Whose Narrative Is It Anyway?: S2-E2

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Whose Narrative Is It Anyway?" (Season 2, Episode 2 of KAREN: THE RETRIAL)

Release Date: August 4, 2025
Host: Kristin Thorne
Production: Law&Crime | Wondery

---

Introduction: A Polarized Case Beyond the Courtroom

In the second episode of KAREN: THE RETRIAL, titled "Whose Narrative Is It Anyway?", investigative reporter Kristin Thorne delves deeper into the highly contentious retrial of Karen Reed, accused of killing Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe with her SUV. This case has transcended legal boundaries, becoming a cultural flashpoint that has divided the community and captured national attention.

Key Highlights:

• Polarization and Public Interest: The murder of Officer O’Keefe by Karen Reed has sparked intense public debate, with strong supporters believing in her innocence and detractors convinced of her guilt.
• Media Influence: The case has been amplified by social media, conspiracy theories, and extensive media coverage, making it a trial both in court and in the court of public opinion.

---

Legal Maneuvering: From Mistrial to Retrial

Following a mistrial in the first session due to a hung jury, the retrial marks a critical juncture in the pursuit of justice. The defense's initial attempt to dismiss the most serious charges based on alleged double jeopardy was dismissed by the court.

Notable Quotes:

• Rich Showenstein ([00:38]): "I think she's a pretty compelling defendant. She's attractive, she's a professional, she takes good pictures, and she has a good, highly capable defense team."
• Matt Tympanik ([01:51]): "If they had rendered that verdict, that would have been huge for Karen Reed because that would have meant double jeopardy."

Key Points:

• Double Jeopardy Argument: The defense contended that the first trial's confidential juror statements indicated an implicit not guilty verdict on second-degree murder, which should prevent retrial. However, the court ruled that without an official, public verdict, double jeopardy does not apply.
• Resume of Charges: As a result, Karen Reed faces retrial on the same charges, intensifying the stakes for both prosecution and defense.

---

The Michael Proctor Scandal: Undermining the Investigation

A significant development complicating the prosecution’s case is the misconduct of Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, who was terminated for violating multiple department policies, including inappropriate texting and misconduct.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Proctor ([04:07]): "So these came from me."
• Matt Tympanik ([05:58]): "He's a cop too. We'll give him a pass."

Impact:

• Credibility Crisis: Proctor's unprofessional behavior and expressed bias against Reed have cast doubts on the integrity of the investigation. The prosecution faces the dual challenge of addressing Proctor’s misconduct while maintaining the strength of their case.
• Strategic Response: ADA Hank Brennan emphasizes the need to acknowledge Proctor's faults proactively to prevent the defense from exploiting them during the trial ([05:56]).

---

Jury Selection: Ensuring Impartiality Amidst Bias

Selecting a fair and unbiased jury is paramount in such a high-profile case. With over 500 individuals summoned, extensive vetting was conducted to eliminate potential biases influenced by prior media exposure and public opinion.

Notable Quotes:

• Rich Showenstein ([10:25]): "Jury selection is maybe the most important part of this kind of case."
• Matt Tympanik ([11:10]): "I'm not sure these jurors are going to be surprised by anything they hear at this point."

Challenges:

• Stealth Jurors: The possibility of jurors harboring undisclosed biases remains a concern, potentially swaying the trial’s outcome.
• Judge’s Role: Judge Beverly Kanone mandated a clean slate for jurors, emphasizing impartiality despite pervasive media coverage ([12:51]).

---

Prosecution’s New Strategy: Hank Brennan Takes the Helm

The prosecution introduced Hank Brennan, a seasoned attorney known for his formidable courtroom presence, signaling a strategic pivot towards a more controlled and evidence-driven approach.

Notable Quotes:

• Hank Brennan ([14:05]): "ADA Brennan was the absolute perfect choice to take over this case."
• Matt Tympanik ([15:15]): "This time around, you're going to see the prosecution really focus its case."

Key Strategies:

• Precision and Control: Unlike the first trial, the prosecution aims to present a concise and cohesive narrative focused on vehicular manslaughter, supported by robust physical and digital evidence.
• Minimizing Distractions: Efforts are made to avoid the "noise" that previously allowed the defense to introduce peripheral theories and media influence.

---

Defense’s Position: Navigating Restrictions and Media Exposure

Conversely, the defense faces limitations imposed by court rulings, restricting their ability to introduce alternative theories such as a third-party culprit. Additionally, Karen Reed's prior media engagements have been weaponized by the prosecution to undermine her credibility.

Notable Quotes:

• Rich Showenstein ([23:52]): "You're prepping for a murder trial and you want a documentary team underfoot."
• Matt Tympanik ([24:07]): "If you go out and do a bunch of media interviews, you're kind of waiving that right."

Challenges:

• Media Mistakes: Reed’s participation in documentaries and interviews has provided the prosecution with unguarded statements that can be used as evidence.
• Courtroom Limitations: Judge Kanone’s restrictions on mentioning ARCA witnesses hinder the defense’s ability to argue alternative scenarios effectively ([28:23]).

---

Opening Statements: Divergent Narratives and Tactical Shifts

The opening statements set the tone for the retrial, with the prosecution presenting a clear, evidence-based case, while the defense struggles to maintain coherence under judicial constraints.

