The Murder of John O'Keefe: A Conversation with Alice and Brett from The Prosecutors

Summary

Murder Sheet Podcast Episode Summary: "The Murder of John O'Keefe: A Conversation with Alice and Brett from The Prosecutors"

Release Date: June 3, 2025

---

1. Introduction to the Episode

In this episode of Murder Sheet, hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee delve into the controversial second trial of Karen Reed, accused of murdering her boyfriend, police officer John O'Keefe, in a hit-and-run incident in Canton, Massachusetts. Joining them are Brett and Alice from The Prosecutors podcast, who provide in-depth analysis and insights into the case's developments and its broader implications on the justice system.

---

2. Overview of the John O'Keefe Murder Case

Karen Reed's case has garnered significant attention due to its complex legal battles and the emergence of numerous conspiracy theories. Initially accused of fatally hitting John O'Keefe with her car in 2022, the first trial in 2024 concluded with a hung jury, leading to a highly anticipated second trial.

• Background Details:
  • Incident: John O'Keefe was found dead on the side of the road with shards of his car’s tail light embedded in his shirt, indicating a hit-and-run.
  • First Trial: Ended with a hung jury amidst widespread media coverage and public speculation.
  • Second Trial: Focuses on a more streamlined prosecution approach, aiming to address previous weaknesses.

---

3. Insights from Brett and Alice on the Trials

a. Reasons for Public Interest

Brett and Alice discuss why the Karen Reed case has captivated the true crime community, comparing it to other high-profile cases like the Delphi murders.

• Conspiracy Appeal:
  • Brett: “People love a conspiracy. They want to find injustice and correct it.” ([07:00])
  • The combination of a police officer victim and perceived corruption feeds into public distrust and fascination.

b. Conspiracy Theories and Media Influence

The duo explores how modern media, especially podcasts and YouTube channels, have amplified conspiracy narratives, undermining trust in the judicial system.

• Media’s Role:
  • Alice: “This is not a fun story. It's real people's lives being dragged through the mud.” ([25:48])
  • The proliferation of unverified voices creates an echo chamber that perpetuates doubt and misinformation.

c. Prosecution Strategies in the Second Trial

Brett and Alice commend the prosecution's shift towards a more evidence-focused strategy in the second trial, contrasting it with the reactive approach of the first trial.

• Streamlined Case:

  • Brett: “Brennan really did that. He took away their ability to do that with his overall strategy.” ([70:29])
  • The prosecution presents clear, logical evidence, minimizing opportunities for the defense to introduce conspiracy theories.

• Effective Cross-Examination:

  • Alice: “They gave her the green light to do this... They were 100% behind this.” ([27:16])

d. Defense Strategies and PR Maneuvers

The defense's reliance on PR tactics and social media campaigns to propagate conspiracy theories is heavily criticized.

• Astroturfing Concerns:

  • Brett: “This is what they're going for...selling conspiracy theories which are being debunked.” ([39:23])
  • The defense's collaboration with influencers aims to sway public opinion and jury perception despite weak evidence.

• Legal Ethics Violations:

  • Alice: “They have greatly violated what is the spoken and unspoken rule of the practice of law.” ([62:42])
  • Instances of witness intimidation and unethical conduct by defense attorneys undermine the integrity of the trial.

---

4. Impact on the Judicial System and Society

The ongoing case highlights significant challenges within the legal system, including the influence of media, the erosion of public trust, and the exploitation of high-profile cases for personal gain.

• Judicial Integrity:

  • Alice: “This takes a real hit on the integrity of the judicial system.” ([72:24])
  • The case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of media interference and the need for ethical legal practices.

• Community and Witness Impact:

  • Alice: “Real people's lives being dragged through the mud...they will not ever get those years back.” ([25:48])
  • Witnesses and community members face harassment and stigma, exacerbating the personal toll of the case.

---

5. Future Expectations and Closing Thoughts

As the second trial progresses, Brett and Alice express cautious optimism about the prosecution's chances of securing a conviction, while voicing concerns about potential jury biases influenced by persistent conspiracy narratives.

• Potential Verdict:

  • Brett: “If Karen Reed is acquitted...it might take a lot for me to lose faith in the jury system.” ([65:02])
  • The hosts anticipate a swift jury deliberation based on the robust evidence presented by the prosecution.

• Call for Accountability:

  • Brett: “There needs to be some serious questions about what these defense attorneys did.” ([62:42])
  • Emphasis on the necessity for legal accountability to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Murder Sheet offers a comprehensive analysis of the Karen Reed case, emphasizing the detrimental effects of media-fueled conspiracies on the legal process and societal trust. Through the expert insights of Brett and Alice from The Prosecutors, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding high-profile criminal cases and the urgent need for integrity within the justice system.

---

For those interested in detailed legal analysis and ongoing coverage of the Karen Reed case, be sure to listen to this enlightening episode of Murder Sheet.

Transcript

[Anya Cain]

You ever feel like your day is going so bad that it's almost like being in the middle of a mystery you just can't solve?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Oh yeah, it's so frustrating, right? You just feel something is completely off.

[Anya Cain]

If that sounds like you, your hormones may be the ultimate culprit. And our sponsor, Happy Mammoth may be able to help you solve the case.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Happy Mammoth is a natural wellness brand that can help you maintain optimal hormone levels. They also have products to help you boost your gut health.

[Anya Cain]

The usual suspects are everywhere when it comes to hormone disruptors. I'm talking about food, air and even skincare products. They can all silently impact our quality of life. Happy Mammoth provides a good solution. By taking their quick two minute quiz, you can kickstart your journey. You get tailor made solutions and recommendations based on your specific needs.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I love their Hormone Harmony supplements. These are great for women at all stages of life. I feel they've improved my gut health and reduced the random cravings I get sometimes. So it's kept my hunger for cereal a bit at bay, I suppose. Don't worry though. I still do the heist just for fun.

[Anya Cain]

For women who are in menopause or perimenopause, Hormone Harmony supplements can help relieve those symptoms, reduce mood swings and hot flashes and help with sleep. They also give you more energy. For women in that stage of life. It is really a wonderful solution.

[Kevin Greenlee]

For a limited time, you can get 15% off on your entire first order. @happy mammoth.com just use the code msheet at checkout that's happy mammoth.com and use the code msheet for 15% off today. It's getting hot out there and if you're like me, you're looking to switch things up with your wardrobe. And if you're really, really like me, you don't want to spend a lot of money doing so. Especially with pieces that go out of style fast.

[Anya Cain]

Well, that's where our wonderful sponsor Quince comes in. Quince specializes in high end, lightweight, timeless pieces that you will treasure for years to come, all at low prices.

[Kevin Greenlee]

They've got some amazing stuff right now. Quince has 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30 Swimwear that will make you feel fancy at the beach or pool. Italian leather platform sandals and more. We're about to go and splurge on some of these and we'll keep you all updated on what we get. I'm really tempted to wear one of their swimsuits to the pool, but I also really love the look of some of their linen dresses to wear out. And about this summer, I don't know, maybe I'll have to get all of it.

[Anya Cain]

Quint keeps its prices low by cutting out the middlemen. So you get luxury Items that cost 50 to 80% less than those of their competitors. It's a steal.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Give your summer closet an upgrade with quints. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quincee.com/m sheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quinn.com/msheet all righty. Well, we are super, super excited today. For today's episode, we are going to be interviewing Brett and Alice from the prosecutors podcast. And the thing we're going to be talking about is the Karen Reed case or the murder of police officer John o' Keefe. This is a case that has attracted a ton of controversy and a ton of notice from throughout the true crime world for reasons we'll probably get into. But it's currently on its second trial. Karen Reed is a woman from Massachusetts who is accused of hitting her boyfriend John O' Keefe, with her car back in 2022. And ever since, things have not really been the same in this part of Massachusetts. In the town of Canton, there's been all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. The first trial in 2024 ended with a hung jury. And now we are on trial number two. The prosecution or the commonwealth case in chief has completed. Now we're on the defense case and the people who have been doing just incredible coverage. Some of the best coverage of this case have been Brett and Alice from the prosecutors. We've been watching it. We, we want to get their insights on how things are going so far, how this is different from the first trial, and just sort of what their thoughts are on the performance of the attorneys. So we're going to get into that now. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[Anya Cain]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And this is the murder Sheet.

[Anya Cain]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases where the murder sheet and.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is the murder of John o' Keefe. A conversation with Alice and Brett from the prosecutors. Okay. So no one can see this, but unfortunately, if you could, you would just have seen us make out. Alice and Brett sit through our whole introduction and the intro music. It was very awkward. Something really humiliating about your theme song playing while people are sitting there. And so I Apologize to you.

[Brett]

To start off with, I wasn't sitting. I was dancing.

[Alice]

To be clear, I thought you were gonna let the cat out of the bag. That you did. Audio only. But we were jamming out.

[Brett]

We were jamming.

[Alice]

Great song.

