- [23:02]
A
But in court, all of that experience came down to one question. Were the wounds on John Okeefes right arm consistent with a dog bite? And what did they rule out? Dr. Russell used two key tools in her review. Wound pattern recognition and what doctors call differential diagnosis.
- [23:26]
I
In my mind I went through other possible things or causes of wounds on an arm and then I figured out why these other potential causes did not fit this case.
- [23:40]
A
And what did fit, she said, was a dog bite. Specifically the kind of wounds caused by a dog's canine teeth and claws.
- [23:49]
I
So there are groupings, they are oriented in the same way almost from the inner surface of the arm towards the posterior. That gives me direction. The teeth started punctures and through either the action of the dog or the victim pulling away the teeth made these abrasions.
- [24:08]
A
She pointed to clusters of striations, thin abrasions in lines above and below the elbow, scratches, punctures, bruising. To her, the patterns weren't random, they were telling a story.
- [24:24]
I
I observed multiple patterns of striations or array of linear abrasions near the elbow, closer to the wrist, another grouping around the upper forearm.
- [24:38]
A
And that's what makes this testimony so significant. Because the central question in this trial how John o' Keefe died hinges in part on what caused those wounds. And Dr. Russell says it wasn't a car, it wasn't a taillight, it wasn't pavement, it wasn't a person, it was a dog. The prosecutor, Hank Brennan, would have his chance to rebut this entire premise.
- [25:09]
C
Before this case, had you ever testified as an expert in dog bites in any federal court in the United States?
- [25:17]
I
No.
- [25:18]
C
Before this case, had you ever testified in any state court in anywhere in the country as an expert in dog bites?
- [25:26]
I
No.
- [25:27]
C
Other than this case, have you ever testified in a courtroom as an expert about dog bites?
- [25:34]
A
Dr. Russell answered honestly no. This was the first time and it wasn't her only first.
- [25:41]
C
You learned a little bit of information about it and it piqued your interest, didn't it? You wanted to get involved in this high profile case, didn't you?
- [25:50]
I
No. I did so for a reason. And the reason being that I knew I was one of the only people in the United States board certified and residency trained in emergency medicine and also residency trained in forensic pathology.
- [26:04]
F
I definitely think that's kind of the whole theme of what the prosecution says, the defense's case, a bunch of people looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
- [26:12]
A
Because she wasn't recruited by the defense.
- [26:15]
F
Dr. Russell reached out to somebody who knew Alan Jackson and he was like, she told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Because I remember watching the documentary and Alan Jackson, when he first got the photographs, like, this guy wasn't hit by a car. And when Dr. Russell reached out to him, she told him exactly what he already knew. So it was almost like confirmation bias for Alan Jackson.
- [26:36]
A
According to her, it wasn't for attention or money.
- [26:40]
I
I thought I could help clarify the issues as to whether or not this could be a dog bite and maybe they could move on to something else if it wasn't.
- [26:49]
A
But Brennan wasn't just questioning her motives. He raised another issue, something that hadn't come up on direct.
- [26:57]
C
You're aware, aren't you, that those holes were swabbed for traces of dog DNA?
- [27:03]
A
Russell acknowledged it. Yes, she was aware of that. But the prosecution's point was sharper. If a dog caused these injuries, why wasn't there any dog DNA on the sweatshirt? The defense objected hard. There has been no mention in this trial of DNA. With regard to the topic. The defense has been incredibly assiduous and meticulous about not mentioning DNA. The prosecution has put in the jury's mind that topic that is irremediable. They even moved for a mistrial.
- [27:48]
G
I was surprised that they were arguing for a mistrial based on that. Now, if Hank Brennan had asked some other witness about dog DNA or the lack of DNA, completely understandable that it was outside of the scope of direct. But if you think about this idea that just because it wasn't presented in the Commonwealth case in chief doesn't mean that you don't ever get to ask about it again. The only reason Hank Brennan is asking about it is because the defense offered a witness to testify that this is in fact a dog bite. So if you think about sort of the converse of it, if the commonwealth was saying, hey, we believe John o' Keefe was bitten by a dog, wouldn't the defense be able to ask, didn't you take into Account that there was dog DNA or there wasn't dog DNA. To me, it seemed apparent right off the bat that this is a permissible scope of inquiry for cross examination. I think if they want a mistrial this late in the game, that sort of a signal to something.
- [28:46]
A
The judge didn't grant the mistrial and the questioning continued. By the end of her testimony, Dr. Marie Russell had been on the stand for parts of two full days. Through direct cross and redirect, defense attorney Robert Alessi gave her the final word. Bringing it all back to the science.
- [29:05]
I
The purpose was to identify that pattern recognition is an important, important component in dog bite wounds. Not just that there's one individual wound that's going to be diagnostic, but that there are patterns.
