← Rotten Mango
Rotten Mango
Investigators On Karen Read Case Connected To Death of Pregnant Girl That Had Been Abused By 3 Cops
02:42:11
Almost exactly a year before John O’Keefe is found in the snow outside of Boston detective Brian Albert’s home, Sandra Birchmore is found dead in her apartment in the middle of a blizzard. In her phone are thousands of messages between her and a police detective that indicate he is the father of her unborn child. But of course, it’s never that simple. For one, he’s married and his wife is about to give birth to their third child. And two, he legally, shouldn’t be in a relationship with Sandra. Nobody was supposed to find out that he had been grooming and assaulting her since she was 15 years old, a grade school cadet apart of his police explorer’s program. Now that she’s dead - everything’s about to come out into the open right? Not exactly. When Canton PD and Massachusetts State Police investigate Sandra’s suspicious death, they rule her manner of death as a self exit. It would take the FBI 4 years to get involved and make an arrest. From first glance, it appeared Sand...
Loading summary
Transcript397 lines
- [00:00]
Karen Reid
Have you heard the true story of the 17 kids that unexpectedly disappeared at exactly 2:17am I heard that they all got out of bed at the same exact time, ran outside and never came back. On August 8th, uncover the truth from Zach Kreger, the director of Barbarian and the studio that brought you it. And the Conjuring comes a new horror thriller so twisted you'll have to experience it to believe it. Weapons Only in theaters and in IMAX Aug 8. Rated R. Under 17 not admitted without a parent Appliances and home systems all tend to break down at some point, but with an American Home Shield warranty, you're covered. When your fridge is on a lifeline and your faucet won't stop leaking, AHS will fix or replace covered parts of your home systems and appliances, no matter how old they are. Not to mention as a benefit with select plans, you can video chat with your live repair experts to help assess or fix the issue on the spot. American Home Shield don't worry. Be warranty get 20% off any plan@ahs.com rotten see ahs.com for coverage details, including service fees, limitations and exclusions. Bada bing, bada boo. There are probably a few things that you should not do while a jury deliberates on whether or not you are a murderer. One would be to commit more crimes. Jury tampering is a big one. Don't follow a juror home just so if you can see. Maybe you could understand their perspective a little better. Don't do that to see if they have all the facts needed to deliberate. Definitely don't do that. But. But those are very obvious. You know, some are up for debate. Some people think it's okay, some people don't think it's okay. And one of that includes cuddling your defense attorney. One New York Post article reads, karen Reid spotted canoodling with lawyer as jury deliberated over whether she murdered her cop boyfriend There is an iPhone live photo posted of Karen Reid outside of a fancy Boston steakhouse with Alan Jackson. From the back, he's standing behind her, one arm around her waist. So she's facing forward, he's facing forward, he's behind her, and the other arm is like firmly around her chest. It seems like everyone's giggling, goofing around, but it definitely seems intimate. And online, everybody just starts freaking out. First of all, Alan Jackson is married. He's worn a wedding ring throughout the entirety of the trial. But now the timing of it all also feels way too intimate. While one netizen says it just looks so wrong and Inappropriate. It's her attorney and I don't know, it just doesn't feel like a normal attorney client type of situation. The picture is a lot. Some try to argue, well, it's because they've been working very closely every single day with each other for years, fighting for freedom. Geez, can a girl have hobbies? Like, can a girl live a little? Others say they've become a close friends and a support system. I'm sure that his wife is totally fine with stuff like this. I mean, what's the big deal about this picture? It's not like they got caught making out or anything. Why are people so crazy? Others say, I just feel a little uncomfortable because he's married. But the people who don't like Karen Reid have used this photo as another example of why she's guilty of murder. How can she be so heartless and cruel? Karen, how exactly are you paying your attorneys? You will have your day. I'm totally disgusted. Another one reads, this is blowing it for me. For Karen Reid, this man is full of himself and he's all over her and she's loving it. He's married, but not for too long. They're definitely sleeping together. One source, apparently close to Karen Reid, tells TMZ that the picture has been taken way out of context. The two are just sharing an innocent moment of celebration. There's nothing on this picture really. They're just goofing around. But Karen Reid supporters have stated, isn't it a little weird that the source only spoke with tmz, a longtime non supporter of Karen Reid? The connection to Karen Reid. The source has never been named, disclosed, further expanded upon. It's also weird that out of the major news media networks, the only ones that are really running with this video, this picture, are the ones that have not been favorable to Karen Reid since the very beginning. So what if the picture's not even real? What if it's AI? What if it's edited? Lars Daniel, a digital forensic expert, author of Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals, states, I certainly do not believe this to be real. He says, it's weird that there's elements in the photo. So near the back of the photo, you see this parking sign, high resolution. You can read it. The Audi, the car in the back, high resolution, clear as day. So why does Alan Jackson look like a blob? His hair has clear indications that edits have been made. Additionally, his arm is kind of warped. It gets bigger and smaller and bigger and smaller in just ways that just don't align with human anatomy. Netizens have also noticed that there appears to be two Alan Jackson's in the photo. One of them is facing Karen Reid taking a photo with David Yannetti. So some argue it's not him and it's a different friend, but it does look like Alan Jackson. And then another one who's hugging Karen Reid from the back. So which one is Alan Jackson?
- [05:03]
David Iannetti
That is crazy. So you're saying AI it seems to.
- [05:06]
Karen Reid
Be edited by most people's professional and non professional accounts. In any event, I do think that the video is questionable in its credibility. I mean, I could always be proven wrong, but just at first glance it looks like at least a little bit tampered with. But overall, the whole thing feels oddly suspicious because the implications of if this photo is real versus if it's fake are drastically different. So for one, if the photo is real, you might have a questionable picture of an attorney and their client and perhaps a dilemma of professional boundaries and moral ethical questions being bounced around. Two, if the photo is not real, if it's edited and certain mainstream media outlets are pushing this photo out there. Who would edit something like this? Why would they even take this picture and run these stories? How far are these people willing to go to make sure Karen Reid ends up in jail? Are they the same people that wanted to make sure nobody found out about Sandra Birchmore, another high profile murder case in Massachusetts? We've actually talked about the Sandra Birchmore case before on this podcast. The death of Sandra Birchmore. She was 23 years old. She. Well, officially, originally, she self exited in her Canton, Massachusetts apartment almost exactly a year before John o' Keefe died. Or at least that's what the Canton pd, the Massachusetts State PD kept saying she self exited. But once the FBI got involved, it was uncovered that not only did she not self exit, but she was likely killed by a police officer who had been grooming, exploiting and abusing her since she was 15 years old. A police officer that has connections with some of the Canton police officers.
- [06:47]
David Iannetti
Wait, it was the same police department?
- [06:49]
Karen Reid
It's a neighboring police department. So her alleged killer works for Stoughton pd, which is a neighboring police department. But because her apartment is in Canton, they were the responding police officers. In fact, one of these officers that we're familiar with was at the scene when her body was found. And then the Massachusetts State Police take over. The trooper trolls take over. You're gonna see a lot of people that you're familiar with that pronounce her dead. They investigate her connections with another police officer. And they all say, you know what, she self exited. And all of this is taking place in the same DA's office, Norfolk County DA. But what's even more intriguing about all of this is why did Karen Reid's defense team request unredacted files from Sandra Birchmore's case? What are the connections here Foreign we would like to thank today's sponsors who have made it possible for Rotten Mango to support the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts. They're a globally known cancer research center that also provides support for patients and families. Similar to John o' Keefe's sister who has since passed away from brain cancer, this episode's partnerships have also made it possible to support Rotten Mango's growing team and would also like to thank you guys for your continued support. As always, full show notes are available by rotten mangopodcast.com There are references to driving under the influence, alleged physical assault. Please watch at your own discretion, as well as mentions of self exit crimes against people who are currently pregnant this episode is pretty dark. It is the final part of the Karen Reid series and there's just Honestly, I feel like I could make a 20 part series for Karen Reid. It's just so extensive. Every everything we've talked about we can go five layers deeper into all of the nitty gritty details. But because I think the main focus that people have been trying to center the conversation on is the connections to all of the corruption in Massachusetts and probably everywhere in the United States. This episode is also going to include the story of Sandra Birchmore, which we have already covered on this podcast. But there have been lots of new developments since then. So if you want to watch that episode, I'll link it below. But there's a lot of updates and I'm going to go through them today. And you don't really need that, but you do need the first three parts of the Karen Reid series. There's no way that I can recap almost 10 hours of video footage for you. Just know that January 29, 2022 John O', Keefe, Boston Police Officer, was found deceased in the snow on the front lawn of another Boston police officer's home, Brian Albert. Brian Albert has a lot of connections. This doesn't take place in the jurisdiction of Boston Police Department. It takes place in the jurisdiction of the Canton Police Department. They are the first ones to investigate. Everybody is connected to everybody and somehow it seems like the least likely murderer in this sit situation. The evidence doesn't really point to her. There's a few things that are weird, like her angry voicemails. But those are all kind of explained by just sheer logic. The one that every single person in a position of authority and power in law enforcement in that town has pointed this case as the culprit is Karen Reed, John o' Keefe's girlfriend of two years. And Karen Reed has gone through two different trials to try and prove her innocence. And so this is kind of the summary and culmination of both trials. We have conducted condensed and combined statements, trial testimonies, for brevity's sake, because there's just no way. I mean, you're talking about hundreds of hours of trial footage that we went through. So with that being said, that is the recap. Go watch part one, two, and three. And this is the final part of Karen Reed. Michael Morrissey is the DA for the Norfolk county. And he sits in front of a wall of books. And it makes him look scholarly, it makes him look well read. But he just starts yapping away in a YouTube it. Suddenly everyone in the comments is rolling their eyes at Mr. Michael Morrissey. He says, this will be my first statement of its kind. False narratives are not evidence. What the evidence does not show is that John O' Keefe never entered the home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton the night that he died. Eleven people have given statements that they did not see John O' Keefe enter the home at 34 Fairview that night. Zero people have said that they saw him enter the home. Zero. No. Some have, without evidence, pointed to 18 year old Colin Albert, a nephew of the homeowner, and accused him of attacking John o' Keefe as he entered the home. But phone evidence shows John o' Keefe never entered the home at all. There was no fight outside. There's no fight inside the house. John o' Keefe did not enter the home. Colin Albert, the young man being vilified, was not present when Reed's vehicle and John o' Keefe arrived on the street. This is a false narrative.
- [12:01]
David Iannetti
When was he saying this?
- [12:03]
Karen Reid
This is like before trial too, okay? And people are confused because why does this man sound like an attorney for Colin Albert and not a da? Because aren't DA supposed to be trying the case before the jury and not telling the jury what to think about this case? But he continues, colin Albert did not commit murder. How would you know that? There was no investigation into that.
- [12:21]
David Iannetti
Were you there?
- [12:22]
Karen Reid
Yeah. Were you there that night? Check his phone records. I'm just kidding. He seems crazy. Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe and Brian Albert, these people were not part of a conspiracy and certainly did not commit murder or any crime that night. They have been. Well, I feel like a lot of them were drunk driving, so that's at least a crime. So you're already lying. They have been forthcoming with authority, providing statements that have not engaged in any cover ups. They are not suspects in any crime. They're merely witnesses in this case. To have them accused of murder is outrageous. To have them harassed and intimidated based on false narratives and accusations is wrong. The autopsy of John o' Keefe was conducted by a forensic pathologist. The doctor found the injuries that left John helpless in the cold were not a result of a fight. That is an entirely false narrative. She stated specifically that she could not rule out a fight. It could have been from a fight. It could have been from being hit by a car. It could have been lots of things. Which is why the manner of John's death is listed as undetermined. But he continues, we try people on the court and not the Internet for a reason. The Internet has no rules of evidence. The Internet has no punishment for perjury, which is also another lie. You can get hit with defamation lawsuits. But he continues, the Internet does not know all the facts. Conspiracy theories are not evidence. Michael Proctor, the state police trooper being accused of planting evidence outside of 34 Fairview Road, was never at 34 Fairview on the day of the incident. In addition to having no opportunity to plant the evidence as has been suggested, Proctor would have no motive to do so. He had no personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the investigation, had no conflict. He had no reason to step out of his investigation. Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie. But the one part that sticks out most is when Michael Morrissey says this. The idea that Multiple police departments, EMTs, fire personnel and medical examiner and the prosecuting agencies adjoin in or taken in by a vast conspiracy should be seen for what it is. Completely contrary to the evidence and a desperate attempt to reassign guilt. His whole explanation is that it just takes too many people to be involved in a conspiracy or a conspiracy cover up to this extent, to this level. If that's the case, that means nothing. Similar should have never happened ever before in maybe history, but definitely not in his department. Right. Because it's just logically impossible. Logistically impossible. Theoretically impossible. It is impossible. Correct. February 4th of 2021. Almost exactly a year before John O' Keefe is found dead. So this is February 4th, 2021. This is the date of another blizzard In Canton, Massachusetts.
- [15:15]
David Iannetti
Oh yeah.
- [15:16]
Karen Reid
Canton police get a phone call from a local elementary school, and one of the teachers failed to show up to work. And nobody has been able to get in contact with her. Some people might think this is no big deal, but this is very unlike her to do this. Her name is Sandra Birchmore. And the Canton police are dispatched to do a wellness check. They get to her apartment, Nobody's answering the door. They're about to leave when they realize that her vehicle, which is registered to her, it's in the parking lot covered in snow. Snow started falling three days ago, which means she has been in her apartment for the past three days. That would make the most sense, right? I mean, she's not going anywhere without her snow. Canton is not really a walkable town. So if that's the case, why is she not opening the door? Is she having some sort of medical emergency? Canton police, they asked the property manager for a set of keys to open up the apartment. They walk in and they see Sandra Birchmore in her bedroom on the floor with a lanyard around her neck, deceased. She's like sitting on her bedroom floor. This is very important. Later, her phone is near her body, likely within reach. And they the Canton police that show up, they come to the least likely, least investigative, least common sense conclusion that Sandra Birchmore has self exited by way of a duffel bag string around her neck, and she had used her closet door handle whilst sitting down to self exit by way of asphyxiation. Even though most evidence does not point to her having any sort of inclination to self exit. And I know a lot of people are going to say that a lot of the times, it is random, it is abrupt. There are not that many signs to be able to predict. But she's pregnant. She's planning a newborn photo session. She literally just emailed a photographer. She's making arrangements with a friend to take care of her two cats while she goes into labor. She's doing laundry. She was about to put her laundry from the washer to the dryer, and she was waiting for the father of her child to show up to her place. The father of her child is Staunton police detective Matthew Farwell. So this is a nearby police department. This is not Canton. And Massachusetts state police is the whole state. So it's like a. Within. So Canton is within Massachusetts, Stoughton is within Massachusetts. It's nearby. Matthew Farwell is clearly not happy that Sandra Birchmore is pregnant with his child. I mean, for one, he's married and his wife is Currently also pregnant with their third child. He didn't like that Sandra was going around telling everyone that she was pregnant with his child. He didn't want to pay for child support and he definitely didn't want to get investigated because Sandra Birchmore isn't just a woman that he's having an affair with. Sandra Birchmore is someone that he has known since she was a little girl. She was part of a police program, a police mentoring program called Police Explorers, where it's alleged that multiple police officers, including Matthew Farwell, his twin brother, and their superior officer, Robert Devine, had groomed her and assaulted her since she was at least 15 years old. She went into the program because it's supposed to help local youth and she came from a. Just a rough background is how everybody describes it. But instead of being taken care of, Sandra Birchmore was 16 years old when Matthew Farwell essayed her for the first time. He was 26. No, she was 15. He was 26 and she was 15. He's also getting paid by the police force while assaulting a minor on the clock, getting paid for it. Near Christmas of 2020, Sandra is of age now. She's 23. At this point, she tells him that she's pregnant with his child. He's clearly not happy about any of this. He texts her and he just says that he wishes that she would die. February 1st of 2021, Matthew decides he's having a change of heart. He does indeed want to stop by Sandra Birchmore's place in the midst of a blizzard while his wife is in the hospital, about to go into labor with their first child. He drives to Sandra Birchmore's home. He's seen on the apartment CCTV cameras wearing a Mas Covid mask. His hood is covering his entire head. Twenty minutes later, he's seen leaving the apartment, going straight to the hospital where his wife is giving birth. There's actually a very terrifying photo of him where he's cradling his newborn baby in the hospital wearing the same exact outfit that he had gone to Sandra Bertmore's apartment and allegedly killing her. All very suspicious elements to, I don't know, a very straightforward crime. I don't think anyone would need a police badge to put two and two together and come to the very easy destination that Matthew Farwell should at the very least be investigated. But that is not what happens. Instead, Sandra Birchmore's death is quickly deemed a self exit. Even though Matthew Farwell has strong motives, he was the last one to see her alive. Multiple tips after Sandra's death. Multiple tips are called into the Norfolk DA's office, the same one handling Karen Reid's case. Friends of Sandra's are calling in, saying they knew Sandra was pregnant with a police officer's child, Matthew Farwell. And when he found out, he was not happy. In fact, he seemed kind of violent. He was pushing her, shoving her, grabbing objects from her. This is what Sandra had told them before she died, putting Sandra in a chokehold. This is weeks leading up to her murder. Also, just 12 days before her death, Sandra told her friends that Matthew Farwell came over and was suspiciously looking at her apartment, going through her bathroom, her closets, almost like he was scoping it out. Those are the words. Sheets.
- [20:42]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [20:43]
Karen Reid
And 12 days later, she mysteriously dies in a strange manner that authorities deem a self exit. Even though Sandra was really excited to become a mom, nothing happens for four full years until the FBI steps in and finally arrests Matthew Farwell for Sandra Birchmore's death, accusing him of essentially framing. Framing Sandra Birchmore in her own murder. Another thing to note is, yes, after Sandra's death, many of her friends called in tips to the Norfolk County DA's office. And even when the red alarms did not go off, I mean, it should have, but even prior to her passing, people were calling into Staunton PD to report Matthew Farwell. Sandra Birchmore had told a few of her friends that she was pregnant with Matthew Farwell's child and he had actually started essaying her since she was 16. She did not believe it to be essay because she had been so groomed, but they had noticed it was essay. So they call Stoughton, and they're like, one of your officers was abusing the police program, the Explorers Program, to essay a minor at the time. This is even before she passes away. And just like Karen Reid's case, a lot of different agencies were involved with this whole investigation before it goes to the FBI. Sandra Birchmore. Okay, Matthew Farwell is part of Staunton pd, But Staunton PD has no jurisdiction because Sandra Birchmore is found deceased in Canton. So Canton PD are the first ones to arrive at the scene. It's later handed off to the Massachusetts State Police.