Notable Quotes:

• Hank Brennan ([17:35]): "Hank Brennan, without notes, meticulously laid out every single fact of the case."
• Matt Tympanik ([20:36]): "You will learn that Mr. Stokes got out of the car, got out as he stood by the side of the road after an argument with the defendant."

Prosecution’s Approach:

• Structured Narrative: Brennan delivered a precise account of the events leading to Officer O’Keefe’s death, emphasizing physical and digital evidence alongside Reed’s alleged confession ([17:35]).

Defense’s Struggles:

• Restricted Arguments: The defense’s attempt to introduce the possibility of a third-party involvement was curtailed by the court, leaving their narrative less impactful ([28:23]).
• Credibility Issues: Inconsistencies in witness testimonies, such as Carrie Roberts’ conflicting statements about Reed’s instructions, further weaken the defense’s position ([40:34]).

---

The Role of Evidence and Expert Testimonies

As the trial progresses, the focus sharpens on concrete evidence and expert analyses to substantiate the prosecution’s case and dismantle the defense’s theories.

Notable Quotes:

• Hank Brennan ([19:47]): "He looks at the phone, at the text message dedicated is now 1232 09. And closes the phone."
• David Ring ([42:20]): "17 of the 18 Ring videos... were deleted by someone."

Key Evidence:

• Digital Footprints: Analysis of cell phone and GPS data places Officer O’Keefe at the scene at specific times, contradicting the defense’s claims of a third-party involvement.
• Deleted Videos: The revelation of deleted surveillance footage raises critical questions about the integrity of the investigation and the chronology of events.

---

Looking Forward: The Path to Verdict

With the initial days of the retrial establishing a more disciplined prosecution and a defense grappling with both legal restrictions and clouded narratives, the stage is set for a pivotal courtroom showdown. The next phases will hinge on witness testimonies, expert analyses, and the jury’s ability to navigate through the intricate web of evidence and rhetoric.

Anticipated Developments:

• Witness Cross-Examinations: The defense’s opportunity to challenge prosecution witnesses, particularly Michael Proctor, could significantly impact jury perception.
• Technological Evidence: Further presentation of surveillance footage and digital data may provide decisive proof in the case.

Closing Thoughts: Kristin Thorne encapsulates the high stakes of the retrial, highlighting the intricate dance between legal strategies, evidence presentation, and the ever-present influence of media narratives. As the trial unfolds, the quest for truth remains entangled with power dynamics and public perception, making KAREN: THE RETRIAL a front-row seat to one of the most consequential legal battles of recent memory.

---

Episode Credits:

• Written and Produced by: Cooper Maul
• Executive Producer: Jessica Lowther
• Editor: Anna McLean
• Associate Producer: Tess Jagger Wells
• Guest Booking: Diane Kay and Alyssa Fisher
• Legal Review: Stephanie Beach
• Key Art: Shawn Panzera

Listen Exclusively on: Wondery+, available via the Wondery App, Spotify, or Apple Podcasts.

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. It's one of the most polarizing trials in recent memory. An officer dead, a woman accused, and a community split down the middle. The case against Karen Reid has become more than a courtroom battle. It's become a cultural flashpoint.

[Rich Showenstein]

I think she's a pretty compelling defendant. She's attractive, she's a professional, she takes good picture, and she has a good, highly capable defense team.

[Kristin Thorne]

A defense team that hasn't just challenged the charges, they've challenged the entire system. And outside the courtroom, the movement behind her has grown into something far bigger than a legal fight.

[Rich Showenstein]

There were lots of content creators who were happy to jump on this case and put out theories about it, including the conspiracy theories that probably started in the courtroom but got really articulated and ramped up on social media. And people got interested in that and started following it. And there is interest. This idea of police corruption, the idea that there could have been a conspiracy, the idea that someone could have been framed, just all of those factors combined have put this case over the top.

[Kristin Thorne]

Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, things haven't been any less dramatic. After the first one ended in a mistrial, jurors came forward saying they had agreed to acquit Karen Reed on the most serious charge, second degree murder.

[Matt Tympanik]

If they had rendered that verdict, that would have been huge for Karen Reed because that would have meant double jeopardy. She cannot be tried again for second degree murder. But the problem is they never rendered that verdict.

[Kristin Thorne]

The highly anticipated retrial has reignited public passion, reopened significant legal questions, and continues to garner substantial attention.

[Matt Tympanik]

She's drawn this crowd of people who are 100% behind her and are willing to spend days out in front of that courthouse holding up signs and wearing pink and supporting her in every way imaginable because they've locked in on the case and they truly believe she's innocent, and they're going to follow her to the very end and see how this thing turns out. But it's fascinating. It's absolutely fascinating how this thing's playing out.

[Kristin Thorne]

I'm Kristin Thorne, and this is the retrial. In this episode, with the help of attorneys, legal experts, activists and journalists following the case, I'll break down how we got here and what the moves both sides made during the first few days of trial reveal about the road Ahead. In the months before the retrial of Karen Reed officially began, her her defense team wasn't just preparing for court. They were trying to stop the trial altogether. Not with a press conference, not with public outrage, but with an aggressive legal campaign, one that reached all the way to the nation's highest court. Their most audacious move, A motion to dismiss the two most serious charges, second degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident.