[Brett]

I mean, I'll say this. I'm glad that your theme song is not as long as ours, because that would have been.

[Alice]

That's awkward going for a while.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But your theme song is the best one. Honestly, in true crime. I'm not. I'm not just saying that because we' I. I genuinely mean that. It is. It's a. It's, as the kids say, a banger.

[Brett]

It is a banger. This is why I love you. Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, it really is. And so our song was written by.

[Anya Cain]

The great Kevin Greenlee.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Oh, the great Kevin Greenlee.

[Brett]

There you go. Your brother by another mother, right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Brother, son slash uncle slash relative? No, he's actually just a nice Canadian man that we're not related to, but we appreciate very much.

[Anya Cain]

One thing about this case I've been struggling with is why exactly are people so interested in it?

[Brett]

Oh, well, just talk about starting with the million dollar question. Lately I've been describing this case as, you know, if you. If you had a fifth grade logic game, right, where you're teaching, you know, kids logic, who were just now really starting to think for themselves, and he laid something out and he said, hey, imagine there's a man who's found dead on the side of the road, and the last person to see him, their tail light is broken. And around the man are shards of tail light. And embedded in his shirt are the same shards of tail light. What happened? The fifth graders in two seconds would say, well, obviously the last person he was with hit him. That's the obvious thing that happened. And those are the facts of this case. And yet here we are on our second trial. Years of massive wall to wall coverage on all the big true crime channels. Every podcast is covering this, every YouTuber is covering this. YouTubers are starting to be YouTubers to cover this. And most of them don't see it that way. Most of them say, no, no, no, no. That may sound like what happened, but in fact, there's this huge conspiracy. And I think there are a lot of different things that go into answering this question. I think, number one, the people love a conspiracy. Right? People love a conspiracy. We know that people don't trust the police these days, in particular, the Massachusetts police, the state police and local police have been going through it over the last decade or so. A Lot of different scandals have come out. The trust level is really low. We talk about this when we talk to police officers. We have the opportunity to speak to law enforcement often and we say, look, when you lose the trust of the community you police, you're going to have huge problems. And we use this case as an example. But I think you can't lose sight of the fact that so many of the voices we now rely on in this democratized space of true crime, where it's not just the cable news networks anymore, but it's all these different voices are telling people every day this is a conspiracy, she is being framed, you need to be outraged. And people have responded to it.

[Alice]

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. You know, I've said this many times on our coverage. How are we spending so many taxpayer dollars, two trials, so much coverage, Wall to wall coverage, as you know, for a hit and run. I mean, that's really what it is. It is a hit and run, clear as day. Now we can talk about mens rea, you know, how much she meant it, how drunk was she, but there is no question that she hit him and ran. And but for her running and hitting him, he would not have died. And it's, it could not be more simple. This is like Brett said, I mean, I think I, I saw this exact same problem in my driver's ed book when I was 15 years old and had to like take the test. You know, like, you hit pedestrian, do not flee the scene. You know, it was like a. Definitely, that's the choice. But yet we are spending not just airtime on this case, but real taxpayer dollars. The fact that two trials are happening, we're not talking about three day trial, a one week trial, we're talking months long trial. This is an immense drain on judicial resources that, guess what, you, not you, because you don't live in Massachusetts, but the people of Massachusetts certainly are funding and all of us are paying with respect to the hit on judicial system and the integrity that people view the judicial system with, the law enforcement community with. Because there are all these voices that have been able to pop up with really no bar, there really is no sieve, no filter to hold people to the same standards of journalistic ethics, anything like that, really. Anyone with a microphone and you know, I will say we are where we are, you know, benefiting from that low bar of entry. But because of that, you all of a sudden have not just an echo chamber, you have an echo chamber where you've given every single person in that echo Chamber, a microphone. Before, you'd have maybe one crazy conspiracy theorist, and then they'd be preaching to, like, the minions who say, yes, yes. But now all the minions have their own microphones. And so when people look into the echo chamber, they think, well, I thought it was a hit and run, but there are quite literally hundreds of voices out there with microphones. I don't have a microphone. I'm just sitting at home. What do I know? I don't have a law degree, but they all have microphones. That must mean authority. And they're all saying that I'm not seeing this clearly. Well, now I doubt everything about who I am. Right. And it really is kind of this existential crisis that I think the mass reporting, false reporting, not based on evidence, is undermining the judicial system, but also our ability to think for ourselves. You know, we literally see people look at the TV screen and say, huh. Huh. All those shards embedded. Wow. I cannot believe the police were able to weave a rice shard, a rice piece of. Shard of red tail light into the fabric. What kind of needle do you think they used? And you're like, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? That's not what happened. Clearly, he was smashed with the tail light. The tail light belonging to the car. The car with the, you know, gas pedal being pushed by Karen Reed. That's what happened, y' all. And they're like, I don't know. I don't know. I think there was a special needle that was used to weave that shard into the shirt. So I think a lot of factors are coming in. This is not the perfect storm. I think we've seen this in multiple cases. This is just the latest storm.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Really well said, both of you. And this is something I wanted to get your take on. You both also covered the Delphi murders case, as did we. You guys did a great job with that. And, you know, one thing I always. I mean, I've been watching the second trial. I've been sort of seeing the discourse online. I've been watching your coverage. One thing that keeps running through my mind, and I'd be curious if you agree or if you kind of see it a little bit differently when you're talking about this narrative, when you're talking about this sort of, you know, like, need for a conspiracy theory. I see this through the lens of Delphi because, you know, I guess we've never mentally left Delphi, maybe never will. But I see this is a more successful version of that. With Delphi, you had this kind of wild, attention grabbing cult in the woods. The media loved it, the YouTubers loved it. You know, it was just a. Just sounded like a crazy movie and it was very much an attractive narrative. Felt like it didn't quite land with the public as successfully as the conspiracy in Canton. Sort of has where I see a lot of people who I think are smart and normal and they're not conspiracy theorists normally, but it's like that's the first thing they heard. So it's hard for them to kind of come off that. So I just see this as a more successful example of some recent sort of conspiratorially minded defenses that we've seen. What are your thoughts on that?

[Brett]

I think that's right. Number one, you do see some of the same players. They were at Delphi, they were spinning these stories and they have moved over to Kieran Reed. I think there's a couple reasons it was more successful. Number one, the Delphi conspiracy was stupid, right? I mean it was just ridiculous. And yeah, there were people, there were people who bought it, But I think the vast majority of people, they hear the cult in the woods and they're just like, no, I'm not going to go there. The other thing is the victims in the Delphi case were these young girls. And I think that mattered. You know, I have a lot of sympathy for John o' Keefe, but he's a grown man, right? He's not, he's not a child. So I think people are able to go with it a little bit more when you have that victim and the conspiracy is a little bit more believable. Now if you look into the details as we have, it becomes completely unbelievable. But just on the surface level, you sort of have this. It's corrupt police officers helping each other out. You know, he was a cop, he was at a cop's house. Supposedly, you know, there are some weird things. They were able to take some misinformation very early on and convince a lot of people. The infamous 2:27 in the morning, how long to die in the cold or hose long to die in the cold search, which for years before the trial got started and before, you know, anybody could respond to it, the defense is saying, Jen McCabe, who's in that house, that same house where he's going to end up in the front, front yard in the snow, is, is Googling at 2:27 in the morning. How long does it take to die in the cold? How is it possible that's not a coincidence? You know, and I think that Piece really grabbed people. It was one of the first things I heard when we looked into this case. We had all these people who emailed us and they were like, hey, this could be a real conspiracy. This could be an actual example of police corruption. They've got this search, like, how is it possible they have this search? And we were like, okay. And so we started looking into it right as the first trial started. So we didn't really get into it until then. And we were able to hear the evidence sort of come in and it just became so obvious so quickly that, number one, that search didn't happen at 227. It happened the next day after the body had been found, actually at the behest of Karen reed asking Jim McCabe to Google that. And that has now been completely debunked and proven just beyond all proof that that's when it happened. But we all know about anchoring bias. We all know that people are likely to believe the first thing they hear is really hard to move off. Your initial position. I think a lot of people, their initial position was this woman is being framed by the police, these corrupt cops, and we need to do something about it. This is such an injustice. And our society loves fighting injustice. It's a good thing about our society. It's one of the reasons you see so many of these, you know, innocence cases and documentaries and everything else are so successful, because people, they want to find injustice and correct it. I think it was very attractive to people. And because of all that, it got so much bigger than Delphi. Delphi was always like some kooks. And then towards the end, Court TV tried to get in on it, right? And like get some, get a little bit of coverage out of it. And then Delphi ended and there was a little bit of a vacuum. There wasn't a whole lot going on. The first trial was before Delphi. The second trial is after Delphi. It's the, it's the perfect timing. Alice said it's not a perfect storm, it's the next storm. But there were some real great timing issues. It's before the Coburger trial starts. So everybody's eyes are on this case. And I think, not to be crass, but a lot of people saw dollar signs and they were willing to entertain this and, you know, to benefit from it. And so you're seeing sort of the mainstream help, those voices we talked about earlier and give them a little bit more credibility. And it's sort of a self perpetuating cycle.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We can both be a bit Spacey. So we like to tease each other sometimes about our struggles with technology and such, but there's one app that we can't really do that for because it's truly struggle proof and so easy to sign up. We're talking about our new sponsor, Cash App.