- [29:19]
A
By now, jurors had seen the photos, heard the conflicting opinions, and witnessed nearly two days of legal combat over the meaning of what were at first glance just scratches on an arm. But to Dr. Russell, they told a story, ones she stood by until the end.
- [29:39]
I
Those wounds were inflicted as the result of a dog attack.
- [29:43]
A
The next two witnesses the defense would call were eyewitnesses. Not to John o' Keefe's alleged murder, but to the reported condition of two inanimate objects, a taillight and a lawn. Let's talk about the taillight first and the police sergeant who says it didn't look the way prosecutors say it did. Dighton police officer Nicholas Barrows isn't from Canton. He's not state police. By his own admission, he has no connection to anyone involved in the death of John o'. Keefe. Not the victim, not the accused, not the investigators. And that's exactly why the defense wanted him on the stand. Barrow says that when state troopers seized Karen Reed's Lexus at her parents home, he was there.
- [30:30]
B
Did you observe anything of note about the rear end of that black suv?
- [30:34]
A
Yes, I noted in a report that.
- [30:36]
E
There was damage to the taillight.
- [30:38]
B
There was a crack missing, but it.
- [30:40]
E
Was not completely damaged.
- [30:42]
B
When you say there was a crack, you mean there was a piece missing?
- [30:45]
E
A piece was missing.
- [30:46]
B
Can you describe for the jurors what that piece looked like? How big it was, how small the shape, as you call it. Maybe this big? Is that maybe the size of a dollar bill? Maybe six inches.
- [30:54]
J
Six inches.
- [30:56]
A
He didn't just glance at the taillight. He says he spent about 20 minutes with the car. And what he saw, he says, was partial damage. A crack, a missing piece, but not a taillight that was completely smashed like it appeared in later evidence photos.
- [31:16]
G
The importance of his testimony is that he states that when he saw the vehicle on January 29th indicting in the driveway that it did not look the same as when it ended up in the Sally port. You know, a large portion of it missing when it's in the Sally port. And he says, absolutely not. You know, it did not look like that.
- [31:35]
A
The defense suggests that damage could have been added or worsened to fit the prosecution's theory that Reed backed into John o' Keefe causing fatal injuries. But Barrows said that's not what he saw that day in Dighton.
- [31:51]
D
While law enforcement did such a terrible job with this investigation, the defense does need to be a little careful and not paint all law enforcement with the exact same broad brush. That would be, I think, a turn off to the jurors. So here we have a police officer who in the limited scope of his testimony is embracing what the defense theory is, which is that this was a frame job. And he really does knock out a lot of the prosecution's argument regarding the taillight. As of right now, I think he's the most important defense witness. Now we have a police officer himself contradicting other law enforcement and embracing the defense theory. I don't think it gets any more powerful than that.
- [32:35]
A
Prosecutor Hank Brennan went to work undermining Barrows memory and his credibility. He pointed out that Baros only wrote a single line in his original report. Quote, vehicle had damage to right rear tail light, end quote. No mention of size, shape or anything specific.
- [32:56]
C
You didn't document that it was the size of a dollar bill. You didn't say that, did you?
- [33:00]
A
No.
- [33:00]
C
You didn't indicate if it was on the side or on the back?
- [33:02]
A
I did not. Then Brennan pressed him harder, suggesting that Barrows evolving memory might not be memory at all, but influence. Influence from social media, from news coverage, and from his recent meeting with the defense team at a Boston hotel.
- [33:21]
F
He went and drove to Alan Jackson's hotel to talk about it. Even though a simple phone call would.
- [33:27]
A
Have sufficed, Baros held his ground.
- [33:30]
E
With all due respect, sir, I don't.
- [33:32]
J
Live under a rock.
- [33:32]
E
It's all over social media and the news.
- [33:35]
A
You can't avoid it.
- [33:36]
C
Based on all the additional information you've read and seen, would you agree it's had some effect on your memory?
- [33:43]
E
I know what I saw and that wasn't it.
- [33:45]
A
What Sergeant Barrows saw and when he saw it could be a small detail with big implications. If his version is true, it casts doubt on the timeline of the tail light damage. And on the entire thing theory that the broken glass proves Karen Reed hit John o' Keefe with her suv.
- [34:06]
F
That officer's testimony has changed numerous times. Last year, he said it was cracked his testimony. This time, he's basically insinuating that it's not what it looks like. At the end of the day, it's like, is a jury going to believe that? Is what Officer Barrow saying. Enough. It's definitely going to bring some pause. But at the same time, it's like the pieces of the taillight are still embedded in the clothing.
- [34:32]
A
And once again, the jury is left with two different versions of the same moment. The cast of characters in this case is already crowded, but here comes yet another Brian. It was still dark. The snow hadn't stopped, and Brian Luckey Loughran was just trying to do his job. A longtime Canton DPW contractor, Luckey was plowing his usual route in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022. And on this day, this specific route would put him front and center in one of the most scrutinized crime scenes in Massachusetts memory. 34 Fairview Road.