[Rich Showenstein]

I've said from the beginning I thought this case was overcharged.

[Kristin Thorne]

That's Rich Showenstein, a law and crime faithful and trial lawyer and litigator in his own right. We discussed the claim heard round the world that jurors in the first trial had already reached unanimous not guilty verdicts on those counts before the mistrial was declared. No verdict was ever read in open court, and no official polling was ever requested, but jurors allegedly confirmed it afterward. The defense called it double jeopardy, a violation of Karen Reed's fifth amendment rights. But the court didn't see it that way. Matt Tympanik, another friend of lawn crime and a respected criminal defense attorney, explains.

[David Ring]

What all of the appellate courts have said is that until the jury tells the judge that they have a verdict, they've reached a unanimous verdict, and they announce that in open court, there's no verdict. And the judge doesn't have the power to pull a jury before a verdict has been reached. They were like, they sent a note. It's like, hey, we're hopelessly deadlocked on count two, but we are anonymous on one and three. And if they had done that and the judge brought them out and it's like, all right, not guilty on count one, we're hung on count two, not guilty on count three. But they didn't do that. It needs to be published, and it just wasn't.

[Kristin Thorne]

In simple terms, consensus behind closed doors doesn't count. Without a formal verdict read in open court, the law treats it as if no decision was ever made. And because the defense agreed to the mistrial at the time, double jeopardy doesn't apply. The defense's constitutional challenge failed. The charges would stand, and the retrial would move forward. But even as the legal groundwork was set, a deeper problem for the commonwealth was already emerging, one that had nothing to do with motions or technicalities. It had everything to do with the credibility of their investigation. And at the center of that storm was Michael Proctor. In March 2025, Michael Proctor was fired from the Massachusetts State Police. A disciplinary board found that he had violated multiple department policies, drinking on Duty. Sharing sensitive case information and sending crude, misogynistic texts about a woman he was building a murder against.

[Michael Proctor]

So these came from me.

[Hank Brennan]

From all accounts, he didn't do anything wrong. She's a whack job.

[Kristin Thorne]

Cunt.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

Objection.

[Kristin Thorne]

So don't spell it.

[Michael Proctor]

These are your words, Trooper Proctor.

[Hank Brennan]

Yes, your honor?

[Matt Tympanik]

Go ahead and say them.

[Michael Proctor]

Cunt.

[Hank Brennan]

Yes.

[Michael Proctor]

She's a babe.

[Hank Brennan]

Weird fall river accent, though.

[Michael Proctor]

No ass.

[Kristin Thorne]

Not suspended. Not reassigned. Fired. And that firing may now become one of the prosecution's biggest obstacles. Civil trial attorney David Ring, who's been invested in this case since day one, talked to me about this.

[Matt Tympanik]

The prosecution has to get in front of that, and it cannot be brought out by the defense. For the first time, where the jury hears it, the prosecution's got to say, here's what this lead investigator did. Here's the things he said. It got him fired. However, even though it was unprofessional, outrageous, the things he was texting to his buddies and to others and what he's saying about her, his investigation was legitimate, and that's what you got to focus on. The investigation, not his sidebar comments. And that's what they got to get out in front of. And he got blown up on the witness stand last time, and he might get blown up again. But if they're out in front of it, it lessens the blow.

[Kristin Thorne]

So the prosecution's challenge is clear. Get ahead of the damage. Acknowledge Proctor's misconduct before the defense can weaponize it, and then pivot back to the facts. But that's easier said than done, because for people like attorney Rich Showenstein, the problem isn't just what Proctor said. It's what his words reveal about how the case was handled from the start.

[Rich Showenstein]

It's the bias that's shown in his text messages. And there are many people who argue that those text messages never should have been produced because they were private. Well, but they have been produced. They are out there. And he was biased. He did jumped to a conclusion that she was guilty right away. He had very negative feelings about her that he relayed to people he was messaging with. I don't quibble with somebody who says, you know what? I can't get past that investigation.

[Kristin Thorne]

Proctor's bias is undeniable, and it's already in the record. The question isn't whether it will come up. It's how the commonwealth chooses to confront it. Avoiding the issue could backfire. Addressing it head on might be the only way to move past it.

[Rich Showenstein]

I don't know what the prosecution's going to do with Michael Proctor, who's been fired from his job. I don't know if they're going to put him on or try to avoid him. I would be very upfront about that situation. In opening statement. I would tell the jury right off, you're going to hear some things about the lead investigator and he made some mistakes and he got fired and he's been accounted for. And you're going to hear a lot about that. But it doesn't change fundamentally the question before you, which is that this defendant do what she is charged with. That's what you're here. You're not here to pass judgment on Michael Proctor. You're here to pass judgment on Karen Reed.

[Kristin Thorne]

Because ultimately, the Commonwealth doesn't have to defend Michael Proctor. They just have to separate him from the evidence and the investigation. The goal isn't to excuse his actions, but to isolate them, frame them as individual failures, not systemic ones. Activist and law student Grant Smith Ellis agrees.