[Anya Cain]

Seriously? I signed up in a snap. It was so fast and convenient. It's made sending money so much easier for us. If you're not using Cash App yet, then download it from your phone's app store, Sign up and then enter our code msheet in your profile. Send $5 to a friend and you'll get $10 just for getting started.

[Kevin Greenlee]

For us, sending payments used to be a whole ordeal. We had so many struggles with this. When we started our t shirt business, one of those sites that's supposed to be good ended up making me want to tear my hair out. With Cash App, it's been a breeze. No drama. It feels safe. It feels secure. They warn you if they see you sending money to someone or something that might be a sketchy scammer. It's like a personal bodyguard for your cash. Like the proverbial Kevin Costner to the Whitney Houston of youf Money.

[Anya Cain]

Whether you're splitting the tab with friends for brunch or sending money to the babysitter or dog sitter after a night out, Cash App allows for an easy, hassle free experience. Your money moves can now be safe, fast and more personalized.

[Kevin Greenlee]

For a limited time only new Cash App users can use our exclusive code to earn some additional cash. For real? There's no catch Don. Just download Cash App and sign up. Use our exclusive referral code msheet in your profile. Send $5 to a friend within 14 days and you'll get $10 dropped right into your account. Terms apply. That's money. That's Cash App. Life gets rough, but we can always seek help. Therapy can be the help you're looking for when it comes to working through things like depression, anxiety and trauma. We've both done therapy and we have had really good experiences.

[Anya Cain]

Finding and arranging therapy is the one thing about therapy that is not so great. There's nothing more frustrating than fight through insurance wrangling and high expenses and long wait times to get the help you need.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thank goodness there's our wonderful sponsor Rula, a healthcare company and provider group that uses technology to connect patients with the providers they need. Rula will give you access to over 15,000 in network licensed, well vetted therapists that accept most major insurances. With Rula, patients usually pay $15 per session with insurance so it's low cost. You're getting great quality therapists and you don't have to wait around forever. You can see a therapist in as little as 24 hours. Start your mental wellness journey today. Visit rula.commsheet that's R U L A.commsheet for convenient insurance covered therapy that fits your life.

[Anya Cain]

Join the thousands who've already turned to Rula for support on their journey to better mental health and well being. Getting started is easy. Just visit rula.commsheet today. When you sign up, they'll ask how you heard about them. Please support our show by letting them know we sent you. It's a simple way to help us while you take the first step towards the care you deserve. Go to r u l a.com msheatnow and connect with a licensed therapist who truly cares. Your mental health matters.

[Kevin Greenlee]

If you're like us, you sometimes struggle to lose weight or maintain a healthy weight.

[Anya Cain]

Well, that's where lean comes in. This is not a weight loss injection. It is a weight loss supplement formulated by doctors. A doctor in a university researcher teamed up to create Lean and target the same goals as a GLP1.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Lean's ingredients are shown to lower blood sugar, reduce appetite and burn fat. This is for people who are serious about weight loss and who are frustrated that they aren't getting anywhere. I myself have started taking Lean supplements. It's really helped curb my appetite so far.

[Anya Cain]

Just listen to these testimonials.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Patty S. Said, I finally found a weight loss product that works. I wanted to lose 20 pounds and lean really curbs my appetite. Lori M. Wrote, I've struggled to get weight off and Lean has been a lifesaver. I've been losing a couple pounds a week or more and Kelly F. Said, amazing. I immediately noticed an energy boost and a healthy weight loss in weight. I would promote this product to anyone.

[Anya Cain]

And Murder Sheet listeners are in luck.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's get you started with 20% off. Just use code [e-mail] that's code [e-mail] Again takelean.com T-A-K-E L E A N.com results vary.

[Anya Cain]

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease and is not a substitute for care from a healthcare provider.

[Alice]

Yeah, and I'm going to say something that I haven't thought, I haven't thought very deeply about. So this could be this you know, I can be talked out of this, but I have thought about that. Why, why Karen Reed? Why this one? Why are we having people dress up their young daughters in pink and free Karen Reed posters to stand outside courtrooms? Like I am all about civic. I just came from a speech where I spoke to 400 high schoolers, young women, about the future of leadership, that they're the ones to step in the wood. I believe in strong leadership. I believe in having strong voices for women. And I think there was an exploitation here because let's talk about real metrics that we all know. True crime is an expansive entertainment industry. You can say it's not entertainment, it's real lives. I agree with you, I absolutely agree with you that the focus should be on victims. And these are real people's lives. With that said, an entire entertainment industry has popped up around true crime. Don't believe me? Look at every streaming service that you have. You can't get away from documentaries, movies, reenactments, 60 minute shows on every mainstream. Mainstream media are covering gruesome stories that we can't help because it is just how we are oriented as human beings who want to understand the chaos of this world because it could be us. We are drawn to the car wreck. The car wreck in this case quite literally being the Karen Reed case. Now we know also that this billion, multi billion dollar industry is mostly driven by consumer who are women. It's something like 60, 70% of consumers who spend the money. Doesn't mean that all people who watch it are women. But there is this prime pop population who typically, we all love to jump on bandwagons of, of, you know, get justice for X, Y and Z. Who are those people? We're usually asking for justice for typically criminal defendants who are men. Because if you look at the justice system, most of our criminal defendants are men. We can have, you know, talks about whether that's right, whether that's wrong. You know, predispositionally we have most violent crimes committed by men, not all of them, but Karen Reed being one of, one of the examples that is an exception. I think talking about that perfect storm, we have this multi billion dollar industry. We have captive eyes. We have eyes of people who want to be able to stand up for things that they believe in. All good and true principles to stand for justice. Great. Having the right person pay for the crime. Great. Making sure the wrong person doesn't pay for the crime. Great. Having strong role models for our young women and young girls. Great. Now someone decided, well, this is a Perfect, you know, perfect opportunity to exploit Karen Reid. Looks like you, your daughter could grow up and be. She could be framed for the murder of her boyfriend. Is that what you want for your daughters? And then all of a sudden, we have these. All these ladies showing up in pink. I'm sorry. I've actually never seen Karen Reed in pink. Maybe she has worn pink. I don't know why we chose pink. Like, I kind of think that's a little sexist, y' all. Why are we wearing hot pink? Why do we have these free care and read sides with these young girls who actually definitely don't own a driver's license, don't even really know what it means to have a hit and run. But they're out there leading the charge because we have a bunch of media figures who are not part of traditional media out there calling people to action, people who want to be called to action for just causes, but they were called to the wrong cause. And like that anchoring bias, they thought, well, this is a great cause. I, of course, I want to lend my voices. I want to lend my dollars to it. And they did both. Except once we saw the facts coming out, it was. It was an embarrassment, right, If. If you're actually looking at the evidence, because this is not a close case whatsoever.

[Kevin Greenlee]

No, it's not. And I appreciate what you guys said there. I think one thing I always think about, too, is, I mean, this was so astroturfed in my mind. Like, I see Delphi as something that there was a lot of organic interest for years because it went unsolved for years. And people had all sorts of weird theories, but a lot of people just wanted to know what happened to these kids. Like, there was, like, an honest interest in that. This is. I mean, this is basically what I'm seeing is a defense team working hand in glove with a blogger. And. And. And, you know, this kind of army that forms to basically sell a product, which is conspiracy theories and it's being debunked. But as you said, there's this anchoring bias. So I understand where people are coming from when they're saying, well, how could this search have happened and this not be suspicious? But once that's debunked, then you need to question if your opinion was formed based on that fact that turns out not to be a fact. Maybe. Maybe it's time to reevaluate. And as you said, I mean, in this second trial especially, we're seeing that it's not closed. So, you know, you mentioned you guys kind of came into this when the other. When the first trial was starting. Now, you've been covering the second trial very extensively, I guess. I mean, the first question would be, are there some differences that you're noticing in how the commonwealth presented its case from trial to trial? Any adjustments that you're seeing?

[Brett]

Yes, so many.

[Alice]

So many.