- [22:10]
David Iannetti
Why is that?
- [22:11]
Karen Reid
That they handle most of the unattended deaths. Canton PD is just too small of a police department to handle a lot of the homicides. So I think they hand off a lot of their bigger cases. The Massachusetts State Troopers are the ones that deemed Sandra Birchmore's death a self exit. But also the Canton PD, they both deem it a self exit. Canton PD, the Massachusetts State Department, and even the DA's office is like, yeah, it's definitely self exit. In fact, you're gonna see a lot of the same people that are involved. So the first connection between these two cases comes from Michael Lenk. Michael Lenk of the Canton Police Department. Good old friends with Chris Albert. Michael Lenk has known the Alberts for probably longer than we've been alive. This guy has known Chris Albert since he was 12 years old. And they have been friends. I mean, Link says if he's got a listed, he's probably known Tim Albert since he was what, 16? He's known Chris since he was 12.
- [23:09]
David Iannetti
I mean, Tim Albert is the brother. Another brother of Albert.
- [23:14]
Karen Reid
Yes. So Brian, Tim, Chris, Kevin Albert, they're all brothers. They have a few more siblings. There's like seven siblings in the bunch, but these are the four important ones.
- [23:22]
David Iannetti
And three of them are cops.
- [23:24]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [23:25]
David Iannetti
Oh, no, two of them are cops. One of them is a Canton select man in charge of the.
- [23:30]
Karen Reid
Yes. I have no idea what this man does.
- [23:32]
David Iannetti
Tim Albert.
- [23:33]
Karen Reid
Yeah, he just. He'd just be posting weird stuff. He's like the type to post the alpha man lion. Michael Link has worked with Kevin Albert, another Canton detective, for at least 18 years. He's known Kevin since he was 14 years old. He does admit that he considers Kevin Albert more of a friend and less of a co worker, but that the most alarming connection in this friendship with Chris Albert is that. But Chris is shady. He sells mediocre pizza. That's also shady. But in 2002, Officer Link is sitting outside of a bar, he's off duty drinking, when Chris Albert runs up to him and says, hey, you gotta save my life. My life is in danger. This is from the perspective of Michael Link. Do we trust anything Michael Link says? Probably not. So take it with a grain of salt. He's saying that they're threatening the entire Albert lineage. He says, I got out of my car, I approached these group of men, and I pleaded with them to not fight tonight. I said, you know, there's not gonna be a fight tonight. There's six of you guys. Chris Albert is here with his girlfriend, probably Julie Albert at the time. There's not gonna be a fight tonight. Michael Lenk says, I observed multiple men walking down the sidewalk in that direction. And at that point, I got out of my truck, approached the group and pleaded with them. I said, guys, not tonight. You know, he's with his girlfriend. That's not gonna be the fight tonight. Let's. He says, I tried my best to defuse the situation, but they get into a fist fight in the middle of the night. These two brothers, they end up. Michael Lank says they end up throwing a few punches. First Michael Lank starts wrestling them down to the ground. He taps himself in as an off duty police officer. He says, okay, now I'm on duty. And he starts fighting them. He's punching them, he's on top of them. Other Canton police officers have to drag him off of the two brothers. And he says, I defended myself and engaged in a physical altercation with the brothers.
- [25:24]
David Iannetti
Wait, wait, wait, hold on. Six people. He ran into six people?
- [25:29]
Karen Reid
Yes, but I. It seems like it's only the two brothers.
- [25:32]
David Iannetti
Wait, I'm so confused.
- [25:33]
Karen Reid
Who.
- [25:34]
David Iannetti
Who's at the scene? Chris Albert, a girlfriend and four other people.
- [25:38]
Karen Reid
Yes, but those. I mean, it's like a group of people. But he really only starts fighting two guys.
- [25:44]
David Iannetti
Of the six people?
- [25:44]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [25:45]
David Iannetti
Are they trying to fight Chris or trying to find Michael?
- [25:48]
Karen Reid
They're trying to. Allegedly. They're trying to fight Chris. I don't really believe it because Chris is known to start shit.
- [25:54]
David Iannetti
Right. And Michael saying, that's my friend. Please don't start trouble now.
- [25:57]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [25:58]
David Iannetti
And they start trying to start trouble. So Michael start fighting two brothers. Yes, and here's Chris fighting too.
- [26:04]
Karen Reid
No, and here's why. I don't believe that Chris is innocent in any of this. And that's just a personal belief. He. He seems like the type to start shit. At one point, Alan Jackson was in town. I mean, he's in Canton, he's in Boston because of this trial. He walks into a bar. Chris Albert happens to be there. Chris Albert calls for a buff friend to show up. And that friend starts yelling at Alan Jackson to get the fuck out of Canton and go back to la. Go back to Los Angeles, big shot attorney in a very threatening manner. And so this guy is off still doing that to this day. I feel like in 2002, this is the one that started everything. He gets Michael Lenk involved. Michael Lenk starts pummeling these guys. He's asked later by Karen's attorney, did you come to Chris Albert's aid as best as you could as a longtime friend of his? I came to the aid of a citizen who was in fear and of need. The citizen happened to be Chris Albert, whom you had known since you were 12 years old. Correct. Ultimately, a fight breaks up, link is called for backup. They separate them. Nothing happens that night. Nobody is arrested. And that's Interesting, because if he is saying that these two brothers started the fight, they would have arrested the brothers.
- [27:14]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [27:15]
Karen Reid
You don't just attack a cop and get away with it. That never happens, ever. Well, interestingly enough, nobody is arrested. Everyone is told to go home. Nobody files a police report about this incident until the next day. The two brothers come into Canton Police Department and they complain and they say, I was just randomly attacked by one of your officers who was off duty last night. And then the two brothers get arrested. Lank is confronted by this, by Karen's attorney, who asks him, officer, is this an example of you using your position as a police officer to come to the aid of one of the members of the Albert family? It is me coming to the aid of a citizen who was terrified and scared for him and his family on the night, who happened to be Chris Albert. You indicated that either they made a threatening comment to you or a disparaging comment to you about, I don't give a fuck. Correct? Correct. Isn't it true that what was actually said was you said to them, I don't know who you are, but I'm gonna make your life miserable? No. Michael Lenk, connected with the Alberts, connected with Karen Reed. He is one of the first to show up at Sandra Birchmore's apartment when there is a wellness check called. He is one of the few officers that finds her deceased body and starts the investigation into Sandra Birchmore's death. Now, speaking of the Albert family, Kevin Albert was additionally one of the few at the scene of Sandra Birchmore's investigation, but he was at the scene much later, so he did not discover Sandra Birchmore's body. He was actually not a big key role in the investigation. But he did go to the apartment complex to gather CCTV data, which they.
- [28:51]
David Iannetti
See clearly that another officer was at the scene.
- [28:56]
Karen Reid
Yes, Daniel Whitley is a paramedic. He is also another connection. He's one of the first paramedics on the scene for Sandra Birchmore. He's also the paramedic that drove Karen Reed to the hospital after she was section 12. He's also Carrie Roberts neighbor. When Carrie Roberts hosts a neighborhood block party, he brings the fire truck. Cause he's a firefighter. Paramedic. He brings the fire truck to the block party. Now, what's interesting is in part of his testimony for the Karen Reed case, a lot of netizens think this guy just, just does not like Karen Reid. People don't understand why all of these law enforcement officers have so much hatred and vitriol for Karen Reid without even really understand. First of all, if you're a law enforcement officer and you look at this case, because a lot of people have pointed out, why is it that all police officers from across the nation have not come in support of John o' Keefe and this trial? Because if you are talking about a police officer that has been murdered by their girlfriend, every single cop in the entire nation is going to be posting about it. On every. When a cop goes down, the blue wall stands strong. Every other cop is posting about it. It doesn't matter if you've never met that cop. You're posting about it on Facebook and.
- [30:12]
David Iannetti
You'Re saying people, the cops are not across the.
- [30:15]
Karen Reid
Not a lot. I mean, you have the Boston police force, they showed support briefly initially when John o' Keefe was first deceased, and then you had a few local officers. You have the Canton police that have rallied around, but definitely nothing like what you would imagine, especially a case of this high profile. I would understand if maybe it's not a high profile case and these cops just haven't heard of it, but I would think everyone from the NYPD all the way to the LAPD would be posting about it. Why is it that they're not? Is it because they're looking at it and going, oh, this is a weird investigation. But it seems like every single person that goes on the stand doesn't feel that way. In fact, it seems just like they hate Karen Reed. It's like they have a predisposed condition to hate her. When Daniel Whitley is talking about what he witnessed in the ambulance, he does admit that Karen Reid was a wreck, which is pretty on par with what you would imagine someone going through a traumatic incident. However, he says, quote, she was crying about having to take care of kids, saying she couldn't do it. And I was saying, you can do this. It's not as hard as it seems, which again, doesn't really seem that motivating. But he continues, she kept saying, I can't take care of these kids. They're not my kids. They're not his kids. I was saying, well, it seems like you have a good support system, people who came and helped you in a blizzard to help you find your husband. And she said, she asked me if I knew Carrie Roberts. I said, I did. And she said, anybody who knows Carrie Roberts wouldn't say those things. And that kind of took me aback a bit. It seems strange to say something like that after you were just crying because your husband was dead.
- [31:40]
David Iannetti
Wait, can we break that down for A second.
- [31:42]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [31:43]
David Iannetti
I feel like that was packed. What does that mean?
- [31:45]
Karen Reid
He's saying, you've got a strong support system. You've got this. And okay, Karen Reid. She, unprompted, does say, do you know Carrie Roberts? He's like, yeah, I do. She says, well, if you know Carrie Roberts, you wouldn't say that. However, I feel like I'm on Karen Reid's side with this.
- [32:01]
David Iannetti
So is Karen Reid saying that Carrie Roberts is not a gray support system?
- [32:04]
Karen Reid
No, and I agree, because she's telling her to shut the fuck up the whole time.
- [32:08]
David Iannetti
Yeah. I mean, what is so wrong about that?
- [32:11]
Karen Reid
I don't understand. And he's saying, in the moment when you're crying about your deceased husband, it doesn't make sense. However, I feel like there have been times where, I mean, I don't know the level of distraught or grief, that any type of situation like this has never occurred in my life, thankfully. But I feel like I do make dark comments like that. Yeah, it's just very realistic.
- [32:31]
David Iannetti
This is life. What are you talking about? You're not here trying to get motivational right now. This is life.
- [32:37]
Karen Reid
Especially in the moment when you are in this dark of a place and someone says, well, chin up, buttercup. You're not gonna go. Okay, thanks. Like, that's very small talk. I feel like you're in a state where you're very realistic. You're like, absolutely not. I have no support system. I can't do this. I can't do anything in life. What are you talking about? Do you even know who you're talking about? That's the vibe Karen Reid gives me. But he's on the stand. Like, it's just weird. It's just weird. He testifies. The only tone I can use to describe it is snarky. It just seems that he does not like Karen Reed. And he is one of the very first paramedics at the scene for Sandra Birchmar. Yes, Trooper Nicholas Guarino was a Commonwealth witness for both the first and second trial. He is a digital forensic specialist. That's what he calls himself. He says he went through all of John o' Keeffe's data extracted from his phone. The main takeaways from his testimonies include the fact that I think he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think he's shady.
- [33:38]
David Iannetti
Why?
- [33:38]
Karen Reid
For one, he states that the house long to die in the cold search for Jennifer McCabe. He didn't find that on Jennifer McCabe's phone on cell Bright, which doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because all the other Cell Bright experts, they're like, you pull the data from Cell Bright just because she deleted her Google search. You're talking about Cell Bright. Most law enforcement agencies use Cell Bright. If you can Google something, delete it and then it doesn't show up. Why would law enforcement agencies use cellbrite? His excuse to that is, well, I was using an unupdated version of Cell Bright when I extracted her data. And everyone's like, that doesn't make sense. He also claims that he didn't find the numerous phone calls that Jen McCabe made to John O' Keefe that night and then later deleted. Remember how Jen McCabe is like, yeah, I was waiting for him outside or looking out, waiting for him to come in. I was texting him a few times. Well, after that, she makes numerous phone calls to John o' Keefe and all of them go unanswered. And then she deletes them. Why would she delete them? Because it doesn't make sense. If they did drive away and she was like, oh, I thought they got into a fight. So I just, I let it go. Why would she call? The Netizen theory is that they had allegedly something to do with his demise and they couldn't find his phone. So she was calling it to hear it ring so that they could find his phone.
- [34:56]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [34:57]
Karen Reid
He didn't find any of those either. I don't know what he's looking for because he's not finding anything. He also claims that you can sometimes trick your phone, that you walked up and down stairs, because, remember, John o' Keeffe's phone indicated that he took multiple steps, like about 80 steps, which would have led them straight to the front door, side door of 34 Fairview, and then went up and down three flights of stairs. He says, well, you can kind of trick your phone to do this. That which a lot of people, including anonymous Apple employees take it with a grain of salt online, have later disputed. But likely due to strict company policies, they can't really tell you outright. But they express disbelief in the comments that he's making. He's like, yeah, I mean, a lot of these Apple employees are saying, maybe in 2012, but you're talking 2022. No, you're not going to trick your phone of going up and down the stairs by driving up a hill.
- [35:46]
David Iannetti
So best case scenario is he is a complete, useless, incompetent, quote, unquote expert.
- [35:52]
Karen Reid
Yes. Okay, so that's the complicated Thing about Karen Reid's case, everyone uses the strawman theory where they just compile every single thing and bubble it to. You know, when people argue online and you're like, can you have a little more nuance? That's kind of the thing with this. The argument is not every single person can be that corrupt. It doesn't make sense. Sense. It's not corrupt. Some people are just incompetent and it's just together, it's a mixture of corruption and incompetence. And then it's combined and it creates this. It's not that every single person is in on a so called cover up. It just seems like some people have no idea what they're doing. And you can't really tell which one. This is one of the guys. You can't really tell which one it is. I mean, there's a few. This guy, Trooper Paul, you're gonna be like, I don't think he's part of a conspiracy. I think there's no thoughts behind this man's eyes.
- [36:44]
David Iannetti
Okay, he's a state trooper.
- [36:46]
Karen Reid
But this one, it's hard to say. With Gurino, it's hard to say. And the timing of the fact that he didn't find the house long to die in the cold search is interesting considering if they had that information for the first grand jury, if they were privy to these details, they probably would have been less likely to indict Karen Reid. All those deleted calls from Jen McCabe. The house long to die in the cold. I don't know if a grand jury would have indicted Karen Reid.
- [37:14]
David Iannetti
Right.
- [37:14]
Karen Reid
It just makes Trooper Guarino look like a very shaky witness in the Karen Reed case. Side note, I will say that Trooper Guarino has gone viral because whether intentional or not, there is a break. He was the one that had to read all of John o' Keefe and Karen Reed's messages at last out in court. Okay, and at one point, there's a break during the reading of the text messages between John and Karen. He sighs, he leans back, but the mic is clearly still on. And he whispers kill me to himself. Which has since gone viral, with most people feeling a twinge of sympathy towards him. Except for the fact that can you even trust a single thing that this guy says when he has also worked on the Sandra Birchmore case? After Sandra Birchmore's death, Canton PD had the state police come in to investigate. Trooper Guarino is a trooper. He's a trooper troll. Trooper Guarino being on the team, he states that he did not find a single message between Matthew Farwell's phone to Sandra Birchmore. Matthew Farwell turned in his phone.
- [38:11]
David Iannetti
That is so shady.
- [38:13]
Karen Reid
Come on. I didn't find a single message which would. Which would make you think, okay, Farwell is not as involved as the Internet likes to think that he is, then correct. Incorrect. The second the feds take a look at this case, they uncover 32,709 messages between the two between December 2019 to February 2020. That's just, what, a year and a half? Like, two years.
- [38:36]
David Iannetti
What's, like, the status of Sandra Birchmore now? Is it.
- [38:40]
Karen Reid
He's in jail and it's pending trial.
- [38:44]
David Iannetti
Because of the feds, right? Yes, but the trial. There's a trial that's happening.
- [38:48]
Karen Reid
Yes. He has pled not guilty.
- [38:50]
David Iannetti
That is crazy.
- [38:52]
Karen Reid
So you're just telling me, Trooper Guerino, that you just miss. You don't even just miss one or two. You miss 32,709 text messages. Some of those text messages include the two of them talking about the first time Farwell r worded Sandra Birchmore. That is when Sandra would have been 15 years old. He r worded her. That is her very first experience, and she happened to be a victim of a crime. She text him, I had butterflies so bad the day you took my car. Like, you know, me too. It was such a big day. I still know the day to this day. So she's saying, I still remember the date to this day, and this is how deep the grooming has gone. He says, really? Yes. That's not a date I'll ever forget. April 10, 2013. Again, very clear evidence that he essayed her when she was 15. You don't need a calculator to do the math. Sandra writes, best day of my life. Heart emoji. Me too. Then later, Matthew Farwell texts her, if I pushed, I absolutely could have f'd you without condoms from day one. Sandra Birchmore responds, probably, if you really pushed it. I was kind of scared to say no in the beginning, not knowing how you would take it. So, yeah, you probably could have gotten using no protection. Lol. More alarmingly, this police officer who has already committed these crimes, when Sandra is of age, now that she's an adult, he asks her to engage in acting during intimate relations. He says that he wants her to have intimate relations with him while pinning her down and fake r wording her. He wants Sandra to say, quote, will you say, Matt, stop. I'm 13. I'm not ready for this. Oh, my God, please stop.
- [40:34]
David Iannetti
This is insane.