[Hank Brennan]

The state, tactically, I think, will do the right thing by presenting Michael Proctor's failures not as a condemnation of the evidence in the Reed and o' Keefe case, but as a condemnation of Michael Proctor's, like all of us, moral failures, maybe he'll learn from them, maybe he won't.

[Kristin Thorne]

With Proctor's misconduct looming large, the prosecution isn't just presenting evidence. They're fighting for trust. And nowhere does that battle matter more than with the jury. In a case already saturated with controversy, every seat in the jury box carries extra weight, because now it's not just about what the evidence shows. It's about who's interpreting it. In a case this polarizing, where public opinion is already entrenched, seating a fair jury isn't just a procedural step. It's a critical test of the system's ability to deliver impartial justice. And in the Karen Reed retrial, that process was anything but simple.

[Rich Showenstein]

Jury selection is maybe the most important part of this kind of case. It's also the hardest to watch for an outsider because we don't see the jurors, so we can't see them interacting with the questions. We don't see everything that goes on at some sidebar. We don't really know what challenges are being made by the lawyers for cause or peremptory. There's a whole lot that goes into jury selection that's so behind the curtain, you can't really see it.

[Kristin Thorne]

But one thing is clear in this retrial. Both sides know what is at stake. And with intense media coverage saturating Norfolk County. The question isn't whether jurors have already heard about the case, it's whether they can set that knowledge aside.

[Matt Tympanik]

I'm not sure these jurors are going to be surprised by anything they hear at this point.

[Kristin Thorne]

That's what makes the concept of stealth jurors so dangerous.

[Rich Showenstein]

You do have to be concerned about stealth jurors. The concern that there's somebody on that jury who secretly is vehemently on one side or the other is a very legitimate concern in this case. People in that community feel very strongly one way or the other.

[Matt Tympanik]

And it's difficult because in this day and age, jurors are so sophisticated and they're smart and they watch all these TV shows and they know how to act as a juror. And that is a problem. Sometimes you have stealth jurors who want to get on a jury, a high profile criminal case, because they have an agenda. And it's very difficult to weed those people out because they know how to answer all the questions and say all the right things.

[Kristin Thorne]

The effort to weed out hidden loyalties or agendas carefully masked during voir dire is painstaking.

[Matt Tympanik]

In this second trial here, both sides, prosecution and defense, have done a good job of vetting these jurors and really getting 18 people that are there for the right reason and to try to reach the right result.

[Kristin Thorne]

Over the course of 10 days, more than 500 people were summoned to Norfolk County Superior Court in Denham, Massachusetts. Every single person vetted, every single person asked, what do you already know? Had they followed the first trial, heard about Michael Proctor, seen the TikToks, the Reddit threads, the YouTube conspiracies, the media frenzy?

[David Ring]

They're asking the people, all right, who has already formed an opinion, raise your hands. Okay, you're all gone. Who has a bias? Yep, all right, you're all gone. So what you're left with is people who have heard about the case but haven't formed an opinion or a bias, or people who haven't heard about the case at all.

[Kristin Thorne]

Judge Beverly Kanone made it clear this jury needed to come in clean, able to tune out the noise and focus only on the evidence. That may be the hardest task of all in a case where law enforcement media and social media have already drawn their own battle lines. Because in a case as polarized as this, impartiality isn't a bonus. It's the baseline. The final jury was seated on April 15th. 18 people total, 12 jurors, and 6 alternates split evenly between men and women. So with a Jury finally screened, scrutinized, and clear to hear this case. The focus turned to who would be making that case. Because this retrial isn't just about what's being presented. It's about. It's about how it's being presented. And this time, the Commonwealth brought in a new lead voice, someone with the courtroom presence and trial experience to match the stakes.

[Hank Brennan]

Hank Brennan is a legal heavy hitter who represented organized crime at the highest levels, up against the Department of Justice as a federal criminal defense attorney.

[Kristin Thorne]

If the name rings a bell, there's a reason. Brennan once stood on the other side of the aisle defending none other than Boston mob boss James Whitey Bulger. Now he's switched seats, brought in not to defend, but to prosecute. And his presence signals more than a personnel change. It's a shift in tone, a statement of intent.

[Matt Tympanik]

Let's face it, I'll say it, he's an upgrade from what they had in the first trial. He's very good, and he's gonna put on a case that's concise and clean, special.

[David Ring]

ADA Brennan was the absolute perfect choice to take over this case. Somebody who'd been a prosecutor but been a criminal defense attorney, one of the top trial lawyers in the Commonwealth.

[Kristin Thorne]

Brennan's reputation isn't the only thing carrying him. It's his philosophy. Precision over spectacle, facts over noise, and above all, control. Because in the first trial, that's exactly what was lost in the first trial.

[Matt Tympanik]

The defense did an exceptional job of throwing a lot of stuff up there. The jury maybe got confused or bought into it. But that's bad for the prosecution when they start chasing the defense and trying to counter everything the defense is saying. I think this time around, you're going to see the prosecution really focus its case and really just try to keep it to, hey, this is a vehicular manslaughter case. Very drunk driver, a heated argument. She hit him, and he's in the snow. And they're going to really try to focus on that and try to stay away from all the other noise that was created in the first trial.