[Brett]

Well, let me say. I want to say something on what you were just talking about, because I do want to touch on that, and then maybe I'll let Alice answer this question about how the trials are different. The sort of astroturfing. You're 100% right. Karen Reed, her father, they had a lot of money. They've raised a lot of money. This is a professional media operation. People need to understand that they are being manipulated in a way that normally you see in other spheres, like celebrities or politics. I mean, I've worked in politics. I've worked in crisis communications, and I understand how this works. There are clearly PR people who are helping. They are buying bots on Twitter to amplify the message. They are putting out talking points that get repeated by all the various talking heads. They are messaging this in a very real way, much like you would see in, like, a presidential campaign. You watch a presidential campaign and there's a debate. What happens afterwards? Both sides have their surrogates out there saying, that was the most amazing debate ever. Our guy just killed it. Right. And you. And you're like, what did you just watch? You know, it's like the. The Biden Trump debate. There were Biden surrogates who were like, that was the greatest debate ever. You know, and it ended up. He had to leave the race because of it eventually. Right. But it didn't matter. You still had that message. That was one they. They couldn't overcome, for one, because there's a lot of money on the other side, too. Here you really do have a paid echo chamber where you've got all this money, you've got all of this effort to craft and press this narrative. And a lot of people who don't realize that's going on and just believe that it's the way it should be, that when they turn on a podcast or they turn on the television or they see their favorite analysts talking about this case, that they're going to get their unbiased, unvarnished, unpaid for view, and that is just not the case. And I think that is a real sad statement about this case. But it's also a reason this case is important, because if Karen Reed is acquitted, and maybe even if she's not. This is. You're going to see this repeated. People often complain about money in the justice system and how wealthy people are able to get away with things. It used to be you bought the best lawyer. That was how you got away with things. If you're rich now, you buy the best PR team. And you're seeing that in the Karen Reed case.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's chilling. Yeah, it's really chilling.

[Alice]

But as for, you know how the prosecution has been different this time. So I think the first time the prosecution was much too reactionary. We've always said the prosecution has the burden of proof. We obviously know, especially with this whole new world of you buy your best PR team, we know the best story wins. But actually in terms of the burden of proof at court, the defendant never has to speak. You can plead the fifth, you don't have to respond to anything, you don't have to cross examine anybody, you don't even have to put on a defense because the burden is completely on the prosecution to prove their case. Now obviously we know that's not the case here. They had been on a media blitz. They had very, they had a very well developed theory of the case that was a different story that caught fire. Now the prosecution going into the trial, the first trial, knew what their conspiracy theory was going to be. So instead of laying out their case in a logical manner, because what you're supposed to do in court as a juror is to just listen to what's presented to you in court. Go by the evidence that is coming into court before you, not other things you've heard. And so when you start presenting a case that is all reactionary, it's like you're, you're responding to a story that the jury has no idea what you're talking about. And I think there was very powerful evidence in this case, really all the same evidence this time around. The evidence hasn't changed. Some of it has been refined so it's packaged to be more accessible to the layperson who's listening to weeks, months long trial. But the evidence hasn't changed. It's not like between the first trial and the second trial, you know, bingo, we got the smoking gun that we never had in the first trial. That's not the case. But what you had in the first trial was a little bit of a scattershot presentation that was reacting to the defense's conspiracy theory. And when you react to something, what do people who listen think? Well, then the default story is the conspiracy theory. And what you're doing is you're trying to poke holes in it. Well, so the conspiracy theory must be true. Unless prosecution. You tell me otherwise. You're able to convince me otherwise. Rather than the way a good storytelling prosecution story is supposed to proceed, which is to lay out your story, let the defense attack, then there is at least a basis in which the jury can understand what you're even talking about. And so I think there was a lot going on in the first trial that was in a typical trial, if there wasn't this media campaign probably would have been okay. But because you had this media campaign, you had everyone getting amped up. The jury can't listen to media, but the attorneys do. I think perhaps they listened to the prosecutors, listened too much to the echo chamber out there and felt they had to respond. But their head should have been in the jury box, not in the media. That is easier said than done. Now, the second trial, I think that's exactly what they've done. From the very opening statement, you can see the new prosecutor was laying out a very logical story, basically saying, don't listen to this wildness out here. You know, I am rubber, you are glue. Conspiracy theory, you can bounce off of me. But this is the story because the evidence is right here. And they presented a very streamlined case with evidence and video and evidence and video. And I say video because the huge difference, the bingo of evidence between the first trial and the second trial, not forensics, not data from phones, not data from an suv, not DNA that we were able to glean off because now we have better technology. It was Karen Reid's own words because she has an incredibly high opinion of herself that we've always told every criminal defendant. Don't you ever dare speak to anybody without your attorney. And you know what she did? She got on a international stage and spoke like there was no tomorrow. And her own words is what is truly nailing the conviction to the wall in this second trial. It is just an incredible feat to see because no matter what the cross examination tries to do from the defense, the prosecution is able to come back and show the jury, in Karen Reid's own words, how it eviscerates their entire theory and that it absolutely supports the prosecution's theory.

[Brett]

And I'll give you an example of that. And one of the very first witnesses, maybe the first witness, is this firefighter who has no connection to this. He's not a member of the family, he's not a cop. He doesn't know any of these people. He just showed up to work that day and Got a call. There's some dude on the side of the road. He goes down to a blizzard. He finds him, and there's this woman. He doesn't know who she is, and she's running around and she says, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. And that's what he testifies to. And then the defense spends hours, like. I mean, his direct is like, you know, 15, 20, maybe 30 minutes. The defense spends hours on. Did you really. You didn't, you didn't put that in report that she said, I hit him? And he's like, well, I'm a firefighter. I didn't, I didn't write reports. But they just go over and over. And he's like the defense attorney hammering this guy about. This guy gets outstand. Commonwealth stands up. Play clip one. There's Karen Reed. And she says, well, I know I said I hit him, but I didn't really say it as many times as the police said I did. And it's like that. Just that two hours you just wasted hammering this random firefighter. She just completely undone in 30 seconds. And that's happening every single time. The Commonwealth is putting these videos, these clips from various interviews she's given, because it's not just one and it is just crushing her.

[Alice]

It's.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's remarkable to watch. I mean, if it wasn't such an inherent tragedy that this man lost his life, it would be like from a comedy show of like the narrative. Oh, then she said this and then like, cut to her, you know, admitting it. It's wild. And it's like, I guess, I mean, I watch these clips and you, you know, we've seen these, these docu series and these documentaries that have come out about her, and, you know, she comes across poorly. I mean, there's like a kind of just an unlikability there, which is neither here nor there. You can be unlikable and not guilty, but it's not something that I feel like is going to play well with the jury. And also it's blowing her own story up and their whole, you know, all their contentions up and making them look ridiculous. But my question about these, these words from Karen Reed is like, I guess, like, this is hard to answer, but like, how culpable are her attorneys in this? Because, like, I understand sometimes you can't control your client and in a situation to go back to Delphi, as I always do, I guess, you know, I mean, it would have been difficult for the defense team in that case, in fairness, to be preventing their client from making some of the incriminating statements he did because he has access to a tablet. He's calling his family. That's when this is happening. But, like, what was the meeting that allowed her to do, like, HBO and Dateline and all of this and just run her mouth, like. And also my understanding is they participated themselves in some of these. So I guess, like, what were they thinking?

[Brett]

Well, I mean, who knows? I think it's one. One answer to that question. It's impossible to know, but I'm willing to speculate. I think there's some pretty strong evidence. Look, I think they were seeing dollar signs. I think they. The first trial was almost an ambush. Like, the commonwealth just wasn't. Wasn't really ready for what was coming. They should have been, but they weren't. And they presented the sort of plotting case, like Alice said, and they just got smacked around. Now, I still thought the evidence was there, but they got a hung jury. I think that actually surprised the defense. I think they thought, we're going to steamroll over these people and we're going to win. So a lot of this was filmed before and during the first trial with the anticipation, they're going to win, then all this stuff's going to come out. Alan Jackson is this big shot lawyer from California. He's done a lot of high profile cases. He tried to run for office on the back of some of it. I think he's very attuned to fame, fortune and everything that comes with it. And I think he sees this case as his ticket. Then you've got David Jannetti, who's the local attorney. This is an opportunity to really, like, make his name. And I think they thought they were going to win and so they gave her the green light to do this. They were 100% behind this. You got the blogger, Turtle Boy out there and he'll tell you, I mean, I get into it with him on Twitter all the time and he'll say, I've got a contract for a movie. I'm gonna make more money than you've ever seen. Like, he's very clear what his motivations are. He's doing this for fame and money. Right? And I think that is just across the board. These people believe they can win this case, they can pull this off, this scam, because that's what it is, off. You know, Turtle boy will get out from under his, I don't know, 30 felony charges right now for witness and jury intimidation, and they'll all go on to glory and they'll Be famous and they'll be rich and they'll be laughing their way to the bank. I really think that's it. And you see that in the way the defense continues to present its case because the prosecution changed their strategy. The defense didn't. The defense is still trying to roll out this same thing, but they're unable to do it as effectively because of the prosecution's changes. And you can almost see that they are reacting to what is said on Twitter very much in the way we saw in the Delphi case, where the defense attorneys were playing to, to their YouTube audience, not their jury audience. And you're seeing that still with this defense. You know, you'll, you'll see an attack on a witness on Twitter one day and you turn around the next day during cross examination, they're making the exact same attack, even if it makes no sense. So I think this, this, at some point it turned from representing our client to the best of our ability to what are we going to get from this when this is over?

