KAREN: THE RETRIAL - Episode: Under Oath (S2-E3) Summary

Release Date: August 11, 2025
Host: Kristen Thorne
Production: Law&Crime | Wondery

Introduction

In "Under Oath," the third episode of Season 2 of KAREN: THE RETRIAL, host Kristen Thorne delves deep into the high-stakes courtroom drama surrounding Karen Read's retrial for the alleged killing of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. This episode highlights pivotal testimonies, the clash between public opinion and courtroom realities, and the intricate dance of digital forensic evidence that could sway the jury's verdict.

Public Sentiment vs. Courtroom Dynamics

The episode opens with a conversation between Kristen Thorne and a Navy veteran at Cafe Bagel, Denham Square, illustrating the town's divided opinions on Karen Read's guilt. The veteran expresses skepticism about Karen's culpability, stating:

"I don't think she should be put through all this. [...] I believe they were on a drunken stupor, they had a fight, they killed the cop..."
[00:58] Navy Veteran

This sentiment underscores a broader community debate, setting the stage for the courtroom's focus on evidence over public perception.

Key Testimonies and Witness Credibility

Carrie Roberts' Testimony:
Kerry Roberts, a longtime friend of the victim, faces scrutiny from the defense for inconsistencies in her statements to the grand jury. She admits:

"I did not [tell Karen Read to Google anything]."
[03:15] Kerry Roberts

Attorney Katherine Loftus remarks on the defense's strategy to undermine Roberts' credibility:

"The defense was able to catch Kerry Roberts... plant this seed seen in the jury's head..."
[04:02] Katherine Loftus

Despite the defense's attempts, Loftus believes the impact on Roberts' credibility is minimal, emphasizing her role in establishing the timeline.

Peggy O’Keefe's Testimony:
John O’Keefe’s mother, Peggy, provides heartfelt testimony about finding her son:

"John was found in a snowbank... They brought us down to the room where my son was. He's bruised up, his eyes were closed."
[06:44] Peggy O’Keefe

Attorney Will Corman highlights Peggy's role in humanizing the victim and supporting the prosecution’s narrative:

"We need to humanize individuals in trials. Peggy O'Keefe does that."
[07:37] Will Corman

However, the defense challenges the portrayal of Karen Reed through Peggy's eyes, especially when footage from Karen's documentary shows her mocking Peggy's account.

Digital Evidence and Forensic Debate

A cornerstone of the prosecution's case revolves around digital forensic evidence, particularly the timing of a pivotal Google search. Digital forensics expert Ian Whiffen presents data showing that the search "how long to die in cold" occurred at 6:23 AM, contradicting earlier claims of 2:27 AM.

"The data shows it happened after 6:20am, not at 2:27am as initially believed."
[14:58] Ian Whiffen

Detective Aaron Benzik counters the initial timestamp discrepancy:

"With the cell brand expert... looking at the technical aspects... I do believe we can come out of this with a lot of confidence that this is a Google search that did occur after 6:00am..."
[18:16] Detective Aaron Benzik

He further explains the unreliability of the 2:27 AM timestamp due to how Apple's browser updates information:

"With certain pieces of data, that timestamp may be saying something different."
[19:06] Detective Aaron Benzik

Benzik emphasizes that while tools like Cellebrite and Axiom extract data accurately, interpretation requires expertise:

"Just because Axiom includes that timestamp doesn't mean it's inaccurate."
[21:05] Detective Aaron Benzik

This forensic tug-of-war highlights the trial's reliance on intricate digital footprints, with the reliability of timestamps potentially determining the case's outcome.

Controlled Jury Views and Crime Scene Walkthrough

Jurors are given a controlled visit to the crime scene at 34 Fairview Road, allowing them to visualize the environment where Officer O’Keefe was found. Attorney Will Corman explains the importance of these views:

"Jury views are very important. They allow an opportunity to humanize certain elements of the case."
[11:52] Will Corman

During the visit, jurors observe:

• The flagpole near the snowy path where the officer was discovered.
• Karen Reed's SUV with visible damage tied to the alleged assault.
• The house's layout and proximity to the street.

Katherine Loftus notes the strategic timing of the physical walkthrough preceding the digital forensic testimony:

"Having the view and seeing the physical scene followed up by the Cellebrite expert... was a good idea."
[13:40] Katherine Loftus

This sequence aims to reinforce the prosecution's timeline and corroborate digital evidence with physical observations.

Defense Strategies and Witness Cross-Examination

Jen McCabe's Testimony:
Jen McCabe, a key witness, faces intense cross-examination exposing potential discrepancies in her recounting of the events.

Initially, McCabe confidently describes the scene:

"I saw Karen Reed yelling... we have to go to Fairview... could I have hit him?"
[28:02] Jen McCabe

However, during cross-examination, inconsistencies emerge:

"I don't remember the exact time, but I can read it off the paper."
[30:22] Jen McCabe

Attorney Ian Runkle critiques her reliability:

"She's worried about cross-examination... this is her second time testifying, and to Korman, that showed she seemed far."
[31:10] Will Corman

The defense capitalizes on these inconsistencies, questioning whether McCabe's timeline was coordinated with friends and family:

"She's doing things where... she wants to see the evidence first."
[30:07] Jen McCabe

These tactics aim to erode McCabe's credibility, making the jury question the integrity of her testimony.

Prosecution's Focus on Digital Timelines

The prosecution centers its argument on establishing a precise timeline through digital evidence:

"The Commonwealth alleges that the data from Cellebrite... pinpoints him to the front lawn near the flagpole."
[16:06] Katherine Loftus

By demonstrating that John O’Keefe's phone remained stationary and the critical Google search occurred post-discovery of the body, the prosecution seeks to dismantle defense theories of an indoor assault staging:

"Location information is consistent with that. Temperature of the phone is consistent with that."
[24:10] Detective Aaron Benzik

This meticulous approach aims to present an airtight narrative, contrasting sharply with the defense's alternative theories.

Climactic Developments and Expert Testimonies

As the trial progresses, expert testimonies become pivotal. Notably, defense experts, previously aligned with the prosecution, present counterarguments challenging the validity of earlier digital evidence interpretations.

Attorney Ian Runkle remarks on the unusual strategy:

"If they accept arca's view... Karen Reed has to be acquitted."
[36:26] Ian Runkle

The defense's maneuver of introducing prosecution-hired experts as defense witnesses adds a novel twist, potentially undermining the prosecution's case.

Conclusion: The Verdict Battleground

As Under Oath concludes, the episode underscores the trial's tension between human emotion and technical evidence. The jury must navigate shifting testimonies, digital forensic complexities, and personal biases to discern the truth. With each piece of evidence scrutinized and every witness's credibility examined, the retrial of Karen Read stands as a testament to the nuanced interplay of justice, perception, and the relentless pursuit of truth.

Key Moments and Quotes:

• [00:58] Navy Veteran: "I believe they were on a drunken stupor, they had a fight, they killed the cop..."
• [07:37] Will Corman: "We need to humanize individuals in trials. Peggy O'Keefe does that."
• [14:58] Ian Whiffen: "The data shows it happened after 6:20am, not at 2:27am as initially believed."
• [19:06] Detective Aaron Benzik: "With certain pieces of data, that timestamp may be saying something different."
• [24:10] Detective Aaron Benzik: "I don't see that they've presented evidence that indicates or suggests that any kind of indoor assault happened."

"KAREN: THE RETRIAL" offers listeners an immersive glimpse into one of Boston's most contentious legal battles, blending meticulous reporting with compelling narrative to illuminate the quest for justice in a town divided.