- [40:36]
Karen Reid
He also texts her numerous times to pretend that he is an older brother coming into her room at night to have intimate relations with her that she does not want to consent to. Even that's not enough for this sick walking disease that likes to call himself a police officer, likes to call himself a man or a human. He texts her a a whole lengthy conversation about how he wishes she would have told him sooner that she was interested in him because he would have totally essayed her a year prior when she was 13, 14 years old. Even after all of that. When Sandra is of age, he will ask her to meet up in Costco parking lots, five guys parking lots, to have intimate relations while he's on the clock for Stoughton pd. He also texts her, quote, I'm going to sneak away from work real quick. Quote, yes, I will be on the clock if this is not already a steaming pile of motivations for Matthew Farwell to kill Sandra Birchmore. That just goes over the trooper sets. There's also these messages. Sandra Bridgemore texts Matthew Farwell a poster board that she made that reads, congrats, we're going to be parents. To which Matthew Farwell responds, I literally have nothing to say right now. How could you express that in text when I said I don't appreciate it? He responds, how far are you? Regardless of how far, we're keeping it. Okay, we will need to talk then. No shit. That's obvious. I'm mad at how you're acting over a choice we both made. I'm mad you act like you gave anyone a choice. Oh, so you didn't have a choice? Per usual, you make and do whatever you want. This is coming from the R Worder that R worded her when she was 15. He says, you are truly the worst person on the face of the earth. According to the feds. Sandra's diaries also indicate as well as text messages indicate, that Matthew Farwell would punish Sandra Birchmore ever since she was a kid for things like getting bad grades, for failing to share her cell phone location data. He would punish her with really rough essay when she was young. He also details his ideal situation which would be her pretending to be 13 or 14 years old. And he says, quote, you can say no and make me take it full R word. After an in person meeting, Sandra text Matthew Farwell. It made me really uncomfortable and stressed out and scared when you were next to me because I thought you were going to hit me after you said said what you said and took things out of my hand. That's why I was crying. I know you wouldn't, but it still scared me. Which makes sense because this guy is very scary. A federal search warrant of his devices also found that he liked lots of memes involving necrophilia. Again, a detective he liked one that reads, what does a pulse and a destination of intimate relations have in common? I don't care if she has either her. He doesn't care if a woman reaches a destination or dead or if she has a pulse. Yes, like dead. Another one he likes says, when she says, choke me, daddy and you get carried away and now she's dead. Another one that reads, if you fuck a corpse on a waterbed, it feels like they're participating. A report from the feds reads that he also liked a meme that reads quote, glorifying a person who kills and essays some someone no one will miss. Another one shows a woman with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. And again, this is a police detective. A woman with a piece of duct tape. Duct tape over her mouth. And it reads duct tape turning no, no, no into since 1942. A police detective A month before Sandra Birchmore is found dead, she's texting Matthew far while trying to compromise, knowing that he has a family. Which side note he r worded her for the first time time a month before he got married to his wife, the mother of his three children. She was 15. So this is not a situation where it's like, oh, I know you have a family. I don't care. Clearly, Sandra texts him, you don't have to sign the birth certificate if they can have your name. And I won't move to Staunton. I won't bitch about holidays, but I would like you to come a few days before Christmas and Easter so you can see what they get from me. And I don't want you to leave them out. And three, if you want to try and support, we can talk about that. But I do want you to see them. I feel like I'm trying to be as fair as I can. And I want you to be there for the labor. I'm standing my ground on that one for sure. Okay, we can discuss this more in person. It's a lot to think about. It's so much more than you have ever asked for. Sandra Birchmore sadly responds, and still less than what any other girl would ask for. Just two weeks before Sandra's death, adding more motivation into the mix, if you can even fathom that. One of Sandra's friends calls him into the Stoughton Police department to report Matthew Farwell for essaying her as a teenager. He texts her, dude, your fucking friend called my job. Sandra, what the fuck?
- [45:01]
David Iannetti
Wait, another friend said that Matthew essayed? Yes, the friend.
- [45:05]
Karen Reid
No, Sandra. So Sandra had told. And I think the friend is like, okay, Sandra, you don't see how alarming this is? This is not normal. He can't be a police officer. Call Stoughton pd. And he's texting her, upset. And Sandra just texts question mark. He says, you told me that no one knew about us, yet she claimed we were fucking. Like, you have no idea how bad what she did is. I literally can't believe this is even real life. Like, what else do I have to worry about now? Which other friend will do something tomorrow? And just a few days before her murder, there are text messages proving that Sandra went to Walmart to get a copy of her apartment keys, as is requested by Matthew Farwell. Text messages to Sandra's friends from Sandra indicating that Matthew Farwell came over to scope the bathroom. All of these are messages that are seemingly missed by Trooper Guarino initially.
- [45:50]
David Iannetti
How does Guarino know. Still have a job after that?
- [45:53]
Karen Reid
Yeah, well, I should. I don't know.
- [45:57]
David Iannetti
I mean, to say the least.
- [45:58]
Karen Reid
Right?
- [45:58]
David Iannetti
Like, the guy should be locked up.
- [46:01]
Karen Reid
Too, for in our opinion. I mean. Yeah.
- [46:04]
David Iannetti
How do you miss any of that? Or just one message alone is enough to put that guy, you know, in prison.
- [46:13]
Karen Reid
As they say, though, you cannot be fired from the police force for incompetence. You have to be fired for, like, brute, over the top corruption, which is hard to prove because you can always argue corruption is just incompetence. Yeah. All of these messages are seemingly missed. Trooper Guarino's explanation for that is that Matthew Farwell already told him that the messages between him and Sandra Birchmore were deleted from his phone. So he didn't really take it as a big red flag. He just kind of goes with it. Which even then a digital forensic specialist should know that that doesn't mean deleted, right? Deleted does not mean deleted when you're a law enforcement officer. Additionally, he pulled extractions from Sandra Birchmore's computer, which shows thousands of communications between them. It also includes Matthew Farwell. Googling and deleting. Quote, can deleted imessage be recovered by cellbrite? Sounds very similar to how's long to die in the cold? And then another one quote, can you revoke consent in Massachusetts? Massachusetts. Both of which he has deleted. But the jurors for Karen Reid's case don't know any of this when Trooper Guarino is testifying. Just like they don't know about the FBI investigation into the investigation of John o' Keefe's death because Auntie Bev has ruled against it. There will be no mention of it, she states. Testimony about unrelated death investigations. Sandra Birchmeyer would result in a trial within a trial with much information being inadmissible, confidential, or offered without a proper foundation. Elizabeth Little argues that the parallels in these cases couldn't be clearer. Both cases involve a failure to investigate a law enforcement officer who should have been a suspect. Their reports by investigating officers that led to the improper clearing of Farwell go directly towards the credibility of these officers. But alas, regarding any information regarding Sandra Birchmore is not allowed into Karen Reed's trial. One criminal justice journalist states, understatement of the century. But Massachusetts has a serious problem with murder investigations involving police suspects, witnesses and leads. So they can't bring it up. So the second trial, the, the defense, they just completely forego a cross examination for Trooper Guerino. They don't even touch it. But the, the Internet goes crazy.
- [48:28]
David Iannetti
They don't even touch it.
- [48:30]
Karen Reid
They go, we have no questions, Sergeant John Fanny, before this case, Sandra Bridgemore's case gets taken over by the feds, it goes from Stanton PD to Canton pd. Well, Stanton really didn't do anything. Canton PD to msp. And they decide that maybe we are going to investigate Matthew Farwell, the state police. They're like, okay, let's look into him.
- [48:51]
David Iannetti
Who is John Fanning?
- [48:53]
Karen Reid
John Fanning is a lieutenant of the Massachusetts State Police.
- [48:57]
David Iannetti
Okay, another trooper.
- [48:59]
Karen Reid
Yes, but he's going to be connected. Just you wait. He's going to be leading the investigation into Sandra Birchmore's death. He's like, gurino, pull the text messages. He's like, I couldn't find any. And so he's like, okay, let me investigate what's going on. Now what do they do? Do they investigate Farwell for potential murder? No, they investigate him for larceny. In other words, they're going to investigate him for stealing taxpayer money as there is proof that he was essaying Sandra while he was, quote, on patrol. They're not investigating him for essaying Sandra. They're investigating him for having intimate relations with her when she is of age while getting paid at work.
- [49:35]
David Iannetti
Why is that more easier on the charges?
- [49:39]
Karen Reid
I guess it's better than not investigating Matthew Farwell at all. And this is a pretty slap on the wrist charge.
- [49:45]
David Iannetti
Hopefully doesn't look as bad.
- [49:47]
Karen Reid
Yeah, even when people are lining up calling in to say, hi, I'm Sandra's friend. And she told me that Matthew Farwell put her in a headlock and snatched her phone from her and stated, quote, I wish you would die. I want nothing to do with this baby, baby. But he says larceny. And that when she showed him a sonogram, he pushed her to the ground and said, that's not my child. I want nothing to do with you. He says larceny.
- [50:12]
David Iannetti
That's crazy.
- [50:13]
Karen Reid
He believes that Sandra Birchmore has self exited. He said based on the physical evidence, personal notes discovered, as well as the medical examiner's findings and medical determination, she self exited. He writes in his report about Sandra Birchmore that yes, Trooper Guarino did eventually, eventually discover tat text messages between Farwell and Sandra Birchmore, but really all it did was indicate that there was a sexual relationship between them. However, Sandra communicated often with friends and family, and it appeared that Sandra had sexual relations with other men in the months leading up to her death. There were no threats of harm by any of these individuals, including Matthew Farwell. Side note, all of this is happening after Matthew Farwell was caught lying to state troopers about his relationship with Sandra. First, he told them that they only started having relations after she was evaded, and they've only had relations a few times. And the last time that they've been intimate was long time ago. Which is all entirely false. And the troopers should have discovered that very quickly on. And I do want to say, just like the Karen Reid case, why does every trooper have a problem with the victims? Why does every trooper have a problem with really anyone that's not law enforcement? Because the way that everyone is saying that, well, Karen Reid was snarky. Karen Reid was this Karen Reid. It's just like these snipers side comments that are just weird to come from law enforcement officers who are supposed to be objectively investigating a case. When the Canton police write their report on Sandra Birchmore, they dog on her apartment for being messy. They're like, looks like nobody's cleaned it in months.
- [51:39]
David Iannetti
I remember. Yeah.
- [51:41]
Karen Reid
But you know what's interesting about Fanning in his free time, this guy belongs to a group chat.
- [51:47]
David Iannetti
Michael Proctor.
- [51:49]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [51:50]
David Iannetti
The known nudes yet.
- [51:51]
Karen Reid
Group chat, Yes. A year after Sandra Birchmore's murder, Michael Proctor texts no nudes yet. And he was part of that group chat. He's actually a supervisor for Michael Proctor as well as Yuri Buchanak is, and so is Tully Fanning was investigated briefly by the MSP Office of Professional Integrity and Accountability, which sounds like a make believe department, but he's briefly investigated what's his department?
- [52:14]
David Iannetti
One more time.
- [52:15]
Karen Reid
It's the MSP office. Office of Professional Integrity and Accountability.
- [52:20]
David Iannetti
That's fucking crazy.
- [52:21]
Karen Reid
Yeah, it's like if we had a department of silence and peace and quiet. It just again, doesn't mix. That's what they have. He's investigated and it. He says that he didn't see the text message and the investigation shockingly ends with quote, insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove. If John Fanning failed to reprimand Proctor as his super supervisor, do all of.
- [52:46]
David Iannetti
These people still have their job? Like has anybody received any punishment or.
- [52:51]
Karen Reid
Yes. So Michael Proctor is fired. But he will get. He. He's appealing that. Yuri Buchanak is put on desk work as well as atf. Brian. They're both put on desk work.
- [53:04]
David Iannetti
What does that mean?
- [53:04]
Karen Reid
Desk work means you're not on the field.
- [53:07]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [53:07]
Karen Reid
You're just doing some administrative paperwork until usually this is what this means in the law enforcement world. You're on the desk until everybody online shuts the fuck up about this case. And then you can go back and do your job or not do your job, which is what you were doing in the first place.
- [53:23]
David Iannetti
So. Nothing.
- [53:24]
Karen Reid
Nothing. He did lose five vacation days as well.
- [53:27]
David Iannetti
Huh.
- [53:27]
Karen Reid
I know.
- [53:28]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [53:29]
Karen Reid
Brian Tully has been transferred to a different department again. Could easily be transferred back. They made it sound like it was a big deal. It doesn't sound like it's a big deal at all. It seems like the only one that has a big deal is Michael Proctor, which he might even get his job back. And, and this guy Shannon Burgess, which we're going to get into in a little bit. He's not even a law enforcement officer.
- [53:48]
David Iannetti
Okay, what does purple mean again?
- [53:50]
Karen Reid
Purple just means important but not like.
- [53:53]
David Iannetti
Okay, got it.
- [53:54]
Karen Reid
Yes. Now Fanning claims that he never saw those group chat messages of the no nudes yet. And to be fair, there is no proof that he ever responded. But it's still. It's still. There's no proof that we know of. However, there is another strange incident during Karen Reid's trial. The defense, they know of Fanning. They know of his connection to Sandra Birchmore's case. They know of his connection to Trooper Proctor's text messages. They know. They don't like Fanning. Clearly. And Fanning, just like Trooper Proctor, should have no connection with how this trial proceeds forward. Just as how Boukenic, who is also part of the group chats. He was in the group chats. He is a witness. But he should not be touching this trial. He should not be facilitating anything in this trial. Right. Because that would be crazy. There is a strange incident during Karen Reid's trial where a juror, a juror is dismissed. And according to a netizen comment who worded it as simply as possible because it gets a little convoluted. An anonymous person is outside and they hear a juror talking about the case. How do they know it's a juror? I don't know. Maybe the juror said, I'm a juror on the Karen Reed case. I have no clue. But an anonymous person is like, I heard a juror talking about the case. I'm gonna go report it to this random person, John Fanning, a trooper. Am I gonna report it to Adam Lally? Am I gonna report it to Auntie Bev? No, I'm gonna report it to this random trooper, John Fanning. Well, Lieutenant John Fanning. Who then is going to tell a court officer? Then that court officer is going to go tell Auntie. Bet. Who's going to question the juror? The juror is going to deny the accusation and say, I never. What are you talking about? But the juror is ultimately dismissed.
- [55:39]
David Iannetti
Shady, huh?
- [55:40]
Karen Reid
Why would an anonymous person, we don't know who they are, report it to Lt. Fanning of the Massachusetts State Police? They don't report it to Michael Morrissey's office. They don't report it to Auntie Bev. They don't report it to a court officer. They don't report it to Adam Lally. Why wouldn't they just go straight to a court officer themselves? The defense has asked the court to get more information from John Fanning about this whole incident, but that is denied by Auntie Bev. Attorney Jackson actually pops off on Auntie Bev saying, we were told that he was the commander of the extensive security operations in this case. It's reasonable to conclude from that statement that Fanning was either directly in charge of or in charge of the jurors, which the court is now telling me he wasn't. We reasonably concluded that. This doesn't make any sense. Sense? He's saying it doesn't make sense. Okay. We were never allowed the opportunity to find out exactly what his role was because the court refused our request at the time. Here's what we know about Lt. Fanning. He's among the troopers that one of Michael Proctor supervisors that was included in the text chain when Trooper Proctor said he was going through my client's phone looking for Nudes he's the source to whom something was reported about juror misconduct. And when you couple those two things together, it's unreasonable to conclude that he was at least, you know, within the orbit of security operations governing the jurors. Like, what does he have to do with the jurors?
- [56:57]
David Iannetti
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's weird. It's like, even when the Diddy case you guys are doing.
- [57:01]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [57:01]
David Iannetti
If there's something suspicious or something like that, you report it to the court. You report directly to the authority, not to a state police. What?
- [57:10]
Karen Reid
It's very weird.
- [57:12]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [57:13]
Karen Reid
Very weird. I mean, if you ask John Fanning if Auntie Bev was like, okay, attorneys asked John Fanning, and he's like, yeah, it was my neighbor. And they didn't know who else to tell. And they were just telling me because they thought it was weird, but they didn't know the rules. Even that would be weird because of his position in all of this. And the juror denied it. I feel like it would still require further investigation, especially on the defense part. But the fact that Auntie Bev won't even allow the questioning is bizarre. Bizarre is bizarre. And the defense says there was no evidence presented at the time. As the court knows, there was no declaration, there was no report. There was no supporting documentation whatsoever over the defense's objection. That is, you know, very. Also, this juror is potentially defense friendly.
- [57:56]
David Iannetti
Right, Right.
- [57:57]
Karen Reid
Seems to show a lot of likeness for the defense team during the trial. To which Auntie Bev is like, well, he doesn't have any charge over the juror, so move on. That's all she says. Jackson asked for approve, and she says, we're gonna move on. And it's so bizarre that a lot of the comments read she has already decided beforehand that she was gonna interrupt him and say, moving on. Every time she has no answer, she shuts attorney Jackson down and says, let's move on. Let's move on. What about the issue at hand? What do you mean, let's move on? Which, at the very least, this guy just does not deserve to have a job, in my opinion, John Fanning, let alone in police work. But it's just suspicious that in both cases that Fanning is involved when that the state troopers report, there's nothing weird about this case at all. Side note, that's another thing that the feds pointed out was crazy, is that a lot of Sandra Birchmore's family have come forward to say, hey, we did find something suspicious at her house. So after the police cleared out of her Apartment. We had to go clean her apartment. And we found her favorite necklace, her prized necklace, which is this necklace with a chain and a pink flamingo. It was on the ground with clumps of hair. Why would it be on the ground with clumps of hair? They're telling the authorities. I'm telling you, this is weird, right? The feds look at the crime scene photos, which obviously have not been released for obvious reasons, but they say what's even more alarming is that that necklace was not on the ground. That necklace was on Sandra Birchmore's body in the crime scene photos. It was broken and it was hanging, dangling off of her neck with clumps of hair. Hair. Do any of these people put that in their reports? No. You know what they put in their reports? Quote, trash and clumps of cat fur on the carpet, indicating that it had not been cleaned or vacuumed in some time.
- [59:39]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [59:40]
Karen Reid
When the troopers later are asked about the security footage where you can clearly see Matthew Farwell. I mean, he's a tall guy as well. He's got a very specific build. It's him. His car rolled up to the apart. It's him. They are very cautious with their way wording, stating the man is a male believed to be Matthew Farwell. One of the state officers working this case used to be a former Stoughton police officer, which Matthew Farwell is a Stanton officer. Yuri Buchanak had spent a lot of time in Staunton. I believe he lived there at one point. So there's a lot of connections with these small towns. Do they mean anything? Do they not mean anything? I don't think any single person online would be putting these weird dots together, being like, oh, they all lived in the same town as something nefarious. Except for the fact that they are all conducting themselves like weird villains.
- [60:32]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [60:32]
Karen Reid
But following Sandra Birchmore's death, it seems maybe the only police department that maybe a little bit did something. Well, I don't even want to give them that much praise, but the Stoughton police, they did place far. Well, firmly on administratively. Very quickly. I think Stoughton PD does have a female police chief, like one of the first female police chiefs. Some netizens were saying, well, maybe it's that. Some are saying, well, no, she still sucked. It really depends. But at the time, apparently Farwell went to a bar with a local co worker. He goes to this local bar with a co worker. I mean, and during that meeting, he tells the co worker that he did have intimate relations with Sandra Birchmore. However. However, at no point during that conversation did he express any grief, sadness or remorse about her passing. In fact, he told that person that he was very angry with the MSP for looking into him. He also participated in a joke at one point. I don't know why there's a joke to begin with about the fact that she was found on a closet door. I guess a bunch of officers were laughing at it.