[Alice]

And not only is it, I agree with that. But not only is it shifting from, you know, what is the right thing to do in terms of the, the legal practice to a PR practice is now we're leaning into even if we win, we're still going to perpetrate this conspiracy. And there's still dollar signs even if I win, even if I lose. Right. And so, okay, whatever the verdict is, unfortunately for Karen Reed, because actually you want your attorneys to want you to win in court. But think about it, both her and her attorneys, if she gets convicted, you bet your bottom dollar there's going to be a book probably is going to say if I hit them, you know, like how I would have done it, you know, what it would have said, or it would have been like this terrible conspiracy there, there's going to be movies made about it, more articles and more media about this, more dollar signs. Right. And so it's kind of a win, win situation from a PR position when you do this. It's a loser lose position from a legal standpoint. But we're clearly no longer playing by the legal rules here. Oh, yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I mean, like, yeah, ever. It just seems like the goal with some of these things is to try to recapture the magic of, you know, the two defense attorneys in making a murderer who everyone, you know worshiped and canonized. I mean, it's like, I, I don't, I mean, it's, it's shocking though. It's really shocking. Exactly what you said. The kind of intersection between the social media commentary and what you're seeing in court, which unless Free Karen Reed activist or whatever you want to call them, was successful in infiltrating the jury pool and getting into the jury. Like, I don't feel like that this is for them. I don't feel like a lot of the defense performance feels like it is. It really feels like more for the masses online.

[Brett]

Well, you know, I'll say this. The dirty little secret about most lawyers, I won't say all lawyers, the three lawyers on here excluded, their little secret about most lawyers is they don't actually want to be lawyers. They're trying. They're looking for some other way. Right. And I think you saw this in the Delphi case. I think you see this, frankly, with a lot of the YouTubers who are covering this case. You see this with the people representing Karen Reed. They're hoping that at the end of this, they don't have to, you know, go to court and answer a judge's questions and write long briefs anymore. They're going to have the. They're going to be consulting on television shows and they're going to be writing books and they're going to be on the speaking tour and they're going to have their own show. That's what they're. They're going for. And I think you see that in. It's so obvious in this case. And I, and I really wonder how the people who support Karen Reed miss it. Like, I don't understand one thing I've been surprised by. There has been some falling away. You can see that. I don't know if the money ran out, but the crowds certainly aren't as big at the court. We have nowhere near as many free care and read people on the gallery as we used to. There are still people on Twitter, but honestly, even that shifting. But still, there's still a lot of them and they still have this just deep faith. And that's really what this is at this point. It's no longer a trial. It's not about evidence. This is faith. This is an act of faith and believing in this story that they've been told.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, it's like a religious movement or something. I don't understand it. I mean, I understand that there's positions to have where you're saying, well, I'm not quite convinced or even, well, I think she might have done it. I'm not sure. Maybe there's reasonable doubt. Fine. But like there's. That's not what we're talking about. We're Seeing, like, people just lay it all on the line, giving their time, giving their money, volunteering. But I do agree. I think the party is ending. And I. I imagine that there was enough money for one trial, but two seems to be stretching it a bit thin. And I do think this is astroturfed. I don't. I, like, I don't. This is not an interesting case. I mean, what's interesting is what's happened to it and what it's been inflated to become. But it's not. It's not interesting. It is. It is deadly boring. And it's just sad because, like, I. All these people's lives have been upended by it. And it's like, man, imagine you, like, try to go, like, you get a call in the middle of the night, you try to go help someone deal, like, find your friend, and like, then this is your life now. I just, It's. It should scare everybody because, like, this could happen to anybody. I think, you know, you could happen to be in the next Karen Reid trial. And, you know, I mean, I think that's. I don't think that's a good thing.

[Alice]

No, I think you're exactly right. This isn't the first time we've had witness intimidation or dragging the some other dude did it defense into real people's lives. Of course, we've seen that in the Idaho case. We saw that in Delphi, of course. So this is not a new problem. But the extent to which it's been done in this case by the defense, specifically, not just social media, is atrocious because we have a small town, essentially Canton, and basically, like, half the town is supposed to be part of this conspiracy. And it's not just that they're part of conspiracy, but they've called upon the social media warriors and the rest of, you know, the Reddit world, the YouTube world, to attack these people. This is not simply, oh, you're. You did something bad. This is their livelihoods that are really being affected. We see this with people who are on the stand, young people who are like 17 and 18 when this case, when it happened, and now testifying at trial years later, they didn't just go about their lives and three years later are now testifying. They've lived a living hell for three years where people are stalking them, threatening their lives because of social media warriors who are saying that they are somehow part of this mass killing conspiracy when no one has stepped back and asked, wait a second, why are the police covering up the murder of one of their own to protect One of their own when they really all really like the one who was the killed. How does that make sense at all? So we're going to say the 17 year old who was at a birthday party for one of their high school classmates was part of some pernicious, despicable conspiracy to kill this upstanding man who adopted his orphaned niece and nephew as his own to be a single father. And he is one of them. But somehow they're just going to turn a blind eye and allow him to be murdered and to cover up for, I don't know, 20, 30 police officers who have to be part of this conspiracy. It is absolutely bonkers. But that's what we're being told to believe. And again, it's not just a fun story. It's not just a Netflix documentary. It is people's lives being dragged through the mud and they will not ever get those years back.

[Brett]

One of the, one of the firefighters who just showed up that day, once again, you know, from the town, wanted to help the town, joined her local fire company, became a firefighter, woke up that day, got a call, went out, found John o' Keefe dead in the snow. Also heard Karen Reed say, I hit him on the stand. The defense accused her of helping to frame Karen Reed for murder, frame this innocent woman for murder on the basis that she went to high school with one of the daughters of the person who owned the house. And here's a photo of you at a, at a bridal shower or a baby shower. And you, you have a beer and she's standing next to you with a beer. Is, isn't it, isn't that true? It's like, this is absurd. It is absurd on such a level. Like you said, this makes no sense. It is only interesting in how wild this has gotten. It's not. We're in like an emperor's new clothes situation where everyone around us is looking at this and saying, well, looks like a conspiracy to me. And it's like, what are you talking about? Like, and, and I don't, I don't get it. And, and I don't know. And it just, and I agree with you, a lot of it is astroturfed. But there are people who are 100% convinced and we have heard from those people. But yeah, I mean, because there just aren't, frankly, there just aren't a lot of voices out there saying, what are y' all talking about? Let's be reasonable. The vast majority are a hundred percent in favor of the conspiracy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I've appreciated seeing on Social media people starting to push back in. In a more. In a more, I guess, like, out outward way than I think there was at the last trial. So I've. I've really appreciated that because it adds a little bit of sanity.

[Alice]

And I'll venture to say this, it's not because the evidence changed. I think because people's anchoring bias is real. You know, the only thing that can maybe move you off that anchor bias, Karen Reed. People saw her on tv. They're like, that's. That's who I gave my money to. Wow. That. It's not just the unlikableness, it's the words coming out of her mouth. Let's say everything she's saying is true. We have doubts about that because she contradicts herself multiple times. But the fact that she is able to be so cold about someone who she was in a relationship with was dead. The coldness of it, I think, was probably the only thing that could move some people off that initial anchoring bias. When they heard the person who they're supposed to be, you know, giving up everything for to. To go and campaign and parade and. And give money to. When they hear that, and they're like, huh, okay. Even that is striking me as strange here. So, you know, I guess thank you, Karen Reed, for. For helping to do that. Um, but again, it hasn't completely worked. People still somehow look to her as the icon of, you know, all that is wrong in our justice system.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I. I think that what you said is so true, and, like, the coldness does come across. And what's so wild is that these attorneys have interacted with her for more than five minutes, I presume, so they know how she comes across. And the fact that they still thought that doing this was a good idea before they got that acquittal that they were looking for is so wild to me. Like, if I have to go on tv, if I'm going on tv, and it's really incumbent upon me to not seem like a total goofball and, like, you know, get really weird and nerdy about stuff. Kevin's not going to let me go on tv. Like, we're not going to get. Like. I would hope that people would be like, no, Anya, like, let's wait till we're safe, essentially, to do that. And the fact that that didn't happen for her is just wild to me. Delete Me is a service that makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online.

[Anya Cain]

Now that surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete Me is a service that can protect you and your family. Truly, it's so easy to find anyone's address, phone and close relatives online. And there are plenty of bad actors who want that information.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Deleteme protects you and your loved ones by removing your information from hundreds of data broker websites so the bad guys can't grab your personal information.

[Anya Cain]

We've used Deleteme long before the company even sponsored us. The reason we love it is because it works. Frankly, if you follow the show, you know that we have run into our fair share of weirdness.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Online weirdos and stalkers have posted our personal information. One guy even said he'd get rid of Kevin so he can marry me. Fun. But seriously, it can be kind of scary.