[Kristin Thorne]

And that control could make all the difference. Because unlike the first trial, where the Commonwealth was often reacting, sometimes scrambling, this time there are no unknowns. The playbook has already been written. And that, according to David Ring, gives the prosecution a critical edge.

[Matt Tympanik]

In the first trial, the defense, let's face it, they had a lot of surprises for the prosecution. Prosecution was caught off guard with certain witnesses, certain testimony. They didn't know how to react to that. No surprises. This Go around. This time, everyone's testified. Prosecution knows exactly what the defense case is all about, and that typically favors the prosecution because they can kill their mistakes. This time around, they can say, here's what we did poorly in trial number one, and here's how we're going to fix it in trial number two.

[Kristin Thorne]

With the lessons of the first trial still fresh and a new lead prosecutor at the helm, the stage was set. On Tuesday, April 22, the retrial of Karen Reed officially began. And right out of the gate, opening statements made one thing clear. This wasn't a repeat of round one. It was two competing stories told with sharper edges, tighter focus, and higher stakes.

[David Ring]

The whole point of an opening statement, if you're the Commonwealth, you're through. The prosecution is at the end of it. You want the jury to think, what are we doing here? Sounds like they got the guy cold. And we know that's not how it works because the other side gets to make their argument as well. And if you're to the defense, you're like, well, what are we doing here? It sounds like there's reasonable doubt all over the place.

[Kristin Thorne]

Let's break down what each side told the jury and what that tells us about where this trial is headed.

[Hank Brennan]

Hank Brennan, without notes, meticulously laid out every single fact of the case and the case law across the three indictments and was able to do it without having to reference a piece of paper. And that alone makes such an impression on the jury. I think it's hard to come away with an impression of anything other than Hank Brennan knew this case and was ready to argue it better than lawyers who had been on the case for two and a half years.

[Kristin Thorne]

They offered three key pieces of their case. Number one, the alleged confession.

[Michael Proctor]

As a car pulled up the 34 Fairview, the ambulance, he stood at the back door, the doors open. Then he stepped out into the bedroom. He could hear a woman screaming and shrieking, the cold, hard air slapping on its face and the wind, blizzard conditions flowing around her. And he looked up at Ms. Reed and he said, what happened? And you'll hear her words through firefighter Nuttall. She said, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him.

[Kristin Thorne]

First responders said they heard Reid say, I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. The Commonwealth framed this as an unguarded admission, spontaneous and powerful. In a courtroom, that kind of statement can be compelling, especially when jurors are looking for certainty. Number two, the physical and digital evidence, namely John's cell phone and the black box from the Alleged murder weapon, Karen's.

[Michael Proctor]

SUV at 12:31, 50, 60 begins to move. He will have 20 seconds before he falls. 20 seconds he gets out of the car, collapses. And in that 20 seconds you'll hear that user is initiated. He looks at the phone, at the text message dedicated is now 1232 09. And closes the phone. The last time will be the last time he uses that phone. From the Waterfall Bar, you'll see that. And at that time talk to a high last user. He have seven more seconds to be before he lied dormant the rest of the night.

[David Ring]

When I heard especially Eda brain said he's like John O', Keefe sent a text message to Jim McCabe and seven seconds later he was struck by a vehicle. And that's after the defendant put her car into first neutral, then reverse and then put the foot to the pedal. 75% that information that's being so precise. And you have to think that they have data that they analyze that they really couldn't understand in the first draw that they're going to be able to break down in the second trial. That was a huge difference in the opening than the first case where it was like just laying out the case and it wandered. Didn't really have a cohesive story as opposed to this. 35 minutes, boom. This is what you're going to hear. Here's our roadmap.

[Michael Proctor]

You will learn that Mr. Stokes got out of the car, got out as he stood by the side of the road after an argument with the defendant. That argument, that anger fueled by heavy intoxication we learned from the science and data. As he stood by the side of the road, the defendant to her SUV, drove away. She drove at least 35ft away. Argumently over. It had ended. But then she stopped. She stopped. She put the Lexus in neutral and she waited. And the facts and science and game will tell you that despite the fact the argument is over. She then put the Lexus in reverse, put her foot on the gas pedal and began to press. Not 25%, not 50%, up to 75% acceleration. There was a light dusting of snow. The Lexus tire spun backwards. She went backwards at least 70ft. She clipped John Oakley's, fell backwards, hit his head, broke his skull. There he lay at the corner of Fairview Road on the ground, lying on top of his cell phone. Hello? And then the defendant will later tell that when she left, he didn't look mortally wounded, yet he was. And she simply drove away.

[Kristin Thorne]

Matt Timpanik says, rest assured, we'll be seeing it all.

[David Ring]

If you are the Commonwealth, you do not want to make promises you can't keep. Because if you're saying one thing and then the evidence doesn't back that up, the jury's going to think, do you even know what your case is? And if you don't even know what your case is, then the jury's like, I don't know if they've proven it. I don't even think they believe they proved it.

[Kristin Thorne]

And number three, the defendant's own words. In most criminal trials, silence is strategy. But Karen Reed's case was never quiet. Even before her retrial began, Reed had become the center of a growing media narrative, one she helped shape herself. And now her own words, captured in interviews and a globally streamed docu series, are being turned into evidence against her.