- [61:35]
David Iannetti
He was telling a buddy, yeah, another.
- [61:37]
Karen Reid
Place, he was like, yeah, I mean, I did have intimate relations with her. And he expressed no grief that she passed. And then he was like, but I'm just kind of pissed off that these troopers are looking into me.
- [61:46]
David Iannetti
And the buddy reported this.
- [61:48]
Karen Reid
Yes. And yet Fanning and the troopers find zero evidence that could point to Sandra Birchmore's death as being anything but a self exit. Meanwhile, the feds say, I mean, this is literally crazy. It's right there. Not only is it Matthew Farwell, it's his twin brother, also a police officer, and their supervisor, Robert Devine. And all three of them have been involved in her life since she was a young teenager and exploited her for nearly a decade. The investigator for the feds who combed through a portion of the messages says he says he wanted to wash his eyes out with holy water after seeing some of those messages.
- [62:22]
David Iannetti
What happened to his twin brother and his supervisor?
- [62:26]
Karen Reid
I think they're all put on leave, but I don't know if they've been arrested yet. The state troop was jumpers. They never caught that. Why would they? Usually there is a synergy in the courtroom that opposing counsel have. And typically you would hope that the judge at least appears to be a neutral force in the courtroom, which is why we called Father Judge Arun Father Arun because it was like a dad and his kids all fighting each other and arguing. And then he's like, okay, kids, calm down. And I use that term specifically because he never shows showed favoritism, which is a very important deal. Even if you are biased against or for the defendant, you need a judge that does not show favoritism to one side or the other because that could cause appellate issues, that could cause justice issues. It's a big problem. We have no clue what's going on with the three groups of people if they actually like each other. But usually there is this synergy that's supposed to be preserved. People think that's not happening in this case. That is not happening in this case. Have you heard the true story of the 17 kids that unexpectedly disappeared at exactly 2:17am I heard that they all got out of bed at the same exact time, ran outside and never came back. On August 8th, uncover the truth from Zach Kreger, the director of Barbarian and the studio that brought you it. And the con comes a new horror thriller so twisted you'll have to experience it to believe it. Weapons Only in theaters and in IMAX Aug 8. Rated R. Under 17 not admitted without a parent. This show is sponsored by Liquid iv. My family and I have been obsessed with pickleball and we have had a family and friends tournament. We've had one already. We're gonna have another one when we get back home after this trial. And the hot weather, the humidity does not make it better. Which is where Liquid IV comes in with three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink. Just one stick and 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. It is my secret weapon for staying sharp and energized through multiple matches. But also, if you see what I bring to the courthouse every day, there's a Liquid IV in there. Here's how it works. Their live hydro science is an optimized ratio of electrolytes, essential vitamins and clinically tested nutrients that turn ordinary water into extreme, extraordinary hydration. Liquid IV is non gmo, vegan, gluten free, dairy free and soy free. Browse all their best selling hydration multiplier flavors online. No matter what your summer brings, tear poor live more. Go to liquidiv.com and get 20 off your first order with code ROTTEN at checkout. That's 20 off your first order with code rotten@liquid I.com Summer always brings that familiar urge to refresh your closet. It feels like a new season with new possibilities, but it is easy to get caught up buying pieces that you only reach for like once or twice because they lose their appeal. That's where Quince comes in. Instead of chasing trends, they focus on creating clothes that feel luxurious. And they look so elevated, all while offering quality that goes way beyond what you would expect for the price. Their pieces feel luxurious without the premium price tag, and they're designed to work across seasons rather than following these fleeting trends. Take their European linen tops starting at $30, the kind that just gets better with age. Or their washable silk dresses that transition easily from day to evening. The cotton sweaters are actually perfect for summer nights. Like you just need a simple layer. It's the best. And you guys know that I love quint. And they recently released these washable silk palazzo pants. I mean they hang at your waist and then they have these extra wide legs are so flowy and loose and I just have a, I have a thing with pants that hug in weird spots. And also sometimes during the summer I don't want to wear shorts and think about showing my legs. These silk palazzo pants are breathable. They're so versatile and you just look so put together. The best part is that you don't have to dry clean them every time. You can just throw them in your normal laundry. Give your summer closet an upgrade with quint. Go to quint.com rotten for free shipping on your order and 365 day return. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com rotten to get free shipping on your order and 365 Day returns. Quince.com rotten there is one viral moment where Karen Reid, she is sitting at the defendant table and it's gone viral. She's sitting there. Alan Jackson is passionately disagreeing with the judge about the verdict. Verdict slipped arguably the most important piece of paper during the entire trial, the piece of paper that the jurors take back to the jury room to determine the fate of Karen Reid's, I don't know, entire life, he says. The fact that there is no box to check not guilty for lesser charges, or really most of the charges is absurd. Auntie Bev is saying, well, it's always been done that way. If they find her not guilty, they just don't check the guilty box. And he's like, that's crazy. Yeah, you don't think that's crazy? That is weird and she's just not hearing it anymore. And perhaps Karen Reid smirks at the fact that her life is on the line on this singular sheet of probably an A5 piece of paper and she can't even decide what goes on there. Or maybe it's the fact that Auntie Bev clearly made up her mind prior to all of this because she's fighting with Alan Jackson. And then eventually she's like, we've always done it like this. David Yannetti. Betty, who's a local attorney, is like, well, I've never seen it like that. And then she's like, well, I don't care. She just does not care.
- [67:59]
David Iannetti
She's like, you say I don't care.
- [68:01]
Karen Reid
Basically, she's like, well, I disagree. Or maybe it's the fact that Auntie Bev already made up her mind, or I don't know what it is, but also she's on trial for murder that she, I mean, in my opinion, and Also legally did not commit. Karen Reid smirks, smiles, and Auntie Bev's head snaps in her direction. This is funny, Ms. Reed. The courtroom goes silent. So we're done here. And with that, Auntie Bev storms out.
- [68:29]
David Iannetti
What?
- [68:29]
Karen Reid
In an interview, Karen says that at one point she just wanted to ask Auntie Bev, the judge, is this a game? Is this a game to you? Because she's like, my life is on the line. Like, is this a game? Auntie Bev also has a very unique way of running her courtroom. She likes to sit right next to the witch witness in a black office chair, and she will just swing side to side from her office chair like she's testing them out at Staples. She looks like she's in a meeting about what people want to do with the communal restroom towelettes, if they want to switch them to a different brand, or if they want to stay with Georgia Pacific. That's the vibe she gives me in the middle of a witness testimony. Her mic is on. It does not relay directly into the courtroom, but all the live streams can hear it. And. And it's just, okay, Mystery And Eddie, okay, Mr. Jackson. And it's just. I mean, I don't know what it is. Also, another thing is Father Arun was very quick with any objections during examinations. If he overrules the objection. Just a quick overruled. It's overruled. It's overruled. Or a soft sustained, which is rephrase the question, rephrase the question, or affirm, sustained. That was it. Those were, like, the three, maybe four, if he didn't know the ground. So he would ask grounds, and then they would tell them the grounds. Auntie Bev, this is the new catchphrase out there, which is, I'll allow it. I'll allow it. Instead of overruled, it's I'll allow it. That's her version of overruled. And now everyone online has made a meme out of her. They said, I'll allow it. How long till I'll allow you it? Okay. Which kind of sounds mean because she's technically just doing her job as a judge. But that's not what it feels like to netizens. It feels like this judge just does not like the defense at all. Not nearly as much as she likes the prosecution. It feels like she doesn't like them even a tiny crumble. Some netizens have noticed that the timing of her sighs are consistent with when the witnesses are caught in their own lies and the defense team goes down a list of questions that's going to rip them up more. She's just sighing when the defense has really good points. One netizen comments There she goes, sighing again. Bev, sign yet again. The judge is so biased. She's always signed when the defense is doing a cross. Oh Bev, your bias is showing again. Sometimes she'll sustain objections and not let the defense question witnesses on what netizens believe to be their right to a rigorous cross examination to which a lot of legal experts online have even said I don't understand why she's sustaining those freaking objections. It doesn't even make sense. I mean it's probably causing a lot of appellate issues later on. For example, when Carrie Roberts is caught in what can really only be defined as a lie about stating previously that she heard with her ears, heard Karen Reid ask Jen to Google how long to die in the cold or well, hypothermia. And now she's saying I misunderstood the question that was asked to me. I actually never heard her ask Jen McCabe that. Jackson is like, so you like Auntie Bev steps in and asks Carrie, was that a lie? Did you lie? Not intentionally. And Jackson is like, but you did not intentionally. Okay. And that's the end of that question. Alright, is there any other question, Jackson, or is that it? To which a comment reads why does the judge keep saving these goddamn witnesses? The lady lied. If you're a judge, you should want the truth from the witnesses. During Brian Higgins testimony, when does in comments the fact that the judge prevented questions regarding him destroying his phone is corrupt? She was very careful about which questions she sustained and a lot of them about him, I don't know, destroying his phone and throwing it away at a military base. A lot of them were sustained. Questions would be asked and he wouldn't have to answer to them. Or there are other netizens that pick up small things such as one netizen comment reads judge didn't interrupt the prosecutors once during the direct. Let's see how often they interrupt the defense. Some netizens think think it's less of that and more of she just looks so over it. I mean sure, someone's life is lost and another one's life is on the line, but quote, she's like the kid waiting for 4pm to hit to throw everyone out of the courtroom. The way that when the work day is over, this lady is done. This lady is gone. She's over it not a second more.
- [72:35]
David Iannetti
Is it kind of crazy going straight from father of room's courthouse to this case.
- [72:41]
Karen Reid
Yeah. And I. I mean, I don't know, because federal. Federal trials are not publicized as much, but from what we could hear from a lot of the court officers, Judge Arun is actually a little bit more of the patient ones. Federal courthouse judges are incredibly firm. They're sharp. They're crazy, in a better word. And it seems like there is a difference between state judges and federal judges. The way that. That Judge Arun, Father Arun would run circles on this woman, eat her for breakfast, lunch, and dinner without even lifting a single hair on his head or having a single bead of sweat on his glasses is kind of crazy. And to know that they all oversee cases is a little intense and terrifying, especially this one. I'm sure there's a lot of incredible state judges, but Auntie Bev just. Just, in my opinion, is not one of them. There's another particular moment that the Internet has lost their minds over. It's when the defense is questioning a witness. Auntie Bev awkwardly reaches up towards her face and itches the side of her cheek. And after a little while, the prosecution objects to the line of questioning. Auntie Bev quickly gives a big smile and says, okay, I'll see the attorneys at the sidebar. People think that's a sign that she had for the prosecution. That's how biased people believe her to be, and that's how crazy they think this trial is. And it is weird. It is suspicious. It appears the only time the majority of netizens have agreed with Auntie Bev is Crash Daddy right here.
- [74:18]
David Iannetti
Crash Daddy.
- [74:19]
Karen Reid
That's what netizens call him. He's a crash expert witness for the defense. He actually worked for the FBI, but the jurors were not allowed to know that they were hired. ARCA is the company that. That he works for, and we're gonna talk about it in a second. They were hired by the FBI. They concluded that John's injuries were not a result of a car accident. He's the defense expert, and people call him Crash Daddy because out of. Well, just look at all these people. He is conventionally very attractive. He's very sharp. He's very smart. Intelligent. And he does not seem to hold a bias one way or the other, even though he is testifying as a defense witness. He's also very intelligent in the sense that. That he does not get triggered on the stand when the prosecutors come at him for all sorts of gnarly things. And he's got dimples. So a lot of people have called him Crash Daddy, and they have a crush on him. Now, there is this moment where he walks in to be sworn in, and Auntie Bev, she's sitting in her swivel chair. She's swiveling, and she is eating this man alive with her eyes.
- [75:19]
David Iannetti
No way.
- [75:20]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [75:21]
David Iannetti
No way.
- [75:22]
Karen Reid
And the comments read, the only time Auntie Bev and I have been on the same page this entire journey. Another comment reads, I'll allow it. Another comment reads, she got no eye contact, but she was chasing it. It seems like she was into him. In fact, the prosecutors fought really hard to make sure this man does not hit the stand because his juror appeal is pretty high. Like I said, he does not seem to hold a strong bias. He's very competent. He knows what he's talking about. And a lot of people say he's easy on the eyes. I wouldn't know. I'm married. But the prosecutor really did not want him on the stand. Auntie Bev allowed it. She'll allow it. And people think there's only one reason she allowed it. Yeah.
- [76:03]
David Iannetti
I mean, that is pretty crazy, though. Someone that credible to say that it wasn't a car crash.
- [76:08]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [76:09]
David Iannetti
Then what? What else are we arguing here?
- [76:11]
Karen Reid
It's not even just him. It's also Honorable Crash Daddy, Dr. Rent. He's also part of ARCA. People love him as well.
- [76:19]
David Iannetti
So they brought multiple. Multiple experts.
- [76:20]
Karen Reid
Two of the experts. Yes.
- [76:22]
David Iannetti
And they all say it's not a car.
- [76:24]
Karen Reid
Yes, but the. The prosecutors bring their own experts.
- [76:29]
David Iannetti
Oh, yeah.
- [76:29]
Karen Reid
You're gonna have a field day. One that is in comment reads, I understand why people suspect Auntie Bev is corrupt, but I find it difficult to accept it. Only because she's known that the feds are investigating this case. I feel like she simply has too much to lose by doing anything illegal to support the DA in the McAfee Alberts. But at the same time, the netizen feels like if she truly has no undisclosed hidden secret conflict of interest, it just would be weird. Her conduct is unexplainable. It's just weird when you factor in that she used to be a criminal defense attorney along with her brother and her dad. So why the favoritism for the DA who's brought murder charges based on what is at best the shabbiest car crash investigation since the invention of the internal combustion? And it just doesn't make sense. Does she just want to see Karen Reid railroaded out of sheer spite? Could she hate Alan Jackson that much? For no apparent reason? Is she somehow unaware that Reid is likely innocent of the homicide Charges. I just don't get it. To which another netizen comments. I think her and the DA's office, Michael Morrissey, which by the way her mom, Auntie Bev's mom and Michael Morrissey's family have history. We don't know how deep that history but they work together re briefly they comment I think her and the DA's office have an understanding for a long time that they can force the outcome that they wanted in previous cases which is pro prosecution because it's the DA's office. Kind of like we run the hen house if you will never get questioned, never had to answer for anything and basically just did things their way. Which I believe was the slam dunk plan in this case as well. Until it wasn't. Now I think it's just an attempt to save face and try to act like everything is still the status quo and avoid backing down so as to not look like like you're admitting to some prior shenanigans. There have been other connections made in this case of I mean not the strongest ones but kind of which is there are Messages between Sean McCabe, this is Matt McCabe's brother. Matt McCabe is Jen McCabe's husband. Matt McCabe's brother had reached out to Turtle Boy who is an investigative reporter and influencer that had has been honestly breaking this case from the get go. I do think that a lot of people have strong feelings either for or against Turtle Boy. I think he's a very divisive his.
- [78:43]
David Iannetti
Name is Turtle Boy.
- [78:44]
Karen Reid
That's his online content creator name. Aiden Kearney is his I don't know if it's his government name but that's his name. But I think he's a polarizing character and sometimes that works. Being an Internet personality, he is is very passionate in what he believes in and some people think that that passion can go 2 degrees too far. And I think it really depends on where you draw the line of what do you call witness intimidation. If you go to Jen McCabe's kids lacrosse games to go confront Jen McCabe while live streaming and shoving a camera in her face and saying why you do you google how long to die in the cold? Some people say slay, some people say that feels like witness intimidation. So it really depends. There are other things that people have called into question about how he's went about reporting on this case. All I know really is that he was one of the first people to break the case. I think without. I think that's the hard part is he was One of the first people to even get attention on this case. Nobody really cared about this case much. Everyone was like, oh, she killed her cop boyfriend. Okay, moving on.
- [79:55]
David Iannetti
I see.
- [79:55]
Karen Reid
And then he was like, no, I think something's weird. Did he get too passionate? I guess that's subjective. I guess that's up for you to decide. But Sean McCabe reaches out to Turtle Boy, Jen McCabe's brother in law, and there are messages between Shaun McCabe and Turtle Boy, which side note, I will say some of the discourse surrounding Turtle Boy, I do think some of it is warranted. The other parts I don't think are warranted is a lot of people. People give him a lot of flack for reaching out to people that might be involved in this case, including Sean McCabe. And they. They kind of yell at him for doing it, which I think is weird, because a lot of the mainstream reporters are not doing it, and he's doing it. And just because he doesn't work for this big legacy media outlet doesn't mean that he is not as committed to finding out the truth as any of these big major networks are.
- [80:45]
David Iannetti
I think this. This case is especially frustrating because who do you even trust? There's nobody you can trust?
- [80:51]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [80:51]
David Iannetti
Nobody to call. Everyone's, like, working on the same team.
- [80:54]
Karen Reid
But I think where people thought he took it too far was he would do these roll calls where he would drive through everyone that was involved in front of their houses and use a bullhorn, and people would consider that doxing. Some people thought that there were children involved that, I mean, not children, AKA Colin Albert, but other children involved that may not have really been involved that are now being put in the crosshairs for this. But other people say that, well, it's their parents fault. It's really where you draw the line. Sean McCabe and Turtle Boy have a conversation where Turtle Boy asks, Sean, do you really have a line to Judge Kenoni, which is auntie Bev? Sean McCabe responds, Auntie Bev. This is where her nickname comes from. Because everyone was like, judge Kanoni, Beverly Kanoni. And then he's like, auntie Bev, Auntie Bev, Bev. It's like a nickname, I guess, like.
- [81:41]
David Iannetti
They know her personally.
- [81:43]
Karen Reid
He's like, auntie Bev, whose seaside cottage do you think we're gonna bury your corpse under? He's asking Turtle Boy. Side note, Auntie Bev does indeed have a seaside cottage that nobody knew about because you're not supposed to know where judges lived. The defense team blows up the messages on a giant poster board, which Auntie Bev hates when they do shit like this. But I kind of think it's great for visual impact and is slightly a comedic effect if this case were anything other than what this case is about. But Auntie Bev has to stare straight into those messages and there's no missing it. Jackson asks, you know, I'm getting old. I may have appeared before thousands of judges in my nearly 30 year career. I've never known where a single one of them has ever lived or property that they may or may not have owned. But Sean McCabe appears to know, or appears to intimate that he knows the details of. Of this court's personal life and so does his family, which these messages are presented in court. And Adam Lally. Adam Lally is like, wait, hold on. First of all, these messages are between two individuals that, quote, literally have nothing to do with this case. They are divorced from the context in which this communication arises. He's saying whatever they're saying about Auntie Bev has nothing to do with Auntie Bev or really anything because we exist in a vacuum. Or as Gallagher would say, a leaf blower. Accompanying that, though, is a 2022 Venmo payment. Payment from Julie Nagel, who was at the house, remember?