[Anya Cain]

We are far from alone. You probably noticed that things like identity theft, doxing, harassment, stalking are constantly happening online these days and they can happen to anyone. A terrific service like Deleteme has helped us keep our information off these data broker websites and that helps us feel safer online.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting sheet to 64000. The only way to get 20% off is to text sheet to 64000. That's sheet to 64000. Message and data rates may apply.

[Brett]

Running a business is hard work. Building your website shouldn't be. With wix, you can express your ideas, give direction, then leave the heavy lifting to AI, from site creation to branded content and images. Have fun with the details, customize what you want the way you want and manage your whole business from a centralized dashboard with expert AI tools. Build, scale and enjoy the incredible results. You can do it all yourself on wix.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I will say this. You know, you mentioned the element of. What was I going to say? Basically, I wanted to go back a little bit to the first trial because this is something that's always stuck out to me and just giving you guys backgrounds prosecutorially, I'd be curious of what you think about. This is one thing that really loomed large, I felt over the first trial was this idea that the U.S. attorney's office under I think Josh Levy and just the, you know, FBI were sort of looking into. The Feds are coming in, they're investigating all the local corruption and there was this certain kind of like look or feeling or narrative that like the Commonwealth and the feds were sort of opposed or, you know, maybe coming at it from, you know, different, different camps. And that kind of manifested itself with arca, the, the crash experts for the defense. And there's been obviously a lot of stuff that's come out about that since. But I guess what are your views on how the federal investigators and. And the U.S. attorney's office kind of got into this? I mean, is that normal or. I mean, is this just being spun? I'm just curious.

[Brett]

It's not normal, and they never should have done it. And it is. It was such a breach of how you operate to do it the way they did it. There were, There were reasons. You know, Massachusetts have been a lot of. A lot of scandals like us. Like I said, there's a Sandra Burschmore case, which is ongoing, which is a real scandal, but a very straightforward one. You had a police officer who groomed a young girl who was involved in sort of some volunteer activities, police department, and then murdered her and tried to make it look like a suicide. And that investigation, there were some federal aspects to that investigation, and, and eventually it was uncovered and he's now being prosecuted it, which is the way you would normally see it. But what happened in this case, which is so bizarre and I really don't have an explanation for, and frankly, I think was just poor leadership at the U.S. attorney's office, is this kind of antagonistic relationship and meddling by the federal agents and agencies in a murder case that never should have happened. It never should have happened the way it did. It should have been a. We are here to help. We are here to provide resources. You know, let's look into this together. And it just feels like they did not have that kind of relationship. And it was just a. I mean, this is like kind of a inside baseball thing for law enforcement. But the way it's supposed to work, the federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, they're all separate. They're all their own sovereign. They're all doing their own thing. There's some turf wars, there's some jealousy that happens, but in large part, they all understand we have to work together to enforce the various laws and put the bad guys in prison. And sometimes we're going to be adversarial, but usually we shouldn't. And that just went. It went so off the wall in this case. And so what you end up seeing with ARCA is you basically, you don't have a, hey, can you do various tests to see what happened here? You, you had. ARCA was told, go prove this wasn't a. Wasn't a hit. And run. I mean, that's what ARCA set up to do. So all their experiments are based on the notion that it wasn't a hit and run. They're based on the notion that it wasn't the kind of glancing blow that the Commonwealth has always said it was. That it was some sort of direct vehicle strike which no one's ever argued. So ARCA goes in, they disprove that it's a direct vehicle strike, which once again is not the theory. And they become sort of captured by the defense. And I think the current. It seems like the current U.S. attorney's office and the current FBI is really like trying to get away from this case, probably working to reestablish those important relationships they have the locals, which they need and to get past this. And they're doing that behind the scenes. They have made it very clear there is no federal investigation. The FBI is not looking into this. The FBI is not going to break into the courtroom and arrest everyone, which is the sort of the f fkr, the free Karen Reed fever dream. In reality, the FBI, even the biased FBI and the biased U.S. attorney's office giving all of their efforts, could not show this was some sort of conspiracy, couldn't show that Karen Reed didn't do it. The best they have is a potato gun cannon that they built and this refutation of a vehicle theory that is not the theory of the Commonwealth, but yet we see it again and again and people. And this is another thing. When you believe a conspiracy, you need things to hold on to. One thing people held on to was the search. Oh, but the two. The two o' clock search. How can you explain that? The other one is, well, ARCA is completely independent. They were hired by the FBI. They're not on the defense side. How can you. And these are the things that people go back to and it's been really valuable in continuing this conspiracy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. And, and, and then you find out about these deleted signal messages and the extent of the contact between the defense and arca and it. That fiction kind of goes out the window. And I, I'm. That. I mean that. I mean, that's shocking. I mean, I, I don't. Like, I don't. Is that. I mean, I feel like most of this is just me presenting stuff to you and being like, is this weird? I mean, but like.

[Alice]

Oh, weird. Not, not just weird. It is. They should not ever be experts again. You know, that, that level, that. That should never happen in the court of law. So. Absolutely not. That is not how. The way we Brett and I practice. So, yes, if red flags are going up, they should. Now, in this situation, once the judge uncovered this, this is where people who don't know the judicial system, I think this takes a real hit on the integrity of the judicial system. People watch this, and guess what? Nothing happened. Nothing happened to arca. Nothing happened to the defense attorneys. Now, we are in a difficult situation because we're in the middle of the second trial, and the judge can't really just tell the defense that they no longer have an expert. They still need an expert. That's an appealable issue. So her hands were a little bit tied. Now, could we have made a little bigger deal of the fact that you are deleting text not being truthful to court. Not being truthful to the court on multiple occasions. Those are things that just about. It's my worst nightmare as an attorney to be caught in something like this. First of all, I would never do that. But if somehow I was in the midst of this, I would probably just voluntarily, you know, submit my bar license and say, you know what? Before I get kicked out from the practice of law, let me proactively say, I have not lived up to my model rules of ethics. I don't deserve to be an attorney. So here you go, judge. Here's my bar license. I'm walking away. That's what I would personally do, because I cannot possibly practice that type of law. I can't do anything but stay far away from the line. I would never cross the line of integrity. Because we've said this over and over as lawyers, guess what? All we have is our word. And here we have an expert and defense attorneys who have greatly violated what is the spoken and unspoken rule of the practice of law.

[Brett]

And to take it back to Delphi, because I feel like it always goes back to Delphi. You know, in Delphi, the defense attorneys were sloppy. They were unprofessional. They, you know, did some stupid things that allowed for discovery to be leaked, and we talked about how bad that was. But I don't. I don't. I don't know that they did it intentionally. Right. It's still an open question about what exactly happened there. But what you're seeing in this case, I mean, the. The behavior of the defense attorneys and the experts, the judge has found that they intentionally violated the discovery rules multiple times. You know, if you're out there and you're like, a big innocence person and you think everybody's innocent, well, what. What do you normally grab onto? Violations of discovery rules. The Sacred obligation to be honest with the court and with opposing counsel. And they are doing it again and again and again. And the text messages, they had this Archae guy up on the stand and he's like, well, you know, yeah, I deleted my text messages because the case was over. It's like, what are you talking about? The case was over. It was a home jury. You knew there was going to be another trial. And then he says, and then he's asked, well, why'd you move to signal? Well, you know, we knew the Commonwealth was looking for these things. It's like, okay, so you just admitted that you intentionally deleted those text messages so they wouldn't see them. And then you move to signal because you knew it was encrypted and self deletes. And you would be able to avoid the Commonwealth knowing about these, these conversations. Why is this important? Because as we often say, courts are not gotcha games. That's not the it's supposed to be. You go in, you present your evidence and an arbiter decides. That's the way it's supposed to be. There aren't any Perry Mason moments. That's not what's supposed to happen. And that's true of both sides. So when you're as a defense having these substantive conversations with your expert about what they're going to testify to and how they're going to testify to it, that should be something the prosecution should know about and should be able to cross examine on. Isn't it true the defense told you you really needed to reach this conclusion? Well, yes. Is it normal for a defense attorney to tell you you need to do X, Y and z? I mean, those are the kind of things that help the jury determine whether or not to believe the expert, because the expert has a huge thumb on the scale anyway because they have expert next to their name. And people always ask us, how do you, how do you. When you have two experts saying the opposite thing, how do you know? Well, these are some of the ways you know, and destroying that was, and it was intended to suppress the truth and to avoid the prosecution from being able to do what the law requires and what is supposed to happen in a court. And I hope these attorneys are held accountable at the end of this. Fine. They couldn't do anything beforehand. Great. But there needs to be some serious questions about what these defense attorneys did and whether or not they violated important rules of legal ethics, critical rules of legal ethics. I mean, Alan Jackson should never be allowed to practice in Massachusetts again. He's there on a Pro hog Viche with David Jannetti. David Janetti needs to face sanctions. Alan Jackson needs to be investigated both in Massachusetts and in California. And if they got nothing to hide, they won't have any problems. But their behavior and what the judge has already found, like Alice said, nightmare situation to have a judge make those kind of findings on the record in open court.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Absolutely. No, I, I completely. There needs to be accountability here because as you said earlier on, this is going to keep happening until it's not a course that people can do anymore. And by this I mean, I don't mean a vigorous defense that should happen in every case. I making stuff up, sketching around with witnesses and experts like this. I mean, today it came out that one of the witnesses, a defense witness, had to call the FBI to report being harassed and threatened by this defense team. Why they called her and, and put her in a position where she could say that in front of the jury, I don't understand. Honestly, that was a bizarre moment. But it just kind of speaks to the general air of, of concern that people should have about these defense attorneys and, and a lot of their so called experts.