[Rich Showenstein]

You're prepping for a murder trial and you want a documentary team underfoot. That, to me, tells me that the people involved in that trial aren't keeping their eye on the goal. The goal is an acquittal. The goal is not to be a film star. The goal is not public accolades. The goal is not selling your story. And she gets interviewed and she says, this is my testimony. That's not testimony. It's not testimony if you don't subject yourself to cross examination. Nice try, but you can't testify in court, only on direct. And I just thought it was a bad look. I thought she didn't look great in the documentary. I do think there's something to the argument that her stories have been inconsistent over time. I think that could come back to haunt her. I just thought that was a huge mistake to go anywhere near that, and I think it's going to be a problem for them to deal with at trial.

[Kristin Thorne]

That mistake, as Showenstein calls it, isn't just about optics. It's about legal exposure. Because while defendants have the right not to testify, speaking freely in public can open a new door. One the prosecution is now walking straight.

[Matt Tympanik]

Through the extensive interview she gave on the Max docu series, A Body in the Snow. Those could come back to haunt her. They really could, because she spoke freely. She spoke on a lot of different issues. She just didn't give canned answers that really couldn't harm her. She really got in depth on a lot of different things. The prosecution, I think they absolutely are going to take advantage of that. Every defendant has the right not to testify. Right? The Fifth Amendment. I have a right not to incriminate myself. Guess what? If you go out and do a bunch of media interviews, you're kind of waiving that right because that gives the prosecution the right to play those interviews.

[Kristin Thorne]

And that's exactly what they've started to do.

[Michael Proctor]

After Ms. Reed was charged, she began what you'll learn as a campaign, a campaign to make public statements when 20 night line about 25 a documentary. And we had an opportunity to get many of her statements in the footage and we're going to show my. And her statements to you will confirm what you already know from the sign up from there, which you will already conclude from the facts and dependence about what she did that night.

[Kristin Thorne]

In his opening statement, prosecutor Hank Brennan didn't just lay out a narrative, he let Karen Reed tell it herself, using her own voice, her own words from her own interviews.

[Michael Proctor]

I mean, I didn't think I hit him, but could I clicked him, tapped him in the knee and incapacitated him. He, he didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see, but could I have done something that knocked him.

[Kristin Thorne]

Out and, and in his.

[Michael Proctor]

In drunkenness and in the cold didn't come to again? And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party? Yeah, would have had to.

[Matt Tympanik]

The prosecution has played one clip of an interview that Karen Reed gave and I guarantee they're going to play more throughout the trial because they're helpful to the prosecution. I think the defense was banking on her being acquitted and then it would have been this phenomenal story of, hey, here's a behind the scenes everything that happened and look at we were right the whole time and she's acquitted. Whoops, mistrial, coming back again for a second time. All that stuff is now fair game for the prosecution.

[Kristin Thorne]

It's an extraordinary opportunity for the defense, a glaring vulnerability. Here's why.

[Hank Brennan]

Because not only do they reflect Karen's changing story that night from dropping John off at the waterfall to last seeing him outside the home to et cetera, but it also goes to show something far more damaging to Karen, which is consciousness of guilt.

[Kristin Thorne]

And it's not just the message, it's the delivery. Matt Timpanic puts it bluntly.

[David Ring]

The documentary is probably going to go down as one of the worst decisions made by a trial team, because the worst witness in any criminal case is yourself. And what's even worse, when you're not even on the stand, to be able to be cross examined and explain that and Hank Brennan is able to air I don't know how many hours of footage of the defendant's own statements without having to be cross examined. He gets to show the Video and move on. Essentially have the defendant narrate her own murder trial and plug the holes wherever they are.

[Kristin Thorne]

In a case already defined by blurred lines between courtroom and media circus, Karen Reed's decision to go public may be one of the most consequential of all. All her voice was meant to tell her side of the story, and now it's being used to tell the prosecution's. But while the commonwealth used Karen Reed's own voice to open their case, the defense struck a very different tone. The defense's opening statement was always going to carry weight. After all, this wasn't a cold start. Jurors knew about the mistrial. The public knew about the controversy. And the court ruled room had already become a battleground long before opening arguments were even heard. But on day one, things didn't go entirely according to plan.

[Hank Brennan]

Ten minutes before openings were supposed to begin, Judge Kanoni ruled that the Reed defense had failed to comply with reciprocal discovery rules under Rule 14 and banned them from mentioning ARCA in their opening. So not only was Reid restricted this time by a formal written order on the third party culprit which exonerated Colin Albert, but Reid was banned 10 minutes before opening started from mentioning Arca.

[Kristin Thorne]

If you aren't familiar with who the ARCA witnesses are, Matt Timpanic's got you covered.

[David Ring]

They were independent accident reconstructionists hired by the federal government to investigate this crash. They are vital, whatever word you want to use for Karen Reed's defense because you need somebody saying that this was not a pedestrian strike.

[Kristin Thorne]

Here's the catch.

[David Ring]

It turned out that not entirely accurate and that they weren't paid for their services. That kind of came out in pre trial proceedings during discovery that there was communication between Alan Jackson and the ARCA witnesses. So there's going to be a real question about credibility either way.