- [83:05]
David Iannetti
Accompany what?
- [83:06]
Karen Reid
I'm sorry, the Message from Sean McCabe. Another blown up poster board is a Venmo payment from Julie Nagle, which was Brian Albert birthday, Brian's friend who was there that night and she testified, oh, yes, I did see a black blob outside of 34 Fairview when I was leaving.
- [83:23]
David Iannetti
I did see a black blob.
- [83:24]
Karen Reid
Yes, but she's like all up in the McAlberts family. Like she loves them, would probably do a lot for them. She sends a Venmo payment and it was like Auntie Bev's cottage or something. It was like Bev's cottage, Beverly's cottage.
- [83:39]
David Iannetti
What? Like what? At what time? What year was that?
- [83:41]
Karen Reid
2022. So later in the year. So it seems like they're still familiar with Auntie Bev. But Auntie Bev is like, first of all, that's not how I spell my name. And I've never rented out my Cape Cod cottage. But people are like, well, it didn't have to be that you were renting it out. They could have stayed there without paying, could have been invited there and maybe they bought something and she was paying them back for that trip. Clearly, these conversations just don't help put faith in the justice system. Which is precisely why Alan Jackson, the defense attorney for Karen Reed, is asking for the judge, Auntie Bev, to recuse herself. He makes it very clear he's not accusing her or even insinuating that she cannot be fair and impartial. He just says, says only the court knows the answer to this question. But the facts we presented unquestionably are such that the public might, and that's the key word the public might doubt in the court's fairness in some regard. And that's all that's required for this court to do the right thing and step aside from this case. Jackson also points out that Auntie Bev has this strange tendency, which he calls a routine practice, of failing to act on defense motions in a timely manner. Auntie Bev says, let me take a second to think about it. And she takes 15 minutes, comes back to the bench, and she says, I've never socialized with McCabe or any family members or witnesses who have been here in court. I reject the notion that untrue and unsubstantiated rumors spread on the Internet can force a judge to recuse herself in my case. And that doesn't underscore the fact that anybody can say or write anything and try to make it on the basis of a motion to recuse. And I think it points out that this motion to recuse is not credible. Immediately afterwards, the prosecution request that the defense attorneys be placed under a gag order. Lally states he wants the defense attorneys to be prohibited by addressing the merits of the case within the media or using the media as a propagandist to advance its theory of its case. To which David Iannetti passionately stands up and he starts explaining, the prosecutors were quite happy with the press this case was getting when it was in their favor and their minions were out doing their work with the media. We did not create this media circus, and the prosecution did. Does the prosecution think that if they stuff a gag in the mouths of Karen Reid's attorneys that these good reporters behind me are simply going to go away? Do they think the general public's just going to go away if you gag us, Your Honor, the extrajudicial conversation will not end. If anything, it will only intensify. The gag order is not issued, but the whole thing is just leaving a bad taste in people's mouths, primarily because Auntie Bev isn't even supposed to be on this case anymore. She was supposed to rotate. So after the first trial, she's supposed to rotate to civil cases. That's kind of how it works. In the state courts in Massachusetts. And she was supposed to go on that rotation, but instead of rotating like it's normally done, she has decided to extend her rotation to stay on this case that she's not getting favorable coverage on. She's not getting fame or attention or even money. On the contrary. Here. So why won't she recuse herself or just pass it on to the next person? Why does she want to take on this case so bad? Badly. The only connection netizens could find that were affirmative were. Well, 30 years ago, Chris Albert killed a man.
- [86:49]
David Iannetti
30 years ago?
- [86:50]
Karen Reid
Yes. Chris Albert was driving when he rammed into the back of a man in a car named Peter Berger. He rammed into Peter's car so hard that Peter's car spun off the roadway, hit a stone ledge, killing Peter, who was a Hungarian foreign exchange student. Chris Albert does not stop to help. He does not stop to call 91 1. He keeps driving. Which side note, people think it's actually rich that they have such strong opinions about Karen Reed. Even if she did hit John o' Keefe with her car. I don't know if you're the one to be right throwing looks her way. He does not stop driving. He does not stop to call 91 1. He keeps driving. Which triggers a 30 hour police manhunt before he is finally arrested and sentenced to six months in prison. Meanwhile, Peter's mother wrote a letter to the court saying, I feel numb. This is a loss that will reflect the rest of my life. My husband has lost his will to live.
- [87:42]
David Iannetti
Wait, how is that only six months?
- [87:44]
Karen Reid
Well, some say that he just had a spectacular attorney to get him off that lightly. Who's his attorney? His attorney is John Prescott Jr. Who is Auntie Bev's brother. Prior to Auntie Bev getting married, she was Beverly Prescott. And some people argue, well, that was 30 years ago. And it's her brother. And they take on all sorts of cases. Are you friends with all of your clients? I don't know, but it seems like everybody's friends with the Alberts. But maybe it's just all a coincidence. I will say the orbit of McAlbert has one too many bad drivers. So you have Chris Albert, who killed a man in a hit and run. You have Tim Albert, who hit a parked car and fled the scene, leaving a trail of transmission fluid straight to 34 Fairview. He was not charged or even interviewed at Canton PD he just got a misdemeanor for it. So there's that. There are rumors that Tristan Morris, Caitlin Albert's boyfriend was also involved in a hit and run, though that has not been confirmed. Helena Rafferty is the new police chief after Chief Berkowitz. She resigned recently. Well, sorry, retired. She retired recently because a lot of scandal has been occurring over the fact that she hit an elderly man with her car, an elderly man who was wearing a reflective vest.
- [88:59]
David Iannetti
Is that confirmed or.
- [89:00]
Karen Reid
Yes, she hit him with her car.
- [89:02]
David Iannetti
While she is the chief.
- [89:03]
Karen Reid
Yeah, well, I don't think it was when she was the chief, but she hit him with her car. And then you have Paul o', Keefe, the brother of John o' Keefe. And normally I don't really like to bring details like this into the orbit of the case. I will say that a lot of netizens have deeper feelings for the o' Keeffe family than I would suspect most would in typical cases where a victim's family is involved. I think maybe it has to do with the fact that they have since shared a lot of strong words against Karen Reid. I don't think that's really reason to hate them or dislike them to any extent. But there is the mention that Paul o' Keefe got into an accident whilst driving on the influence. And it is believed that Karen Reid helped pay for Paul's attorney fees and bail, helped him out of jail when that happened to him. So there's just a lot an overwhelming amount of bad driving incidents in this town, many of which, most of which could have been entirely avoidable. Now, one of the biggest questions throughout this case has been if it's so obvious to netizens, why isn't it obvious to the o' Keeffes that something is amiss here, that they're going after the wrong person to get justice for their John o'. Keeffe o'. Keefe. Side note, Karen will later say that she believes that it just hurt Peggy o', Keefe, which is John's mom. It seems like if anybody's the most involved, it's Peggy o', Keefe, which is John's mom, and Paul o', Keefe, which is John's brother. John's dad seems to have taken a little bit of the back seat to this. And Karen says John's dad and I got along really well. It was actually the biggest betrayal that John's dad didn't believe her. Some netting netizens speculate, and this is just speculation that maybe John's dad is like, well, maybe I do kind of believe her. But I'm not going to go against the family when all this is Happening. I'm just going to support my wife and my kids. Nobody really knows. But as to why Peggy o' Keefe might not have liked Karen Reed even from the get go, before John even passed, she says she just was hurt by seeing another woman raise her daughter's kids. Is Karen Reid's speculation to it. Some speculate that Karen Reid is definitely not the daughter in law that maybe some mother in laws would like. She's very outspoken, she's very intense. She doesn't hold back when she thinks something's weird. So some people think it's that. Others say, well no, I don't think she disliked her. There's no proof that she disliked her before John's death. But she does say Karen Reid does say, so Paul and Pat Peg. John's parents. So Paul and Peg. If you think I killed John, that means you misjudged me for two years and entrusted two young family members in my care. Then in the blink of an eye, you now think I'm a cold blooded killer who took your son away. She thinks it's weird that they automatically thought she had something to do with it. I mean, just questioning everything about her but never questioned why Brian Albert didn't go outside as paramedics try to save John. She thinks it's weird that they don't question the that. As for why they don't, Karen says the only explanation she can think of is it's easier to fool someone than convince them that they've been fooled. Maybe they're in too deep now. Karen says about Paul o', Keefe, he seen during the trial just glaring her down most of the days. And she says about that you can't have no respect for someone and care about what they think. I didn't do anything so you can stare at me and get an ulcer over your hatred towards me. The o' Keefes never carried a pitchfork for me until I started getting support. You didn't speak to any media. Now you're giving interviews. You really just can't stand my rising from the ashes. The only thing that changed is I started to come from a position of power.
- [92:41]
David Iannetti
Fascinating.
- [92:41]
Karen Reid
Paul o' Keefe has done an interview after the first trial in which he says, we know what happened. We know that John and Karen were arguing. It was towards the end of their relationship. They were drinking and arguing and fighting. And in an intoxication, intoxicated state of rage and jealousy, she just decided that she was going to do something about it, put the car in reverse and ran him down. And left him there to die. She's pointing the finger at everybody. Everybody's lying except for her. According to her, and I think we had 68 witnesses testify and according to the defense, they're all lying and they're all not credible. I've gotten to know the Alberts through this all very well and they're all good people. So just because we don't believe in a crazy conspiracy theory and we believe that Karen Reid is guilty of killing my brother, people are taking it out on us. Unfortunately, if you pay high powered attorneys enough and put enough lies out there, you start influencing people to the point where they there's just no turning back. As for Michael Proctor, Paul o' Keefe says, as for Michael Proctor's comments, I mean he even said too they were unprofessional, which we agree with. But this guy's life has been ruined. And this is where a lot of netizens started turning on Paul o', Keefe, which was something that should have never happened happened. He's saying that Michael Proctor's personal phone should have never been searched and now his life is ruined even though those were unprofessional comments. And I think that's where a lot of people started turning on Paul o'. Keefe. As for the mistrial, Paul o' Keefe says, I guess we were obviously hoping and confident that we were going to get the conviction that we were looking for. So as far as a mistrial, yes, it's something we didn't want, obviously, but it's just a bump on the road and like I said, we'll do it again. Again, we'll do it as many times as we'll have to. I just want people to remember John and want him to get the justice he deserves and that we deserve. And that is Karen Reid going to prison. There are so many uncomfortable things about the first trial, like the fact that during the trial, according to two jurors that have come out afterwards, one of the jurors who happened to be a retired police officer, told the other jurors, I too had been hit by a car. Once they chose him as the foreperson. The juror in charge, a retired police officer who had been hit by a car, which is already kind of, I don't even know how he ended up on the jury. And if he told everybody that he had been hit by a car too, I don't know how he wasn't dismissed, which is all very weird also at the very last moment. So the way that this worked in this trial is that the alternates are chosen at the very last minute. It's like a luck of the draw numbers game.
- [95:04]
David Iannetti
So basically they have how many? 18 people.
- [95:07]
Karen Reid
Yeah, well, people get dismissed throughout, Right?
- [95:10]
David Iannetti
So they have a bunch of jurors and you don't know who's the final 12.
- [95:13]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [95:14]
David Iannetti
They will pick it at the very end.
- [95:15]
Karen Reid
Yes. Now it's random. And all the defense. Defense friendly jurors get chosen as alternates. What are the odds? What are the odds of that? It's just. Just weird. It's weird. Then according to multiple jurors, there was confusion in the deliberation room whether or not the jurors could declare a partial verdict. Meaning, hey, can we say not guilty or guilty to some charges and then be hung on other charges? That was a huge thing for the Sean Combs case, for example. It's like if you are hung on the RICO verdict, then everything else has a verdict and he will only have a mistrial on the RICO charge, which is clearly not what happened. But that was the conversation when there was deliberations happening. So that was the conversation between the jurors on this case. They didn't really know what was going on, but they said, we all voted unanimously that Karen was not guilty of second degree murder. We were hung on the other charges, like the manslaughter charge. We just couldn't agree.
- [96:15]
David Iannetti
So the most serious one that they're saying she's not guilty of that one for sure.
- [96:20]
Karen Reid
They expressed that to the judge, or so they thought. And the judge pretty quickly, Auntie Bev and is like, okay, so you guys are deadlocked on the charges. So I'm declaring a mistrial, which means she's going to get retried for all the charges, including second degree murder. The defense didn't know this until after the mistrial is declared. A few of the jurors called the defense themselves and said something weird happened.
- [96:43]
David Iannetti
That's crazy. Okay, to clarify, basically she got charged a bunch different charges.
- [96:49]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [96:50]
David Iannetti
The most serious one is second degree murder. And the jurors say, no, she's not guilty on that one.
- [96:55]
Karen Reid
Unanimously.
- [96:56]
David Iannetti
Right.
- [96:57]
Karen Reid
The rest we're fighting.
- [97:00]
David Iannetti
So the right thing to do is remove that for the next trial.
- [97:04]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [97:04]
David Iannetti
So just re try her for all.
- [97:06]
Karen Reid
The other charges, manslaughter, things of that nature.
- [97:09]
David Iannetti
But instead they did the whole thing again.
- [97:11]
Karen Reid
Yes. Which the defense have tried to take to the superior courts as double jeopardy, which means you cannot be charged for the same crime. Crime twice.
- [97:18]
David Iannetti
Yes.
- [97:19]
Karen Reid
And they said to prove that, we need to bring the jurors in and make sure that they unanimously voted because that's what the jurors like five jurors have come out to us and said, that's what they said. So we need to bring in all 12 jurors and make sure. And the judge was like, I'm not doing that. That's crazy. I'm not doing that. Which has caused a mistrial. That is why we have a second trial in this case. And the court presence, I mean, even during the first trial, when was intense, it people, I guess, in a dark humor sense, called it like a gender reveal party. Outside the courthouse, you have a sea of people wearing pink in support of Karen Reed and blue, obviously, for blue for cops, in support of justice for John o', Keefe, which Karen Reed has expressed her confusion because justice for John o' Keefe is not exclusive with supporting Karen Reed. She believes that she is also fighting for justice for John o' Keefe because he's not going to get justice unless whoever killed him is discovered. And she's like, that's not me. So you're not getting justice by putting me in jail. I don't understand. Others are saying, no, you did it, so you need to go to jail. And there has just been lots of people. People are outside the courthouse eight hours a day wearing T shirts, holding signs, and they will live stream it outside the courthouse, put it on speakers, and they sit there with lawn chairs. They'll bring snacks, coolers. It's almost become a thing in Boston, Massachusetts, where you don't bring up Karen Reid's name at the dinner table because it's that divisive. Parents and children have stopped talking to each other. Friend groups have dissipated. They said it's worse than talking about politics, and Paul o' Keefe hates that. He says, unlike most people accused for murder and sued for wrongful death, Karen Reid has embraced her celebrity in outsized ways. This intensive media campaign to influence potential jurors compounds the o' Keeffe's family's terrible loss while delaying and denying her accountability, to which Karen Reid fights back. Anyone in my position who has been falsely accused would be shouting from the rooftops, first of all, I don't want to be here. It can be the John o' Keefe show. It can be the o' Keefe family reunion. But if you think for a second that anyone has fought harder to find the truth about what happened to John and to enlighten everyone about what happened to John harder than me, then you're wrong. Witnesses have Expressed being terrified, the McAlberts included. They say they're being harassed, they're being followed by influencers. That's what they call everyone to lacrosse games to be questioned on whether or not they googled how long to die. They're talking about Turtle Boy. Also, Turtle Boy has been charged for witness intimidation. Now, I do think, regardless of what people think about Turtle Boy, a lot of netizens agree. I don't know if it goes into witness intimidation category. I don't know. Okay. I don't know. Maybe we should do a deep dive. Probably not. It's just there has been so much developing in that sphere. But Brian Tully was the one to lead the investigation into Turtle Boy. I think that's another reason that a lot of netizens are questioning whether or not he should have been charged. Again, even if you think what he did is witness intimidation and witness harassment, the fact that Brian Tully is leading that investigation with such passion and fury that you did not see for the John o' Connor Keefe investigation.
- [100:25]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [100:26]
Karen Reid
Makes netizens feel wary about the situation.
- [100:29]
David Iannetti
Yeah, it's crazy.
- [100:30]
Karen Reid
That's why there's so much nuance to this case. It's like you can dislike Turtle Boy, you can love Turtle Boy, but still disagree or agree with the investigation. There's so many things the prosecutor also states. I mean, there's just so much going on there. It's a lot. Karen Reed says, it's impossible for me to have any sympathy for these witnesses. Definitionally, is it harassing witnesses? Yes, they're witnesses against me and my prosecution. And he is yelling things at them, and he is going up to their front doors and ringing their bell. Yes, but they shouldn't have been witnesses. They should have been suspects. So it's not that cut and dry. So there is that argument as well of like, is it witness intimidation and witness harassment if they're not really witnesses? I mean, they're definitely not good witnesses. I don't know where you draw the line of witnesses, but they're not good witnesses. The Canton police officers have also reported feeling petrified, shaking in their boots. One Canton officer says, no one in this town will care about us until one of us gets murdered. Even then, half the town will probably celebrate that. Canton officers report that the department suffers significant pressure due to the proliferation of misinformation, witness coercion, and a lack of support from elected officials. As per an audit into Canton PD officers report that, quote, certain individuals referred to as influencers are spreading false narratives about officers and involved in the o' Keefe and Birchmore cases without substantiating any evidence. They operate without adhering to journalistic standards or rules of evidence. Don't talk to us about rules of evidence. Leaf blower Gallagher. Solo cup Gallagher. Okay. Rules of evidence gaining notoriety by circulating unfounded narratives in pursuit of fame and viewership. Two things can be true at once, I guess, right? But I don't think Gallagher has any leg to stand on if he's the one saying, saying that if netizens were already not side eyeing Auntie Bev. The day before the second trial is to begin, Auntie Bev decides Karen's team can no longer point to Colin Albert, or anyone for that matter, as their defense. So when you bring your case in Chief to the judge, they have to approve it. You can't just say, I'm going to go in there and I'm going to say whatever I want to say to say that my client is not guilty. You have to say, this is our presentation of how we're going to go about things. This is how we're going to prove it. These are the witnesses that we're going to bring or a list of witnesses that we think we're going to call to the stand. And they're important for these reasons and they help with these different arguments. The day before Auntie Bev is like, you're not doing that anymore. The third party culprit, defense, you're not doing it anymore. The day before the second trial, no reasons. She's just like, there's no proof.