- [35:17]
J
I go all the way to the very end of Cedarcrest, turn around in the cul de sac, and then head back up towards fairview about 2:42, 45am.
- [35:28]
A
Lucky had grown up in this neighborhood. He delivered pizzas, knew the locals.
- [35:33]
J
I knew the Alberts lived there, and I knew that Brian Albert was a police officer. First responders.
- [35:39]
A
As he passed 34 Fairview on his first of what would be multiple passes, he said he scanned the front yard just like he always did.
- [35:49]
J
I could see all the way to the front door. I saw nothing.
- [35:53]
A
No body, no signs of distress, no John O'. Keefe. And then he kept going. Roughly 45 minutes later, Lucky came back through for another sweep.
- [36:06]
B
So now it's about what time that you're coming for the second time to this area?
- [36:11]
J
3, 30. It's snowing fairly hard now, maybe 2, 3 inches.
- [36:16]
A
And that's when he saw something unusual.
- [36:19]
J
I noticed that there's a vehicle on the right hand side roughly in the area of the flagpole in front of 34 Fairview.
- [36:27]
A
A Ford Edge parked in a spot where, according to him, the Albert family never parked.
- [36:35]
J
For as long as I can remember, they have never parked a vehicle in front of their house. They've always had enough. Ample parking in the driveway.
- [36:45]
A
And again, Lucky said even maneuvering around that car, he saw no body.
- [36:52]
J
I had to maneuver to the left, go up, and then maneuver back right. I saw nothing.
- [36:59]
A
He made a third pass through the area around 6:15am when police were already on scene.
- [37:06]
J
They had all their blue lights on and they were parked, blocking the road. The entire road I couldn't get through.
- [37:13]
A
By then John Okeefe's body had been found in the snow. Lucky's testimony was a gift to the defense. A local plow driver with a clear view of the yard, no political stake and a history of knowing the family at the center of it all. He says he passed 34 Fairview three separate times between 2:45am and 6:15am and never saw a man lying in the snow. But cross examination complicated that story.
- [37:46]
C
When the private investigator asked you where you were when you said you saw the fort edge, are you saying that you didn't tell the private investigator that you were on Cedar?
- [37:54]
J
I don't remember telling him I was on Cedar, Chris. I, I do remember telling him that I had turned onto Fairview and saw the vehicle.
- [38:03]
A
And his time estimates, they changed. First he said he passed by at 5:30, then 6:15.
- [38:11]
F
His witness testimony has changed numerous times. They show what his dash cam video looked like and you couldn't see the front porch so you're not going to be able to see a body on the front lawn.
- [38:23]
A
Prosecutors also suggested that he told law enforcement there were emergency vehicles outside the house around 3am but whether or not his story holds up is up to the jury.
- [38:37]
G
The witnesses that the defense has presented, they're not so much as like one cohesive argument and more so that they're sort of trying to poke holes in any avenues possible.
- [38:50]
F
Each one of these witnesses have been adequately impeached by special ADA Brennan and to this point they haven't landed the blows that some people think.
- [39:03]
A
Karen Reed's defense team is tearing at it from every direction. No accident, no bias, free investigation, no clear cause or manner of death, no body on the lawn, just doubt planted everywhere they can. Attorney Will Corman co signs this approach.
- [39:24]
D
There are so many different components to the awful investigation undertaken by the government in this case that the defense had no choice but to sort of employ the shotgun blast approach. And they do need to counter all the evidence. So I think their case is just going where the state's case led them.
- [39:41]
A
They've used their first week in the driver's seat to lay the groundwork for an alternate story, one with police corruption, mishandled evidence and a very different explanation for how John o' Keefe died. But these were just the opening moves. The defense isn't done, not by a long shot. And soon they'll start connecting the dots. The much anticipated testimony from ARCA is coming. Matt Timpanik thinks there's only one way for the defense to come out on top.
- [40:16]
F
That's simply to argue the no collision. That's it. That's their last card to play.
- [40:21]
A
Because if their theory holds, Karen Reid could be set free. Here's Will Corman again.
- [40:28]
D
I anticipate an acquittal. I think that if they rested their case tomorrow, they would have one.
- [40:33]
A
But will she testify?
- [40:36]
D
The decision whether or not to testify belongs to one person in that courtroom and one person alone. And that's the client, the defendant.
- [40:43]
A
More on that next time. This has been a law and crime production. I'm your host, Kristin Thorne. This episode was written by our executive producer, Jessica Lowther. Additional writing by our associate producer, Tess Jagger Wells. Editing and sound design by Anna Maclean. Guest booking by Diane Kay and Alyssa Fisher. Legal review by Elizabeth Bulai. Key art designed by Shawn Penzera. 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.