[Kristin Thorne]

That ruling drastically narrowed what the defense could say and how they could say it. Most critically, it blocked them from raising the possibility of a third party culprit. A cornerstone of their broader theory that John o' Keefe died not from being hit by a car, but inside the house at 34 Fairview Road.

[David Ring]

Alan Jackson was, in my opinion, playing with one arm behind his back because the judge said he couldn't mention third party culprit and he couldn't mention the arc of witnesses. That's their whole case.

[Hank Brennan]

That I thought really shifted the tone. It put Alan Jackson into a position where he had to read from notes and be far less effective than Hank Brennan, who could go up there with a memorized set of fact Jackson law and looked a lot more polished, even if he walked away from the microphone a few times, which made it hard to hear on the stream.

[Kristin Thorne]

Alan Jackson, Reid's hotshot out of state attorney, did what he could with what he had. He attacked the integrity of the investigation. He pointed to inconsistencies in the timeline. He emphasized that Okeefe's injuries didn't align with a car strike.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

The evidence will establish that John did not suffer a single injury on his body consistent with having been hit by a car. Not one. There was no collision with John o'. Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision. John o' Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle, period.

[Kristin Thorne]

But the narrative wasn't clean and some argue neither was the delivery.

[David Ring]

Alan Jackson came off a little combative during the opening statement. He was almost at times yelling at the jury. People were saying he was being passionate. He really believes in the innocence of his client and that's fine. But the truth is you can't go from the laying, the soft spoken, laying it out, facts, data, evidence of Hank Brennan to basically yelling and overpowering the jury, which is what Alan Jackson did during his opening. He became more subdued after the first witness he crossed and realized that you don't need to do that to everyone.

[Kristin Thorne]

Worse still, according to Grant Ellis, Jackson may have made a tactical misstep claiming he'd show o' Keefe went into the house, a claim not fully backed by the digital evidence.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

The scientific evidence and the medical evidence will establish that John o' Keefe had to be injured somewhere else, somewhere warmer, and his body had to have been moved out into the cold.

[Hank Brennan]

Every piece of the evidentiary record, John's cell phone, GPS data, et cetera, shows that. And even jurors who were sympathetic to Karen in the first trial that gave media interviews said John's phone data showed that John hit that lawn around 12:32am and never move again. And so now Alan Jackson has put himself in an untenable position where Hank Brennan's going to be able to show evidence after evidence and maybe every juror, all 12, will agree that phone never left the lawn. And if John never left that lawn, Karen doesn't have a defense. And I think she struggles to get an acquittal on all three charges and a compromise verdict on oui Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, or motor vehicle homicide. OUI is very likely.

[Kristin Thorne]

Still, the defense leaned on what they believe is their strongest angle.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

You'll find when you hear the evidence that The Commonwealth's case is the literal definition of reasonable doubt.

[Hank Brennan]

There was not a word about Karen Reed was framed. The defense has absolutely abandoned that entire line of inquiry and seemed to suggest more that the investigation wasn't good enough to confirm Reid's guilt.

[Kristin Thorne]

A challenge not just to the Commonwealth's theory, but to the investigation that built it.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy, one that is spread through the investigation. It's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out. A cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.

[Kristin Thorne]

They pointed to Proctor as more than unprofessional. He was biased, he was vulgar. And his text showed contempt for Reid from the start. For the defense. This wasn't just misconduct, it was motive. A reason to rush to judgment and build a case around a pre decided suspect.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

Michael Proctor is the very definition of the Commonwealth's case. And he's also their Achilles heel. You'll hear that within hours of a Boston police officer being found dead on Brian Albert's lawn, Michael Proctor, the lead investigator who had investigated exactly nothing up to this point, right at the beginning, made an early pronouncement that Brian Albert himself was not going to, quote, catch any shit, end quote. And that was for one reason, and one reason. He's a Boston cop. And when he thought no one was looking, he actually said the quiet part out loud. Loud. He's a cop too. We'll give him a pass.

[Kristin Thorne]

Unexpectedly, the Commonwealth didn't mention Proctor from the jump. If you find that curious. Matt Timpanic says it could be a strategy. They could be holding off until he's called to the stand.

[David Ring]

That's going to be in the back of the jurors until that happens. How bad is it? It's like every witness they hear, is it tainted? Is it compromised? Can I believe this? It's going to be a bad day in court for the Commonwealth when Trooper Michael Proctor testifies. But I think by the time he does, the Commonwealth will put everything they got up against that. They're going to be like, yeah, I can see the issues with this guy, but the evidence is just too strong. So when that day comes with Trooper Michael Proctor, I think they might have a similar theory of how to deal with it and get out in front of it. But they don't want the jury thinking about that for the entirety the case is going on. They want to be thinking about this witness and they want to be thinking about the accident reconstruction, the LEXIS data, the admissions, the defendant's own statements. So that when eventually it's put next to Michael Proctor's compromised crime scene and his conflicts of interest, that they're able to weigh the evidence and be like, the evidence is still really strong for a conviction. So we have to consider Trooper Michael Proctor's testimony, everything that he did, but we can't ignore everything we've heard previously.