- [102:58]
David Iannetti
So you can't point your finger at.
- [102:59]
Karen Reid
Colin Arbor or really any other third party. So the defense has to switch gears and all they can focus on is corruption of the investigation, which to be fair is not that hard to do. But it's, but it is strange that it happened so quickly. Before the second trial. The prosecutors bring in Hank Brennan. He is a special prosecutor, meaning he's not part of the DA's office. He's not a prosecutor. He's a criminal defense attorney. He's brought in by the DA's office to act as a special prosecutor for this specific case. You do this a lot when you are going into very niche fields. You'll often see it with like, I mean, most really well equipped DA's offices have people that are very well versed in financial crimes. A lot of like federal U.S. attorney's offices have people that are well versed in financial crimes. Crypto. But sometimes like those are the times you would bring in like a special prosecutor when you're like, whoa, we're dealing with something that would take us a long time to even learn about the thing that we're dealing with. Yeah, they bring him or you bring them in when you're going up, up against a very strong team. That's why a lot of people thought that the Diddy case, they should have brought in a special prosecutor to go up against some of these very high powered criminal defense attorneys that have a lot of flair, that have a lot of charisma on their side. They bring in Hank, Hank Brennan. I don't know if he was the one to bring in really. I'm just going to be so real with you. He is a very well known, well, well, well. Was a well respected criminal defense attorney prior to this case. Case.
- [104:32]
David Iannetti
But you got destroyed.
- [104:34]
Karen Reid
Lally sucked. And I say this like I think anyone on the Internet that's like I could have done a better job than these people. I find that to be really bad arguments most of the time. Cuz you don't really know what a prosecutor goes through. I, it's frustrating. Yeah. But sometimes I read comments online and I'm like, I do think you could have done a better job than Lali. I do think so. Because I'm like, I don't know what Lali was doing. But you, you, your comments make sense in my head. Yeah. Lally sucked. Hank Brennan sucks less. But he is so aggressive to the point of just coming off angry and hostile for no reason. Just aggressive. Just so mean. For what? I don't know for what. Why are you being like that? That's the feeling Hank Brennan gives. Yeah. It seems like there are a lot of netizens have psychoanalyzed that he has sour feelings that the defense team, because he's a criminal defense attorney, at the end of the day, defense team, they' a lot of star power, lots of praise and people are making memes and thirst traps of them and he's just Hanky Spanky and he's upset that he's Hanky Spanky. The question ultimately is, is Hank Brennan going to be worth it? Because between November of last year and June of this year, the special prosecutor is getting paid more than $500,000 in legal fees alone from taxpayers. Close to $600,000, $566,000.
- [105:59]
David Iannetti
Half a year.
- [105:59]
Karen Reid
Yes. And that's not even, I mean first of all, the taxpayers don't get a choice. And that's not including all of the different experts that are paid. The other prosecutors, the paralegals, all of the administrative Fees? That's just. Hank Brennan is getting paid nearly $600,000 in half a year. It's crazy. So locals are mad because what about the other families that want justice? DA's offices have budgets at the end of the day that they can spend on cases. Why are they blowing like a third of their budget on this guy case for a retrial that nobody asked for? The defense team also adds new additions to their legal defense team. And if you're wondering how can Karen afford it, she lost her job. She lost her. She sold her house, is paying for it with her house, got rid of her. 401k is paying for that. I mean, she's like $5 million in legal debt, technically. I mean, Jackson and Little alone said for the two trials, typically for any other client, they would have charged like $10 million up upwards. But they are deferring their legal fees. They haven't really gotten paid by Karen Reed. All of the new attorneys have also come in pro bono.
- [107:06]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [107:07]
Karen Reid
That also feels like an indication of how they feel about her innocence. Victoria George is one of the more interesting additions to Karen's legal team. She's an employment lawyer, so people thought that was weird. Why is an employment lawyer getting on this case? Victoria George has very interesting insight to provide for Karen's legal defense team. It's the fact that she was on the jury for the first trial. She became an alternate juror at the end, but she was allowed on the jury because she's an employment lawyer. She has. She didn't know anything about the Karen Reid case.
- [107:45]
David Iannetti
What?
- [107:46]
Karen Reid
She was on the first jury?
- [107:47]
David Iannetti
How does that work?
- [107:49]
Karen Reid
Yeah, she was on the first jury.
- [107:51]
David Iannetti
And then afterwards, she's like, can I be on your team?
- [107:55]
Karen Reid
She called the defense team and had conversations about, hey, I'm telling you, something was weird. And as an attorney, as someone that upholds the legal justice system to a very high degree, I just thought you should know. And there were first jokes about, like, you know, you should be on the. You're still licensed to practice. Right? Because at that point, she wasn't practicing as much. She has children and she was at home taking care of them. And she was like, I mean, I technically, I am still licensed to practice. And they're like, huh? So then eventually, she went on this case pro bono.
- [108:27]
David Iannetti
That is insane.
- [108:28]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [108:29]
David Iannetti
And she probably knows the case inside out, too, after the whole trial.
- [108:32]
Karen Reid
Wow. But more than that, with the Combs case, as I've told you about, a lot of people spend a lot of money hiring jury clerks, consultants, which are attorneys who will just tell you what rings well with jurors. She's been a juror. She can tell you what hit well and what didn't.
- [108:49]
David Iannetti
That's so crazy. Wow.
- [108:51]
Karen Reid
She says, if I as a lawyer am too afraid to stand up for what I believe in, who will? What happened to John o' Keefe was a tragedy. But just because something is sad doesn't mean that the person in the defendant's seat is responsible. I can feel bad for his family and believe that she's not guilty at the same time. Time. Then you have Robert Alessi. Everybody loves Robert Alessi. This defense team is fascinating. It's. People love this defense team. I think with the Diddy case. Dream team, yes. Maybe a bigger dream team, more high powered dream team than Karen Reed's legal defense team. But they were not as lovable. Like, they were charismatic, but it was always with an undertone of like, ooh, gosh, oh, no. But this team, People love this team. I mean, there are thirst traps for this team every single. They love them. Robert Alessi is a New York based attorney, so he's in Boston for the whole second trial for this. And interestingly enough, he is a very random addition as well, considering his legal background is primarily in the environmental financial law field in New York City. So why is he suddenly in Boston fighting a murder trial? It has been reported that his daughter asked him to look into the case and that he was looking into it. And he's like, oh, wait a minute, I know David Ionetti. He and I are besties. So then David Ionetti ends up calling him and is like, I need some advice. I need advice. You were a great trial attorney. Tell me something. And then he says, you know what, I want to join pro bono. So he goes in getting paid nothing as well. Now I know some people that are cynical are gonna say, well, most law firms do required attorneys to take on a certain percentage of pro bono cases. However. However, let's live in this land for a second. Okay, I like this land. There are also nine law clerks that joined the team for the second trial. They are also working pro bono for free.
- [110:43]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [110:44]
Karen Reid
The second trial is a bit more fast paced than the first one. Most of the McAlberts do not testify the second time around. The prosecution does not call them trooper. Prosecution doctor does not testify the second time around. And even then, it doesn't stop the rather dumb testimonies provided by parties involved, such as when Jen McCabe can't answer any question at all about really anything. And Has a hard time showing that she does not have pure venomous hatred for the defense team. I mean, I don't know why these people have such a hard time just not hating every single breathing person in the courtroom. Every single prosecutor's witness just seems like they're filled with hatred. It's so unlikable. It's hard to even resonate with anything they say. They're so defensive. They want to be smart, Alex, but it comes off like, are you okay?
- [111:36]
David Iannetti
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [111:37]
Karen Reid
Gosh. It's like.
- [111:38]
David Iannetti
I guess when you're shady, you just can be transparent and open about things.
- [111:45]
Karen Reid
No. Or like the time Buchenik starts arguing that he doesn't know what certain words mean in the English language because he speaks three languages. So he asks attorney Jackson if he can kindly hand him a Webster's dictionary. And attorney Jackson is like, are you fucking kidding me right now? You want a fucking dictionary? And then they have a very tense standoff. I mean, there are a lot of ridiculous moments in both the trials combined, and we would probably be here for the next 10 weeks if I covered all of them. Attorney Jackson is also very upset and confused that Michael Proctor was not even called as a witness for the second trial by the Commonwealth. He says, you guys were so embarrassed of Michael Proctor, you couldn't even put him on the stand. I thought it was a glaring error on the Commonwealth's part to not call certain witnesses, including Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Nicole Albert, Matt McCabe and Chris Albert. They didn't want them to be subjected to a very vigorous cross examination because the Commonwealth knew that they would not withstand it and also because Michael Proctor has been fired. President Patrick McNamara, which is the president of the State Police association of Massachusetts, the union for the troopers, he threw his support behind Proctor, saying, our homicide detectives here in Massachusetts are arguably the best in the country. Our solve rate is indicative of that. At this point, it's just a matter of understanding your audience. That's the exact problem Everyone is wondering if your solve rate comes from the fact that you just throw everyone in jail, regardless of the evidence, and then you look for nudes to for them boasting about how great your solve rate is not what we want to hear right now. He does not read the room. He continues, trooper Proctor has been the subject of personal attacks from the criminal defense attorneys and the media for doing their jobs. They did this work without favor. They follow the evidence. This is true in the case of the investigation of the death of Boston police officer John o'. Keefe. Trooper Proctor has Personally been defamed in the media and in court. We stand with you, my Mike, as we do all state police detectives, which if he has been defamed, hit everyone with the defamation lawsuit. Let's go. Just do it. That's crazy. He really should have just stayed quiet. Okay. Because this is, I mean, I mean, I guess that's a little rich coming from someone who makes like 10 hour long videos.
- [113:52]
David Iannetti
Is there like any police officials that's coming out and exposing what's going on or even take a different stance because it seems like everyone like linking arms, backing each other. Has anybody say something or briefly.
- [114:10]
Karen Reid
And then they went back, yeah, we're gonna get there. But soon after that, Patrick loses his re election for the police trooper union. And I guess that's the nicest thing that could have happened to him. ABC News asks trooper Proctor about getting fired. He says, I just remember dropping to my knees and laying on my lawn crying. I couldn't, couldn't even talk. I was in complete hysterics. And I remember my mother being like, what? And I kind of gathered myself and I'm like, they relieved me of duty. He starts tearing up emotional about the hardest moments of his life. What really got me was my union rep came over to my house and picked up all my uniforms. And the one time I broke down was putting my class A uniform. You go through a six month police academy and you're very proud to put on that uniform. That's tough.
- [114:53]
David Iannetti
He says that and he wants us to feel bad.
- [114:55]
Karen Reid
Yes. I don't know any trooper that has been punished for personal text messages on their personal phone, let alone fired. Are these people okay? He continues, he thinks he got fired.
- [115:06]
David Iannetti
Because of a text message. Not what he did. No, it's because of, oh, I sent a little text.
- [115:11]
Karen Reid
I got fired. Yeah. They were just found on my phone.
- [115:14]
David Iannetti
Yeah. You know, have you ever text something, it means nothing.
- [115:17]
Karen Reid
It means nothing. These text messages are juvenile as they are. It's not me as a person. I vented after being involved in an investigation of a police officer and used words that I regret. People see those text messages and they instantly jump to a conclusion about you and that you must be biased, you must be a bad person. And I'm sure many other names. I could see how people make that leap because that's all they know about me. They don't know who I am. They don't know how the kind of person that I am. They just see those text messages and they immediately just assume I'm a bad person. He has since appealed the firing. He says, I still love the job. I still want to be a trooper, and I'm fighting for. For it. Kelly Dever. Kelly Dever is a Boston cop, which is the same force as Brian Albert and John o', Keefe, but she used to work for the Canton Police Department. Specifically the night that there was a call made where John o' Keefe was found in the snow. So a former Canton cop, she walks up to the stand and she looks a lot younger than all the other officers.
- [116:14]
David Iannetti
Is she the one that Sean Good called to replace his position?
- [116:18]
Karen Reid
Yes. In the dispatch? Yes. He's like, I gotta go.
- [116:21]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [116:22]
Karen Reid
She comes in and maybe mid-20s, late 20s, she gets up on the stand and she explains she was a patrol officer, she was working the night shift. She took over dispatch for Shawn Good. And attorney Jackson is asking her, when Shawn Good instructed you to take over dispatch, explain what that meant. It meant I walked inside and I sat down in a dispatch room. You're aware that Sally Port had a camera, A security camera? It would make sense because that's where we bring prisoners to drop them off. Well, more than just making sense, I'm asking you, do you. Do you recall that it had a camera that serviced the garage? It's where we brought prisoners. So there would be cameras. Yes.
- [116:58]
David Iannetti
Oh, context. On Sally Port.
- [117:00]
Karen Reid
It's the garage where Karen Reed's car was brought in and held in evidence. And people think that's where the evidence tail light. The tail light was taken apart and then brought to 34 Fairview and then scattered in the snow. So it's very important they.
- [117:11]
David Iannetti
They revered the.
- [117:12]
Karen Reid
Yes. Inverted footage.
- [117:13]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [117:14]
Karen Reid
Oh, my gosh. You're listening. Okay. So she's saying. Yeah, I mean, so there would be cameras. Jackson is like. So you're saying there would be cameras? I'm asking you, were there cameras? According to the media, yes. I've seen the footage. So, yes, there were cameras. The judge stops her and tells her, so I'm going to strike that officer. You have to answer the question based on your own independent. And Kelly looks at Auntie Bev. Oh, if you don't have your own independent memories, that's fine, but you can't reference what you know from the media.
- [117:47]
David Iannetti
She's making faces straight up.
- [117:49]
Karen Reid
Yeah. She's two seconds away from fully rolling her eyes to look inside of her skull. Alright. There were cameras inside Sally Port. Ms. Dever, do you want to be here today? I have no relation to this case. I didn't ask you that. I asked you, if you want to be here. Kelly Dever pauses before dramatically stating, I'm put on this stand in a murder trial. I don't know why I'm here. I have no connection to this case. This is honestly a bit more hostile than some of the more important key witnesses. Her interactions with the defense team feel so scathing than even some of the more McAlberts. Okay. Some of the McAlberts, they try to hide it. Or some of the cops that are more heavily involved. But the confusing part in all of this is in trial two, she is not a prosecution witness. She is a defense witness. The defense called her to the stand to testify. Why? Because Officer Dever told FBI agents that she saw ATF Brian and Chief Berkowitz in Sally Port for a wildly long time near Karen Reid's car. What were they doing for a wildly long time in Sally Port near Karen Reid's car? Car.
- [119:00]
David Iannetti
That is crazy. So what are you saying? During the first trial, she's kind of, like, forced to speak?
- [119:08]
Karen Reid
During the first trial, she was never called to the stand.
- [119:11]
David Iannetti
So this attitude is from the second trial?
- [119:13]
Karen Reid
Yeah, she was never called to the stand of the first trial. The second trial, she comes and she's huffing and puffing, and the defense is just trying to get her to relay her statements that she made to the FBI, which is you told the FBI that they were near Karen Reid's car and Sally Port for a wildly long story time.
- [119:30]
David Iannetti
Yeah. But why is she huffing and puffing? She just truly. Oh, okay.
- [119:33]
Karen Reid
Oh, yeah. Just wait. The defense is like, you have no idea why you're here. You've never talked to me. Nobody on the defense seems to talk to me since prior to the first trial, which she did not testify in. So I don't have any idea why I'm here. No clue whatsoever, as you sit here, why you might have been called to the stand? No. Are you uncomfortable testifying? No, it's part of my job. There is an indication that things are not going to go well because Jackson starts asking Kelly Dever. And you understand the oath? Yes, I do. What is the oath? The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Correct? Objection. Sustained. Did one of the monitors that you had looked at when you had access at the dispatch area? Because, remember, she took over dispatch, and they have a monitor overlooking Sally Port shows the video feed from the Sally Port garage. So, as I already said, I don't remember where in dispatch. The screen with the cameras was. There was a camera in Sally Port? If I'm going to make the assumption, then yes, of course, but now that's an assumption. I'm not asking you for an assumption. I'm asking you did one of those feeds. Do you recall or not? There was footage that you could see a monitor on the dispatch area. I'm going to go with yes. I don't know what that means. So what do you mean you're gonna go with yes is your answer yes? Yes. Did you observe anything unusual that stood out in your mind, that occurred. Pardon me, you know, in the Sally Port area where you were on that shift? So we've discussed this previously. I can't make that statement on the stand because I've been provided information released by the defense that it was not a memory, that it was a distorted memory. Therefore I can't state it because at that point it would be a lie. I cannot make that statement that you're wanting me to make, to make on the stand because I've been advised it would be a lie. So she's saying what I said to the FBI was a false memory.
- [121:22]
David Iannetti
The.
- [121:23]
Karen Reid
She's saying I never saw Chief Berkowitz or Brian Higgins in Sally Port. It was a false memory.
- [121:29]
David Iannetti
What? Like how did you even come up with that?
- [121:31]
Karen Reid
Because she said that she had clocked out before the time that she would have seen them. But clocking out doesn't mean anything. And also those records can probably be fudged. I don't know, don't ask me. But she's saying it was a false memory memory, which the defense is like, okay, first of all, a police officer with false memories should not be a police officer because what are you doing throwing people in jail over false memories?
- [121:55]
David Iannetti
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [121:56]
Karen Reid
Ms. Dever, I've never asked you to make a statement one way or the other on the stand. I'm asking you an open ended question given factual information that makes it so that I know I did not know. So the answer is no. Correct. But that doesn't make sense because why did you tell the FBI then? Were you advised lying to those officers? The FBI officers would have been crime. So it was a willing conversation. I've spoken with their legal team because of the fact that I was providing factual information that showed a statement of mine was a false memory. It was not a lie. Therefore, I made it in good faith and I've retracted given information that it could not be accurate. Ms. Ever. Did you understand my question? Yes, I did. You threatened to charge me with perjury during our phone call prior to the first trial, if I didn't lie on the stand right now, I'm telling you, I did not see anything factually. Did they advise you of anything? Any consequences for lying to them, to lying to FBI agents? Because the defense is saying, it's so interesting that all these people, they're a little more accurate when they're talking to the Feds, huh? Because they know that they've got nobody in the Feds. And the feds don't care. The feds are going to arrest them, not the feds don't care. The Feds have also been the subject of a lot of corruption allegations, but in terms of when they're investigating this case, they don't really care. Did they advise you of any consequences? So we had a willing conversation. That's a yes or no. I don't recall. Auntie Beth steps in. Okay, so there's your answer. And again, it's like, are you shielding these witnesses? As a trained law enforcement officer, are you aware that it is a crime to lie to certain other law enforcement agencies when you have intent to lie? Yes. Did you tell those law enforcement agents on August 9th of 2023, you saw Brian Higgins and Chief Berkowitz go into Sally Port together and alone with Karen Reid's SUV for a wildly long time? That was my recollection at the time. What's even more interesting, and you'll see by the line of questioning, is that after she moves to Boston Police Department, the commissioner, the man who runs Boston pd, Michael Cox. Michael Cox calls this random patrol agent or patrol officer, Kelly Dever, into his office, and then she recants her statement.