[Brett]

Yeah, I mean you had a witness on the stand say Alan Jackson told me he would, he would have me prosecuted for perjury if I didn't lie on the stand. And that's what she said in court. And it was just like, what in the world is going on? And like you said, they called her and what it tells you is they are desperate because she's like some far flung part of this conspiracy. Right. And just their willingness to put her on the stand when they knew what they said to her was, I, I don't know, I hope it tells you that justice is going to be done in this case. My concern is the same concern I've had from the beginning, which you have already spoken to. I will be knock me over with a feather stunned if Karen Reid is acquitted. Blown mind will be blown. Like I, you know, it would take a lot for me to lose faith in the jury system, but that might be it. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's a hung jury because I'm afraid, deathly afraid that one of these people who believes that this is like their religious obligation to free Karen Reed is on that jury. That is my greatest fear because based on the trial, she is guilty. It shouldn't take, they should go in, elect a foreman, be like, so she's guilty. Right. And then fill out the form and be done. I mean that's how straightforward this is. But I'm afraid, I am afraid about that jury makeup.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I think that's, I think that's the, as you said, acquittals off. I mean, I remember, I'm sorry, I know, like, we get so wrapped up in Delphi, but I remember we standing outside and people saying, well, like, you think it's going to be an acquittal? Being like, no. And they're like, what? Like, people were like, no, it's going to best case scenario for the defense, it's a mistrial. Like, there's no way he's getting acquitted. And people are shocked by that. I've said it's not going to be an acquittal in Karen Reed. And people are shocked by that. But like, when you actually look at the evidence and when you see how it's been presented and when you see some of the really desperate maneuvering by, by Jackson and Company, it's, it's really, it would be very hard to believe unless they somehow picked, you know, 12 FKR people how that would happen. But mistrials always seem possible, especially, you know, since people might kind of get onto the jury without really disclosing their, their interests or their beliefs. I did want to ask you guys in terms of just, you know, we talked about, I mean, I, I feel like a lot of the stuff around the federal side of this definitely hamstrung Adam Lally, who was the first prosecutor on this, and you guys mentioned some of the stylistic choices being overly reactive, but I definitely felt like he was going into, you know, pretty extreme ambush. And he still got nine of the jurors. I believe it was in the final breakdown, which is, you know, you know, I mean, like, they, they did not buy the nonsense. I guess my question though is, is can we talk a little bit about Hank Brennan, who is the current sort of special prosecutor, former defense attorney for Whitey Bulger, of all people, and now is leading the Commonwealth case. What has been your observation on how he's doing as a prosecutor?

[Brett]

So one thing that's funny about him is he's very clearly a defense turn in because he leads all the time. He's always drawing objections for leading, which is kind of funny. It's funny to watch him try and sort of work through that. I will say this, there's a few things about him. Number one, he's in his element right now, though, because it's a defense case and he's, he's a great cross examiner and his style and this is just different folks like different things. I find Alan Jackson's everyone is evil. I'm gonna yell and scream and make it seem like everybody's part of the conspiracy and everybody's a bad person approach to cross off putting. I don't find it effective at all. I find that effective. You pick one or two witnesses and you do that far. Great. Brennan is so calm and even killed, you know, he's, he's crossing this so called expert today who you know is all over the place about dog bites and he's, he's just so nice to her and he's like, you know, I'm not, not trying to say you're not, you don't have lots of qualifications. I know you do, but it's true. You've never done this before, right? He's like, well that's true, right. Anyway, so he's just very effective that way. But the most important thing he's done is the entire strategy of the case. You know, there's strategy and there's tactics. It's just like a war. And the day to day tactical decisions you make are important, but the strategy you set out from the very beginning is also really important. And his strategy was, I'm going to present this streamlined case focusing on the evidence, largely ignoring the conspiracy with the exception of debunking the whole 227 thing because it was important to debunk that. But in the first trial, they called every police officer who showed up at the scene, even the ones who didn't have anything to say. They called every single person who was at the birthday party that night. They called all the Alberts, they called all the McCabes, they called the friends from the bar, they called the people who went to Aruba with them, they called all the kids. And it just allowed the defense to set up their whole theory on cross examination in this case. He's been like, he starts with the firefighters who heard Karen Reed say she did it. You know, he moves on to Carrie Roberts, who Karen Reed called that morning and said at 5 o' clock in the morning John is dead. The first thing she thinks is he's dead. Why in the world would she think that he's going to. The text messages between Karen Reed and John o' Keefe which showed they were in a fight the whole day. And then immediately after the event, which we, you know, 237ish when John was hit, she's leaving these profane voicemails and text messages to, to John. She's obviously incredibly angry, you know. Then moving on to the Physical evidence, the finding of the tail light pieces all over the yard, the finding of the tail light pieces in his clothes, his DNA on the tail light housing of her car, a hair frozen to the bumper of her car. Just going, just going through the evidence and really leaving the defense very few opportunities to present their case. And the defense is still trying to present this whole conspiracy theory, but there's no one to do it with. And so they're asking these random witnesses these strange questions. If the jury truly went in not knowing anything, they are entirely confused by the defense case. They're like, I don't know why you're talking about Chloe the dog. I don't know who these people are. I don't know what this is. Right. And Brennan really did that. He took away their ability to do that with his overall strategy. And in the first trial, the defense was always on the offensive. I mean, they, the, the commonwealth was on its back heel, constantly trying to defend and the defense was on the march. Absolute opposite here. So I think he's done an amazing job. Even though, you know, some of his, like, direct examination skills probably hadn't used those in a while, but he's doing, he's doing a great job.

[Alice]

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. You know, when you are doing a different type of strategy, it's okay to have maybe cumulative witnesses. We saw last time exactly what the defense would do. You give them an inch, they're just going to take a mile. And we've seen this even this time. Right. And so by streamlining the evidence, I think it also allows the jury to really follow the story. They don't need to hear every single person who was on scene. Right. They need you. The way you have to get in evidence, it matters, of course, but they don't need to hear five times the same way that they showed up and it was a blizzard. They showed up and it was a blizzard. They showed up and they don't need to hear that because then it gets lost. And then you gave the defense five chances to basically go off on their conspiracy theory while you were one of the five people part of the conspiracy when you showed up, weren't you name all the other people part of the conspiracy? Wasn't that person there. They were part of the conspiracy. And so because we had the benefit of seeing what the defense did in the first trial, he was able to present that more streamlined approach and cut off these lifelines to the defense in terms of feeding their conspiracy theory.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Right, that makes sense. And one thing that's Kind of been. I mean, kind of streamlined. Streamlined out of it. That's been interesting. Is obviously the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, sort of a controversial figure, dishonorably discharged from the Massachusetts State Police for, I think, drinking in his police car. But also, you know, certainly the. The texts about Karen Reed did not help that were. Kind of came out through this. This bizarre federal investigation that then stopped. So I. I guess that's one thing I'm curious. You know, on the one hand, you know, the. The Commonwealth didn't really need to call him, so, I mean, it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't. Why invite that in? But he's so crucial in some way to this conspiracy that the defense is presenting. Are you surprised that it's unclear that he's going to really even make an appearance here? I guess. What are your thoughts on that?