[Kristin Thorne]

But for the defense, that strategy cuts both ways. If the prosecution is asking jurors to compartmentalize Proctor's bias, the defense is asking them to see it as the foundation of everything that followed. Their case hinges on connecting Proctor's misconduct not just to his credibility, but but to the very structure of the investigation. If the jury buys that, then every piece of evidence becomes suspect and doubt becomes the defense's most powerful tool. And that the commonwealth's case is built not on conclusive evidence, but on assumptions reinforced by an investigation compromised from the inside.

[Matt Tympanik]

The circumstantial evidence they have is pretty powerful. It's pretty compelling, and it worked the first time. Some of these things where even if you think Karen Reed is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and you think, hey, she did this, and when you hear the evidence about what went on in that house and the aftermath and the investigation and the inter relationship of all these police officers and all of it, it's an eyebrow razor. You're just like, something does not add up here. And it's enough to raise reasonable doubt. And that's all the defense wants to do again, is raise reasonable doubt. And I think their best argument for doing that is once again pointing the fingers at Brian Albert and Brian Higgins and the people in that house. And the infamous Google search by Jen McCabe. How long does it take to die in the cold? That's going to be another centerpiece of this trial.

[Kristin Thorne]

And while they couldn't invoke the ARCA witnesses directly in openings, the implications were clear. The defense still plans to raise questions about Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, and the now infamous Google search by Jennifer McCabe. How long to die in cold?

[David Ring]

They want to throw as much of what they can against the wall to see if enough that it's like there's a pattern forming and there's a lot more questions than answered. And that's exactly what the defense is looking for.

[Kristin Thorne]

But the clock is ticking.

[David Ring]

And based on the defense's opening statement, it was a lot of conjecture, almost Hail Mary's. It's like there was no Collision. There was no collision. There was no collision. Hopefully the arc of witnesses are allowed to testify that there was no collision, because if not, you just made them a promise that you cannot keep. And so that was a slight mistake by Alan Jackson. But maybe it's the idea being is like, if we can't get into this collision, we're not going to win, so it's not going to matter.

[Kristin Thorne]

That's the risk when your entire strategy hinges on what the court will later allow. And in a trial where the prosecution is leaning heavily on clean delivery and physical evidence, every misstep becomes more costly.

[David Ring]

Facts win cases.

[Kristin Thorne]

The defense may still land its punches in cross examination and with expert witnesses down the line, but after opening statements, one thing was clear. They weren't just fighting the Commonwealth. They were fighting the limits placed on their own narrative. And that's where the next phase of this trial comes into focus witnesses and evidence. Because in a case where the defense is boxed in by courtroom rulings and the prosecution is building around precision and control, testimony becomes everything. Not just what's said, but who says it, how they say it, and whether jurors believe leave them. Each witness has the potential to either reinforce the prosecution's carefully constructed timeline or unravel it. And for the defense, cross examination isn't just a tool. It's their best chance to shift the momentum. In the next episode, we'll take a look at what and who comes next from the people closest to the victim, those who knew John o' Keefe not as a case file, but as family, as a son.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

She said, john was found in a snowbank. And I. I didn't understand, which I said, what do you mean, found in a snowbank? She said, found him in the snow. They don't know what happened.

[Kristin Thorne]

To those on scene first with their recollection of the early morning hours of January 29th being called into question.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

What you told the grand jurors was not true.

[Michael Proctor]

You never heard her, my client, ask.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

Anyone to Google anything, did you?

[Kristin Thorne]

I did not.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

And yet that's what you testified to under oath under the penalty of perjury.

[Michael Proctor]

In front of the grand jury, didn't you?

[Kristin Thorne]

I did.

[Grant Smith Ellis]

And the reason you did that, the reason that you said that false statement was because someone told you to say it, correct?

[Kristin Thorne]

Nobody told me to say it. In a bombshell admission early in the trial, Carrie Roberts, one of the three women who discovered John o' Keefe dead, takes the stand to refute a central claim she made to the grand jury. She'd previously testified Karen reed told Jen McCabe to Google how long to die in cold. Now she's saying she never actually heard Reed say that. This kind of reversal doesn't just shake a witness's credibility, it creates an opening. And this time the defense isn't letting it slide. They didn't cross examine Roberts last time. Now they're laying groundwork because Carrie Roberts inconsistency isn't just a problem on its own. It may be the setup for something bigger.

[David Ring]

The defense made a mistake and they didn't cross Kerry Roberts in the end. Would it have really hurt? No. But what I saw is they're laying the foundation to basically insinuate Jennifer McCabe was in fact influencing Carrie Roberts recollection of the events and steering her in the direction of what she wanted.

[Kristin Thorne]

And if the defense is working to undermine the witnesses, the prosecution may be preparing to answer with something that doesn't lie. Data. Because while this case has been dominated by human testimony, Hank Brennan has promised that technology, surveillance footage, digital footprints could deliver the next big reveal.

[Hank Brennan]

The thing that absolutely has me on the edge of my seat is that 17 of the 18 Ring videos at John O' Keeffe's house between 12:37am and 5:08am on January 29, 2022 were deleted by someone. And Hank Brennan seemed to hint that could lead to those videos playing some role in this trial that could seal it.

[Kristin Thorne]

This has been a long 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 Stephanie Beach. 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.