- [123:56]
David Iannetti
Oh, my God.
- [123:57]
Karen Reid
She calls the FBI and is like.
- [123:58]
David Iannetti
So I say Boston has, like, thousands of of police, right?
- [124:02]
Karen Reid
3,000 officers. And it's very rare that the commissioner talks to anyone, especially not on a detective level. She's just a patrol officer.
- [124:11]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [124:13]
Karen Reid
Did you have any conversation with anybody in the commissioner's office at the Boston Police Department? Not about anything malicious? I didn't use the word malicious. Why do you say malicious? I had a conversation, but it was my department saying regardless of what I need to say on the stand, they support me. Have you heard the true story of the 17 kids that unexpectedly disappeared at exactly 2:17am I heard that they all got out of bed at the same exact time, ran outside, and never came back. On August 8th, uncover the truth from Zach Kreger, the director of Barbarian and the studio that brought you it. And the Conjuring comes in. New horror thriller so twisted you'll have to experience it to believe it. Weapons Only in theaters and in IMAX Aug 8. Rated R under 17. Not admitted without a parent. Curious if who you've been talking to.
- [125:06]
David Iannetti
Online is who they say they are? The sea of love is filled with catfish. Make sure one doesn't hook you with lies. If you're trying to confirm the identity.
- [125:15]
Karen Reid
Of someone you're talking to on dating.
- [125:16]
David Iannetti
Apps, you need truthfinder.com with Truth Finder. You can. You can check public records to see if they're being deceitful about their age, identity, past divorces and more.
- [125:25]
Karen Reid
Make sure you're not wasting your time.
- [125:27]
David Iannetti
And energy on a scammer with truthfinder.com Dating Today.
- [125:33]
Karen Reid
I'm Dr. Sarah Rahal, the founder and CEO of Armra. I developed armor Colostrum because I know your body was designed to thrive. It's your natural state, your birthright, and you can reclaim it. Colostrum is the first nutrition we receive in the life with every essential nutrient our bodies need. It's nature's original blueprint for health. After a devastating health crisis almost took my life, I made it my mission to harness this power. Using proprietary technology, AMRA captures over 400 bioactive nutrients in every scoop, delivering over 1000 benefits that transform your health at its foundation. Whether for gut health, metabolism, skin, hair, immunity, mood, energy, fitness or recovery. I invite you to join this collective revival of health and discover radical transformation for yourself. Visit armour.com that's a r m r a dot com and enter code culture30 for 30% off your first subscription order. The statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat care or prevent any disease. So everyone thinks this whole thing is weird. Especially weirder when you given the fact that Michael Cox, he is interviewed by a reporter later and he's. I mean, he's kind of thrown off guard. He's like, did you talk to Kelly Dever about her statement? And he says, I don't even know Karen Reed. I've got nothing to do with Karen Reid's case. I don't know anything about the Karen Reid case. And everyone's like, that's crazy because what do you mean the officer that is deceased involving Karen Reed's case is a Boston police officer. What do you mean you know nothing of the Karen Reed case? And the defense is saying, you told us, Kelly Dever, a year ago when you talked to us, the defense did you tell us that you were called up to the commissioner's office and he told you two things. Number one, the department supports you, Officer Deaver, and do the right thing. Kelly Dever says, so he said my name correctly. He said definitely. Jackson is saying, didn't you tell me that the commissioner said, officer Deaver, do the right thing? And Kelly Dever is like, so the commissioner said my name correctly. He said, Dever. He said nothing with the intent of guiding me one way or the other.
- [127:48]
David Iannetti
Just full of attitude, huh?
- [127:50]
Karen Reid
Yeah. At one point when she's trying to say, I don't remember a question, she says, just like, how you don't remember my name. I don't recall.
- [127:59]
David Iannetti
That is wild.
- [128:00]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [128:01]
David Iannetti
So is she the one that you're talking about that she kind of told what happened and then she took it back?
- [128:06]
Karen Reid
Yeah. Netizens have dug up that there seems to be some distant familial connection between the Dever family and the McCabes. There seems to be some sort of marriage between Kelly Dever and Matt McCabe's side of the family. I don't know. It just is definitely not good. She also accuses one of the male defense attorneys of threatening to charge her with perjury. And she said that they became very aggressive. And so Jackson is like a male voice on the phone threatened to charge you with perjury. Yes. You're a police officer, correct? Yes. Who charges people with crimes. In the end, it's gonna go through the court system. So the da, you know, is, have you ever seen a defense attorney charge anybody with a crime? Crime. Personally? No. Fact of the matter is nobody ever threatened you with perjury, did they? They did. I contacted the FBI regarding it. Oh, did you? I did. Do you have a report from the FBI saying that you reported it, that someone on the Karen Reed defense team threatened to charge you with perjury? No.
- [129:12]
David Iannetti
What is going on?
- [129:14]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [129:15]
David Iannetti
These people are.
- [129:17]
Karen Reid
Yes. So now it's become a thing where David Janetti, the only way he can describe it is John o' Keefe is a Boston cop. I mean, that tells you all you need to know. The blue wall went up, and Karen Reed is on the outside of the blue wall. She's an outsider. It just seems like a lot of it is not even corruption. I mean, it is, but a lot of it is not even, like, I want to protect Brian Albert. I want to protect the McAlberts. It just seems more so. That's just the way works. This is how we run things. But one of the biggest problems in this case is even the accident reconstructionists for both sides are. Well, the fact Is nobody knows exactly where John's body was found. Right. During the first trial, the prosecution calls up their expert crash reconstructionist, Trooper Paul. He states that Karen hit John with her car. And it all makes sense due to physics. Trooper Paul states that John was hit by the SUV and flew 30ft. Then when the SUV hit him, he projected forward and then to the left and then to the front yard to his. His final resting place. If you're confused, it's because it's confusing. Nobody can understand what he's saying happened when the car hit John o'. Keefe. Basically, trooper Paul's version of events show John O. Keefe doing almost a ballerina spin. He gets hit with the tail light, but then his arm stays. Okay, he gets sideswiped by the tail light. His arm stays there. The tail light shatters on impact. But no bruises or broken bones on his arm that took the brunt of the impact of this massive suv. And then his arm kind of stays there for the taillight to then kind of sideswipe him again, causing those crazy abrasions. And then that causes him to propel in like a spin ballerina projected somewhere around the idea of 30ft until he lands in the grass. And I know that I'm being very animated with this, and it's because in the whole trap trial, that's how it is. He's being animated and attorney Jackson to bring it home, he's like doing a spin in court. So you're like, so this is what you're telling me happened? Because I think the only way to see how ridiculous it is is to show the animation of what he's saying happened. Even trooper Paul seems very unsure of his own testimony. And this is where I think a lot of people say maybe it's not all around corruption. Maybe it's also a mix of income competence. I will say the defense, the minute that the cross examination begins, they really don't even need to argue the nitty gritty of everything he claims because they just argue his credentials. Jackson questions him. Sir, do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of mathematics? I do not. Do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of physics? I do not hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of biomechanics. No. How about engineering? No. What is the highest degree that you do hold? Sir, I have an associate's two degree. In what? Administration of justice. What's another word for rate of velocity? I mean, it's. It deals with motion. It deals with forward and also deals with speed. It deals with travel and Speed. If something's moving, it also has a speed to it. Right. The word you're looking for is acceleration, correct? Sure. The defense also brings up the fact that Trooper Paul testified that when someone is hit by something, whatever they have in their hand, they lose. Lose it. But John O' Keefe held onto his cocktail glass while being projected 30ft. Trooper Paul responds, I don't know. I mean, it just could have been with him the whole way. I don't know. I wasn't there. So I don't know how the glass stayed with his body and went with him to the final rest. So we know that you weren't there. But if you don't know who. Who knows? At certain points, Trooper Paul makes no sense, and he clearly sounds very nervous. He will say things like this to the defense attorney, I'm just responding to what you said and trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying. To which Attorney Jackson responds, no, I don't understand what you're saying. Another questionable part is the defense points out that John's phone was found underneath his body. To which Trooper Paul is asked, if his cell phone was found under his torso, under his body. What's your theory on how that cell phone ended up flying 30ft with him? It just did. Just did. And somehow as he landed, he tucked that cell phone underneath his body so that he landed on top of of it. It just did. That's the evidence at the scene. I didn't put the evidence there. Well, you didn't. Objection. Sustained. Cell phone in one hand, cup in the other hand, flew through the air, right? Objection. Sustained. Defense attorney Jackson accuses Trooper Paul of having confirmation bias, to which Trooper Paul says he can't definitively say what confirmation bias even really means. Trooper Paul states that he came to the final resting spot of John o' Keefe by way of Gallagher telling him where John o' Keefe was found. But remember, Gallagher never saw where John's body was found. All in all, I think the only takeaway from Trooper Paul's testimony is that he has no clue what he's talking about. We have no clue what he's talking about. Nobody has any clue what Trooper Paul is talking about. At one point he says, like, there are certain calculations that you can do, you know, based on distance, and it's based on miles per hour and the speed of the vehicle and the striking of the vehicle and stuff. The defense is like, what did you mean by and stuff? I don't know. Ultimately, Trooper Paul admits, we cannot calculate anything from this Collision. Side note, he doesn't even know John o' Keefe's weight, which you would think is one of the most important things.
- [134:36]
David Iannetti
Are you kidding me?
- [134:36]
Karen Reid
He also doesn't know the mass weight of the vehicle.
- [134:39]
David Iannetti
Are you kidding me?
- [134:41]
Karen Reid
It's just so clear that he wrote.
- [134:42]
David Iannetti
How is he an expert?
- [134:44]
Karen Reid
We don't know. It's like when you write I speak Mandarin on your resume. Well you do. I speak Mandarin on your resume. And then you go oh. And suddenly you have to speak Mandarin. And then I'm just like, okay, I lied. How would you calculate how far a body at rest would travel after being struck by an object in motion? How would you calculate that? I would use a type of formula for calculations of post impact speeds of pedestrians. The defense asks how the tail light was shattered. So the tail light in this case was shattered when it struck John o' Keefe's arm. Exactly what part of his arm, based on what I saw for his injuries, was the upper part of his arm down. Trooper Paul states that it would have been out, elbows out, then the full mass, you know, and then it got hit. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
- [135:27]
David Iannetti
If he flew like 30 miles.
- [135:29]
Karen Reid
30Ft. I'm so sorry.
- [135:31]
David Iannetti
30Ft.
- [135:32]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [135:32]
David Iannetti
There. It's very easy to calculate the force needed to. To reach that kind of distance.
- [135:37]
Karen Reid
Yeah, yeah. But even just the arm.
- [135:40]
David Iannetti
Yeah. And that doesn't make sense.
- [135:42]
Karen Reid
None of it makes sense to shatter.
- [135:43]
David Iannetti
That type of plastic.
- [135:44]
Karen Reid
Plastic, yes.
- [135:45]
David Iannetti
You know what type of force is going to like it just doesn't happen. Yeah.
- [135:50]
Karen Reid
And then also it's a lot of the plastic tail light pieces were found around where John o' Keeffe's body was found. So it shattered like an explosion, Right, Exactly. None of it makes sense. So then there was breathing.
- [136:02]
David Iannetti
And there's only one thing that doesn't lie, which is physics.
- [136:04]
Karen Reid
Yeah.
- [136:05]
David Iannetti
Like that's one thing cannot lie. So just follow that. Just proves everyone is lucky line.
- [136:11]
Karen Reid
Yeah. But he's like, no, this is exactly what happened. And when he's asked how are there no injuries to John o' Keefe's arm other than those abrasions and lacerations? He says, I don't know. Literally. I dunno. Any other questions about that? Auntie Bev just sustains all of them. Jackson asks, and at the same time he does a pirouet and flies 30ft to his final resting point of rest. I don't know if he did like a pirouet. He started rotating counterclockwise. I don't know how far he. He kind of counterclockwise but started rotating according to that push, he would rotate counterclockwise. Whether that was counterclockwise all the way to his back toward the ground, it almost seems like the most likely possibility. So at one point, the defense straight up asks trooper Paul, the truth is, trooper Paul, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you? Objection. Sustained. Netizen comments read, I was feeling sympathy for how insufficient Trooper Paul's intelligence is. But then I see him on cross trying to explain away a murder charge with his woefully lacking investigation and opinions. Not doing calculations because it was a reverse is a lot. The laws of physics exist. Gravity exists despite his wish that it didn't.
- [137:19]
David Iannetti
I don't know. Just like based on this person alone, just this little conversation alone, it's enough to prove that Karen Reed didn't hit John o'. Keefe.
- [137:29]
Karen Reid
That's it.
- [137:30]
David Iannetti
Period. The end. I don't even know how the mistrial happened from the first trial. It doesn't even make any sense.
- [137:35]
Karen Reid
I think the biggest thing for me is the feds got involved the federal investigation that has no connection with Karen Reed. There's no connection with the McAlberts. And their experts said these injuries from John O' Keefe were not from a collision.
- [137:50]
David Iannetti
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
- [137:52]
Karen Reid
And they had no skin in the game. They gave this to the Commonwealth and the defense and they said, here you go. And I feel like that was where I was like, okay, then what can do? I say, yeah, I don't know physics like that. But they're telling me, so it wasn't.
- [138:06]
David Iannetti
From a collision then let's look elsewhere.
- [138:08]
Karen Reid
Yes, but they're like, no, it was from a collision. In fact, Trooper Paul testified in trial one and clearly it did not go well. So for trial two, the Commonwealth brings in expert witnesses, very expensive expert witnesses from a company called Aperture. The first one is Shannon Burgess. You can already tell things are going to go awry by the fact that his direction by Hank Brennan is one and a half hours long. And the cross by Robert Alessi is four and a half hours long, which, by the way, Robert Alessi is a pharmacist as well. He's got a lot of it seems like he knows a lot of STEM related stuff. I don't know how else to describe it, but it seems like he's very well versed in anything STEM related. Shannon Burgess says that he found a new computer chip in Karen Reid's SUV that hasn't been previously analyzed and he used that data to calculate the time to difference between Karen Reid's SUV and John o' Keefe's cell phone. And he found the variants and then he's just saying, you know, the time adds up to when Karen Reed made a three point turn and when John o' Keefe's phone was used for the last time. And that is why he believes that she was the one that killed him on impact. When the cross examination starts, when it starts with these types of questions, you just know it's not the type of cross that you want to be on the receiving end of. Alessi has this of Good afternoon, Mr. Burgess. And it's just people know Alessi and people say this man is about to do something that Burgess is not gonna like. He brings up his cv.
- [139:36]
David Iannetti
CV cover.
- [139:37]
Karen Reid
Yeah. And it says that he is currently pursuing a Bachelor's degree. But interestingly enough on the Aperture official website, his bio states that he has a BS in Mathematics and Business Administration. Not currently pending or pursuing. Just has it. You do not have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, do you? No, I do not. He also puts it in his LinkedIn, but also he hasn't gotten his degree for that or nor is he actively pursuing it. So is he just like lying on the Aperture website and his LinkedIn? The defense brings up another resume and this time again it says Bachelor of General Science and Mathematics and Business Administration, University of Alex, Alabama, 2022. All Burgess can say about that is that is what it states. But this resume, there are a number of errors in that. Correct. So let's go on. This is the third example. Am I correct, sir? It has errors or outdated information. Well, when you say outdated, how is it that you can call a date outdated next to something you don't possess? Either you have a Bachelor of Science degree or you don't. I have represented that I do not have a Bachelor's degree degree. But to make matters worse, the degree that he claimed to have doesn't even exist at the University of Alabama. He's asked you would agree that there is not even a degree called Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics in Business Administration offered at the University of Alabama, correct? Correct. If I did the math correctly. Sir, you have been pursuing a Bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct? That is correct. And you have not obtained it as you have sit here today? That is correct.
- [141:09]
David Iannetti
Is he embarrassed what is happening right now?
- [141:12]
Karen Reid
Yeah. So he's lying on his resume. He has no degree in this. But what if Shannon Burgess is a genius? That Excels in math. And this is an episode of Suits. He didn't graduate from school, but he is a prodigy level ability to comprehend car accidents and physics. That could be the case. The defense reels that Shannon Burgess doesn't know the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte. To simplify it, 1 gigabyte is 8 gigabytes bits, which is kind of confusing, but like, that's like confusing five minutes and 40 minutes. It's a huge discrepancy, a huge miscalculation, misunderstanding, error, whatever Shannon Burgess wants to call it. Do I know the difference between the two? No, but I also don't work for Aperture, where these things can change the course of a defendant's life based on their calculations. Burgess didn't even realize he misunderstood a gigabyte and a gigabit until the defense ARCA witnesses were like, hey, prosecutors, your experts are dumb. They confused it. So.
- [142:14]
David Iannetti
Unbelievable.
- [142:15]
Karen Reid
You simply misunderstood the difference between gigabits and gigabytes. Correct. Misinterpreted. I would not say misunderstood. He also misinterprets dates, Just straight up gets dates wrong on his scientific findings. The defense also accuses him of just switching up his data and findings whenever other. Other experts that are also testifying for the prosecution find different findings just to make it all cohesive, which is not at all what you're supposed to do. And side note, the redirect for the prosecution does not save this testimony because this testimony, this cross examination, is four and a half hours long. And it's brutal. Very brutal. It just makes it goofier. All Hank Brennan can do is ask Burgess. A bachelor's degree is not a prerequisite of success in a particular field. No, it's not. You ever heard of Bill Gates? Yes. Steve Jobs?
- [143:01]
David Iannetti
Oh, my gosh.
- [143:02]
Karen Reid
Oprah Winfrey. Objection. Sustained. Then you have the other aperture expert who I guess I decided last night at like three in the morning, he doesn't deserve a spot on this wall. Okay, but he's just another. He's the blue man.
- [143:18]
David Iannetti
The blue man.
- [143:19]
Karen Reid
Print the blue man. But he's the blue man. Good morning, Dr. Welcher. Robert Alessi is also the one doing this. I will say Robert Alessi. I don't think think anyone expected him to do these types of crosses. He. I feel like he knows more about physics than the Aperture witnesses.