[Brett]

I think they're terrified what he'll say because he's basically. Yeah, I mean, he. Okay, so. And just a little inside baseball for everybody out there. Remember, the prosecution's job is to present the evidence that says someone's guilty. Police officers are not fact witnesses. They collect evidence, they collect statements. They do that sort of thing. But the reason they testify is to introduce the evidence that the person did it that they collected as part of their investigation. So if you don't need Michael Proctor because you've got other people who were involved in investigation, including his supervisor who was working the case with him, Yuri Buchanak, if you have those people who can introduce all the evidence, there's no reason to call him. Oftentimes, we'll have multiple, you know, lead investigators, and we'll have one of them testify at grand jury, and that person will never testify again, because guess what? If they testify at trial, they can be impeached. What they said at grand jury, maybe they learned something since then. And the defense will say, isn't it true you lied in grandeur? You're telling this jury one thing, you told the grandeur another thing. So it's a strategic thing. We don't call that guy again. He testified in grand jury. Right. And that's not. We're not afraid. We're not trying to hide anything. We're just avoiding giving a free hit on us, leading with our chin to the defense. And so in this case, you've got Proctor, who is. He's been let go, like you said, because he sent a bunch of text messages about how much he hates Karen Reed and how much he hates David Dionnetti, who's her attorney, basically. Because he hated the fact she killed a fellow cop. Right? But that's been presented as, oh, he framed her. He was so biased. He framed her. Which. It's. Which you can see how that makes no sense, right? Like, the reason he doesn't like her is because he believes she did it based on the evidence he saw. So it doesn't make sense that he would frame an innocent woman and then be really mad at her in his text messages. But nevertheless, that's been what's been presented, and he was let go because of it. So the prosecution didn't call him. They just called other people who did all the stuff he needed to do. The defense really wants to get those messages in today. They introduced some of them through, like, another friend on the text chain. And what was funny about it is they use that friend to get them into evidence. I guess they had planned on doing something else with them later, but Brennan on cross just gets up and starts, has the guy read them all. So they're now, like, in. He got them in on. On cross. So I don't even know what the defense is going to do with that now. They haven't called Proctor. I think they're terrified of calling Proctor because now that he's not a government agent, who knows what he'll say, right? He can't fire for it, right? Well, yeah, he's already been fired.

[Alice]

He actually was disciplined. And in the first trial, you didn't have that. There was still an investigation. So you had this, like, aura of, well, if he still has his job, sure, he's on leave, but there's, like, a blessing of what he's done. And they're just going to cover for him like they covered for all the, you know, everyone who murdered John o' Keefe. And this is actually really interesting because the prosecution is not dodging so much the Proctor thing. It was a smart, tactical position to not call Proctor because he had some terrible text messages, which they're not hiding from, clearly, because they're now in evidence, but they don't need him. But second, it kind of is really difficult for the defense, Right. On one hand, they want to say this one guy had all the power in the world to frame Karen Reed and get this conspiracy off the ground. But on the other hand, this conspiracy involves dozens of people, not just one person, so it shouldn't matter. There was one person who was saying rancid stuff that no, you know, police officer should be saying about the subjects of an investigation, like what he did there. Bad. He got. He got Punished for it as he should have. But they can't have this one guy who's the end all be all. And also this dozens of this, you know, dozens strong conspiracy. And that's why they're stuck in this hard place. Like, why didn't they just call them? Because they don't actually want to call him. But in the first trial when Proctor was on the stand, game on. That was fun for them because all they could do was just attack him rather than have him be a defense witness.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I, I, it just seems really interesting that they're so scared of what he might say at this point that they would just leave that off the table. After building him up to be, you know, the great Satan of this whole case, it's just, I don't know. For me, yeah, it's obviously, I mean, totally inappropriate text messages, but I would also be concerned. I mean, this is a defendant that's been smirking and making all sorts of, she's not, I mean, I don't know who's advising her on how to come across a court. I guess some people might like the defiance or whatnot, but I mean, I think if you have, I mean, if.

[Alice]

I think it's hard to act 247 for a very long time. Yeah, your true nature comes out, especially when you're under the scrutiny of court camera all day long. We say this all the time about being in trial. When you're in trial as an attorney, it is some of the longest days and most stressful situations you'll ever be in because you are quite literally working around the clock. You don't eat right, you don't exercise, you don't see your family, you don't, you don't, you're not at your peak performance. And the jury sees everything because guess what, it's a little bit boring being on the jury. You sit there for a lot of the day. Those of you watching the live stream of the trial know this. It's actually not a TV show. It's. Much of it is boring. About 20% is interesting. And what are they doing? They're sitting there. They can't talk to anybody. They can't do anything. They don't have their phones. They have to just watch. And it's very difficult for you to act as somebody else for all eternity. And that's why we say the best. You trial attorneys, they are acting as who they are. They're not putting up a front because you can only pretend to be the nice guy for so long. And I think that's the case here. I don't think she's acting. I think those smirks. We all do facial responses all day long. We just don't have a camera in our face. And it just happens that I think that's. You can only pretend to be a nice person for so long.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. I think it would undercut any sympathy that the jury might have for her about, you know, mean text messages if they already don't like her, you know, and I would be concerned that, you know, if I were, if I were a defense attorney in this situation, I'd be concerned like they might agree with some of this analysis, however inappropriate and however mean, you know, and, and so I, yeah, I'm this. There's so much to cover with this. Obviously. I really want to encourage people who are interested in having some well thought out takes and analysis and from people who actually know what they're talking about, you know, which is a rarity in this case, frankly, to check out your guys's coverage. It's really good. And, and just where can people get that, like, just in terms of listening to you and all that?

[Brett]

You can find us wherever you listen to podcasts and the prosecutors and the prosecutor's legal briefs. We're covering this case mostly on prosecutors legal briefs these days. The live. If you want to hear our in depth thoughts on Karen Reed in general, we did nine episodes during the first trial, so you can listen to those. And then we're covering this trial live as well on legal briefs.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Before we go, is there anything that you're sort of watching out for or expecting or not expecting or like any, any thoughts as this thing, you know, continues through the defense case?

[Brett]

Well, so it's interesting there, there's been, there was a slight change in the defense case in that in the very first trial, David Jannetti did the opening and the first thing he said is Karen Reed was framed. The first thing he said. And the whole thing was the frame job. And they, they pushed that narrative throughout. I think recognizing the prosecution was going to take a different approach. When Alan Jackson got up, he did the opening this time, which actually was a mistake beside the point. He gets up and he says, I have three points to make. You know, there was no collision. There was no collision and there was no collision. Right. So his whole thing was they're not going to be able to show there was a collision in this case. Not she was framed necessarily, but more of a standard. They're not going to be able to meet their burden. Proof. Right. The defense so Far they're, the case they have presented has been a mess. I mean, the first two days, the defense case has been terrible. And they're, you know, it's funny because they're, they started off with conspiracy, right? They did the proctor text messages. They did this, this witness this morning that was a complete disaster. They now have their dog bite analyst who's trying to resurrect this dog bite theory from the last trial that hasn't even been fleshed out, this trial. But I think Alan Jackson was right. This will come down to whether or not the defense experts from ARCA can convince the jury that all the evidence you saw on the prosecution side that there was a collision was false. So really I think ARCA is what it will come down to. And the direct on arca, how well they present their case, whether they can refute the actual Commonwealth theory of a glancing blow, not a direct strike. And then the cross examination by Brennan, that's what to watch for over the next, you know, I think probably mid, mid next week we're going to be doing closing arguments maybe as early as the end of this week, depending on how long some of these witnesses go.

[Alice]

And I think when this case gets submitted to the jury, I, based on the evidence that we've heard so far, would expect a very quick jury deliberation. I'm thinking hours, if it goes days. I'm worried about the situation that we talked about earlier. I'm worried that there is a, an infiltrator who did not properly let the court or the attorneys know their views on the case before they went into jury selection and that we are facing a, a potential situation where it's not based on the evidence but rather based on someone who is, you know, part of the free Care and Reid camp and is disregarding the evidence. But if we come back with a quick if within the day or even within two days, we have the jury coming back. I will think it is a guilty verdict.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Absolutely. We'll definitely be paying attention to that when that's happening. But thank you guys so much. We really appreciate you taking the time and coming and sharing your insights with us and it's always great to have you guys on.

[Brett]

Well, thank you so much. We always love hanging out with you guys. Happy to do it anytime, I'm sure. You know, look, the grift moves, right? And it's moved over to Karen Reed, but the sun will set on Karen Reed and it's going to rise on Brian Coburn murder. So the Cobras. The Cobras is What I'm calling them when the cobras come out and start, you know, I already see it on Twitter that he's innocent, he's being framed. We'll be, we'll be there for that one as well.

[Alice]

So my real last word then is like you said, this is not the only storm. It's the current storm is this only gets fed if people click. If people listen to this irresponsible reporting, use your brain for a second, turn your brain on and think is what they're saying is what they're reporting. Is it passing the smell test? If it doesn't turn it off, don't give them any more clicks. Doesn't necessarily mean listen to us. In fact, don't read anything else about Karen Ring because as we said at the beginning, this is a boring case. It's an open and shut case. It is a hit and run, horrendous because a man lost his life and, you know, children have lost their adoptive father, the father that, you know, took them in when their own parents passed away. So it's horrendous on all those levels. But it shouldn't rise to the level of anyone being interested in this case unless they're connected to it somehow. And those who are connected, who are just mere witnesses, their lives have been dragged through the mud for years at this point. They may never recover. And that's something to keep in mind. Here we have so many victims here we have John o' Keefe, all of his loved ones, and then also basically the people of Canton who are part of this alleged conspiracy. Keep that in mind. What you click on, what you listen to has a real effects on real people's lives.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Really well said. Well, thank you guys so much.

[Anya Cain]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Kevin Greenlee]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[Anya Cain]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.