- [143:38]
David Iannetti
He looks like he would know.
- [143:39]
Karen Reid
Yeah, he. He's. People call him like the nerdy, hot guy type.
- [143:44]
David Iannetti
He looks like a scientist more than a lawyer.
- [143:46]
Karen Reid
Yeah. Which makes him an incredible lawyer. And he Good morning, Dr. Welcher. And Dr. Welcher is a lot. He says, good morning. We haven't been formally introduced. Your whole name, Robert Alessi. Which I just felt like Welcher's trying to assert his dominance, which doesn't bode well for him. Later on, he introduces himself as an action reconstruction and biomechanics expert. He's got a little feistiness in him. Alessi asks him. Is one of the first questions you ask, how did this happen? No, that's usually the last question. Oh, so for you. So hold on a second. Generally what we do do, what you want to do is gather data. You want to know the. Where the. What the injuries are, the evidence there is like for example, the vehicle and on the vehicle. And then the very last thing you want to know or define given all that information is how did that happen? So that's the end. It's very preachy. It's like kind of like he's like, so hold on a second. Let me tell you how it's done.
- [144:42]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [144:42]
Karen Reid
Unfortunately, Welcher has no explanation for how the. How the car hit John on the hand, but and broke nothing in his hand, hand or his arm is 300 to 400 pounds of force. Sound right? From the literature that it would take to break a bone in the hand for a distributed load such as a tail light? No. But moving on, because Welch is mainly known for his blue paint, Alessi asks him. Dr. Welcher, I would like to talk now about your blue paint exercise. I'll just call it a blue paint exercise. Is that descriptive enough for you of to know what we're talking about? No, it's not an exercise, it's a test. Do you want me to call it a blue paint test? Sure. Okay, let's call it a blue paint test. So your blue paint test involved painting the right rear tail tail light blue. Correct. So he bought a Lexus.
- [145:22]
David Iannetti
Who bought a Lexus?
- [145:23]
Karen Reid
Welcher bought a Lexus for aperture. I mean the Commonwealth paying for it, bought Alexis, painted the rear tail light blue. And then he's standing there and has it back up into him at 2 miles per hour. He runs three tests where the blue paint backs up to him in 2 mph to see where the blue paint lands on his hand because he is also the same height as John o' Keefe or around the similar. Same height. But that's confusing for the defense because it's like you don't even know where John o' Keefe was standing. You don't know if he was standing on the lawn, which would be a few inches discrepancy from if he was standing on the street. So if you don't know where he's standing and these few inches make vastly different results for a test like this. What kind of tests are you running? Also, you're running the test at 2 miles per hour.
- [146:08]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [146:08]
Karen Reid
The Commonwealth is claiming that she hit him at over 20 miles per hour. How can you even run a test like. Like that?
- [146:14]
David Iannetti
Yeah, yeah.
- [146:15]
Karen Reid
So they're asking, you didn't do a blue paint test with the vehicle going 20 miles per hour, correct? That is correct. I was not going to hit myself with the Lexus at 20 miles per hour. You could have done other tests where the vehicle was going 20 miles per hour if you used a crash test dummy. Correct. Welcher gives a lengthy explanation of why he didn't do that, but it just sounds like why you didn't do your homework. It doesn't really make that much sense. Alessi is so over Welcher. He just tells W. You don't have the point of interest impact. You don't know where in the road there was impact. You don't have anything. The purpose of your blue paint test was quote. I mean, the focal point is what Welcher says the focal point of the purpose of that test was to show the contact with the location of how someone of Mr. O' Keeffe's height, which happens to be my height, where it contacts the broken tail light. That's why I did the testing. That's why we're calling it a paint transfer test. Testing.
- [147:06]
David Iannetti
Okay. So his test is trying to show that John o' Keefe's arm broke the tail light.
- [147:12]
Karen Reid
But that doesn't even. That's not the test. The test is it just touched the tail light. Because you can't prove it broke the tail light if you don't test at the speed.
- [147:23]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [147:23]
Karen Reid
And. And it.
- [147:25]
David Iannetti
Exactly. Yeah. Put a dummy there.
- [147:27]
Karen Reid
Yeah. But something. Yeah. At one point he gets very aggressive and he just argues it's possible the car could have shot off the into space as an engineer, but not probable. Alessia is like, oh, so you think it's possible that it could have been shot off into space? As an engineer, it's a possibility. Absolutely. Highly. Highly unlike. Unlikely. But again, you're asking as an engineer about probabilities and possibilities. Okay, so let's get Back to reality. Dr. Welcher. Netizens are commenting. Apparently this guy thinks that John's arm blew up the taillights pieces into 47 pieces without breaking a Single bone. He couldn't answer a yes or no question. If after asked if it's sunny outside right now, this clown did his own 2 mile per hour crash, did ridiculous paint tests, and admits that engineering has thousands of possibilities, including launching the Lexus into space. Another one says, basically they're doing costume changes, lying on the stand and finger painting to get paid by taxpayers, which they're getting paid a lot. The Commonwealth paid nearly $400,000 to Aperture for the testing.
- [148:28]
David Iannetti
Whoa. And it was dumb. Like the test was useless.
- [148:32]
Karen Reid
Useless. Which brings us to the defense witnesses, Dr. Daniel Wolf and Dr. Andrew Rent. And they are called Crash Daddy. Mainly Dr. Wolf is called Crash Daddy. He's honorable. Crash Daddy. Crash Daddy number two. And there was a whole ordeal that Hank Brennan was fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they don't come in for the second trial. It was a whole thing. They bring in arca, the two Crash D daddies. Now, ARCA was originally hired by the FBI and they are a formal accident reconstruction company that are hired by law firms that work primarily with car insurance companies, insurance carriers. And they also have multiple contracts with the Department of Defense, the DOD for accident reconstructions. Their CVS filled to the brim. Like, if anybody knows anything about car accidents, they know and we know they know. But because the prosecutors could not question their cvs.
- [149:24]
David Iannetti
Yeah. And it sounded like they are the people to hire for something like this. Ask the expert. Here's the expert.
- [149:31]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [149:31]
David Iannetti
But the prosecutor never reached out to like a formal official.
- [149:36]
Karen Reid
Aperture is supposed to be okay. Yeah. I think netizen speculation is that they had to reach out to Aperture or a company that maybe some people support objectively, in their opinion, think is not as reputable as arca because ARCA would probably not lie. And ARCA is perhaps too smart. And ARCA would tell you straight up, which is what they do on the stand. They both state John's injuries are inconsistent with a crash. Dr. Wolf states it's his job to quote. I think a simple definition in my mind, and this is going to be a breath of fresh air compared to the Aperture witnesses. He's very, very likable on the stand. Both of them are. I think a simple definition in my mind of my job would be the application of physics, engineering science and mathematics to collision events. I always like to think it's. If you open up a puzzle box and you dump the pieces out and you've got a bunch of pieces and you're trying to piece together the evidence to see how everything fits together in A clear picture unlike any of the prosecution witnesses, he Sundays. Back in 2012, I received a Bachelor of Science in engineering from James Madison University along with a minor in mathematics. Some of my courses while at JMU included courses in physics, statics, dynamics, kinematics, material science, along with other engineering sciences. Subsequent to my undergraduate degree, I then went on to the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in electrical and computer engineering with a concentration in electromagnetics and photonics. So in addition to my undergraduate degree and my PhD, I've continued to take one courses through Northwestern University and crash reconstruction. Some of those courses have included human factors, lighting. I've taken courses on electronic vehicle data photo geometry. I don't even know these names. Three dimensional laser scanning. So I've continued to take courses subsequent to graduating with my PhD. Right off the bat, they sound a lot more credible. They also. Yes.
- [151:30]
David Iannetti
Are you saying both of these were also in trial one?
- [151:32]
Karen Reid
Yes. And they try to get them banned from trial, too.
- [151:35]
David Iannetti
That's it. That is crazy. Even with that, there's still questions.
- [151:39]
Karen Reid
Yeah. And he. They ran a lot of tests. So instead of just like rubbing blue paint on a tail light, they ran multiple experiments to see what would happen when a tail light collides at various speeds with a dummy arm. To which the crash daddy state. Based on the test results, the damage is inconsistent with striking an arm. They also tried to do a test where, because he had a cocktail glass in his hand that shattered. They got a cocktail glass projectile, basically like a gun that shoots a cocktail glass at a tail light. Yes. To see if the tail light shatters and where the cocktail glass pieces land. Where the tail light pieces land. That also does not show that John was hit by this car.
- [152:23]
David Iannetti
Okay, okay, I see. They're trying to prove that maybe the cocktail of glass shattered the tail, but again, that was inconsistent with the scene.
- [152:30]
Karen Reid
So they're not even just trying to prove one thing. They're just trying to go down the line and they're like, literally nothing. Like nothing. At one point. The only thing that the prosecution can do with the ARCA experts, because honestly, they're experting. The only thing that they can do is try to say that they're too friendly with the defense team. They're too friendly with the defense team because the defense team is like, hey, these weren't really even our highest hired experts in trial one. They did eventually get hired and they were only paid like $23,000, which is a lot of money, but they were probably way under what they were paid by the FBI. So when they testified for trial, one, they didn't have to testify. The FBI already paid them. They did their job.
- [153:11]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [153:11]
Karen Reid
But they came in and they testified for trial. Two, I think their hotel fees. They're traveling their time. Was compensated for $23,000. And he's making a whole big ordeal about it when he just paid. Paid aperture $400,000. But he's just trying to say, you guys are too close.
- [153:28]
David Iannetti
He's. Are you quite like. That's, like, the last thing he should be questioning.
- [153:32]
Karen Reid
Yes.
- [153:33]
David Iannetti
Right now, when you look at this whole map that everyone knows each other.
- [153:37]
Karen Reid
And he's just also saying things like, sue, you call him Alan. Alan Jackson. Sounds like you guys are friendly. And Crash Daddy is like, what are you talking about? It's literally. Yeah, I've become familiar with him over the years, so I call him Alan. And then I think he. He becomes a meme at this point because he says, so what would you call me? And everyone's like, are you jealous of Crash Daddy? Like, what do you want him to call you? It seemed like people have been putting romantic music and, like, what would you call me then? And he just says, probably Mr. Brennan. And everyone's just like, okay, okay. Yeah. And then at one point, Dr. Rent Honorable Crash Daddy number two, he throws shade at aperture. And he says, well, the blue paint test is the only test that he performed. And he referenced that test for his opinion that the position and lacerations are consistent with the taillight cover. So if that test was not intended to signify or demonstrate the orientation of the arm, that's the only test he did. So if it. If it doesn't represent that, it's really meaningless. In his analysis and conclusions, he's saying, what was the test for? I don't know.
- [154:50]
David Iannetti
What. You did a test, and it failed. So you have no solution, no answer. So what did you do that for?
- [154:57]
Karen Reid
So why are you showing us this test? Because this test means nothing. This is a stupid test, which is how a lot of netizens feel, and they feel that Crash Daddy's dimples alone would have them believe that. So then the next problem is, if it's not caused by the arm, if we believe arca, then what could it be caused by? Now we bring up Chloe once more. The prosecution brings a Terry Coon. She works for UC Davis at the veterinary genetics lab in the forensic unit. She's the DNA technical lead, and she's been doing this for 25 years. She had tested swabs sent in by the MSP and tested it for dog canine DNA, which it showed negative, but it did show positive for pig DNA, which she says could happen when you have pork or any sort of pig cold cuts or anything of that sort. So it doesn't necessarily say that he was at a pig farm or anything of that, but people thought it was very interesting that there's no dog DNA. But when the defense really gets into the nitty gritty of it all, they're asking her, do you know where the swabs came from? It was pulled from John's T shirt that was laying on the hospital floor.
- [156:05]
David Iannetti
Floor.
- [156:05]
Karen Reid
So there's a lot of questions of that. And the defense is just saying, just because there was no dog DNA does not mean anything. In fact, dog DNA should have been taken from the arm like any swab should have been taken from John o' Keefe's arm. And even then, if those are claw marks, it would have been very difficult to find dog DNA because usually you need saliva to indicate these animal DNA. Yeah, factors. The defense bring in their own witness, an older doctor by the name of Dr. Marie Russell. And I don't know why, but Auntie Bev had has beef with her for no reason. Because during a voidir, which is so voidir is not just jury selection. It could be like vetting of witnesses. When the jury is not around, there is a voidier of Dr. Marie Russell. And Auntie Bev is like, because it's a voidir, I can ask questions. And everyone is like, I have never seen a judge ask questions. I mean, judges will sometimes ask questions for the. When it's jury selection to make sure that everybody, everything is impartial. The jurors are all good, but this is weird. Dr. Russell is very sharp. She is a professional dog bite expert. Her resume is as good as the ARCA. Expert's residency at USC Level 1 Trauma center, then forensic pathology residency at the LA County Coroner's Office. She has been studying dog bites for a very long time. She has probably seen maybe a thousand dog bites. And she says, looking at John's autopsy photos, I believe that those in turn injuries were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries.
- [157:32]
David Iannetti
Fascinating.
- [157:33]
Karen Reid
Yes. And a lot of people online say, hey guys, I'm not an expert, but I've been bitten by a dog. I've been clawed at by a dog. And look. Also, people say that there are rumors that Chloe was supposed to be a canine dog in training but failed out of the academy. And canine dogs are trained to bite the arm you know, when they have those marshmallows arms. So it's very interesting that it's only one arm. And she's allegedly been on very strongly. The only rebuttal that the Commonwealth has to Dr. Russell's testimony is that bite analysis science is pseudoscience. I agree. But hold on. They're conflating two different things. Bite analysis science is pseudoscience. When you look at bite indentations on, like, a person. Person's arm. Let's say someone bit my arm. And they take a picture of this, and they bring up scans of people's teeth, and they say, does person one fit? Does person two fit? Does person three fit? It's person three. Convict them. That is pseudoscience. It's very hard to identify the individual. But that's not what Dr. Marie Russell's doing. She's saying, I mean, you could kind of tell when it's a dog bite. I'm not saying which dog it is. I'm not saying which breed of dog it is. I'm just telling you these are very consistent with what I have seen are dog bites, because I study dog bites.
- [158:55]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [158:56]
Karen Reid
Yeah. But they're saying no bite science is pseudoscience. And she's like, I'm not saying I'm gonna tell you which dog, which breed of dog. But it's. This is very weird. People think it's so crazy that this is happening. So then just bring in Chloe, right, To examine her. Well, defense attorney Jackson says, I want access to that dog. I might want to measure its claws. I might want to measure its teeth. I might want to have a forensic veterinarian look at the dog, examine the do dog. And then we find out that the Alberts got rid of the dog, their family pet. They get rid of Chloe and re home her in Vermont.
- [159:31]
David Iannetti
Insane.
- [159:33]
Karen Reid
The defense is saying that the commonwealth never gave them any sort of information. They gave them some random vet form of a dog that's not even named Chloe on the vet forms of, like, random people from Vermont. And they're like, who are these people? We don't even know if that's Chloe. Chloe. Who's to say that's Chloe? That could be a different German shepherd. Who's to say the Brian Alberts don't find a different German shepherd? And it's like, that's Chloe. See, the teeth don't match. See, everything doesn't match. So they ask the McAlberts why they got rid of Chloe. And they say that recently, right before they re homed Chloe, it's Not because of John o'. Keefe. It's because Chloe bit another dog. And then the two owners of the dog, two women that were walking that dog tried to stop Chloe and Chloe attacked the two women. They ended up in the hospital. One of those two women later reached out to Vanity Fair and said, I was scared because after I got out of the hospital, I was reached out to by Kevin Albert, a Canton police officer who's asking me, how can we make this go away?
- [160:32]
David Iannetti
Whoa.
- [160:33]
Karen Reid
Allegedly.
- [160:35]
David Iannetti
Whoa.
- [160:36]
Karen Reid
But they re home the dog. It's. I think this is one of those cases where I'm getting very confused. Used because a lot of the information seems like it's not subjective. A lot of the digital forensic information of how so long to die in the cold should not be subjective. The crash experts should not be subjective. But somehow everything has become subjective. Everything has become. Will you believe this party or this party? But I thought digital forensics. Yeah, physics were typically objective things, things in the court of law. So this case is interesting in that sense where it's just weird. But I think it's weird enough to cause reasonable doubt, which is the burden of the prosecution. Because in the end, for the second trial, I mean, you guys already know. The jurors go off to deliberate and they come back and they find Karen Reed not guilty. And you hear people cheering outside the courthouse, inside the courtroom, and she's just like bursting into tears. Even her defense attorneys are so emotional in that moment. And it's just a very. She is found guilty of operating under the influence, but she does not get jail time. Instead, she receives a year of probation. And Karen says, I could not be standing here today without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially and more importantly, emotionally. No one has fought harder for justice for John o' Keefe than I have about the verdict. She says, at first there's grief, then it's anger. It's anger that outside sources, outside people can influence what happens in a courtroom and can impact the results of a pretty cut and dry case. Carrie Roberts has also released her own statement stating that she's confused why everyone hates her and her new best friend, Jen McCabe. She says, I don't know why they're making Jen McCabe a villain. All she did was answered the same phone call I did. Karen called her. She didn't call Karen. It's so stupid and bizarre. We put our asses on the line for three and a half years, two trials to help the state of Massachusetts, and you're not going to help us when we're being harassed. It's not worth it to put my family through that ever again and not be protected at all. It's absolutely sick. The jury pool was completely tainted is all I can say. Yeah. Brian Albert and his family have released a statement of their own. Our hearts are with John and his entire o' Keeffe family. They have some suffered through so much and deserve better from the justice system. While we may have more to say in the future, today we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Reid, her defense team and some in the media. The result is a devastating miscarriage of justice. ATF Brian Higgins has remained quiet, except there are rumors and sources floating around the Internet that he was seen drunk and a bar where he was telling a buddy of his, all I did was pull the dog off. We don't know if this is true. This could be completely a made up lie. Brennan has made a statement after this case. He says DA Michael Morrissey appointed me giving me full discretion to independently assess this case and follow the evidence no matter where it led. After an independent and thorough review of all the evidence, I concluded that the evidence led to one part person and one person only. Neither the closed federal investigation nor my independent review led me to identify any other possible suspect or person responsible for the death of John o'. Keefe. The campaign of intimidation and abuse that has been waged, funded and promoted in public and on social media is the antithesis of justice. If this type of conduct becomes commonplace, it will threaten the integrity of our judicial system affecting both victims and criminally accused. Jackson states, the Commonwealth would rather simply condemn the jury and it's fair and lawful verdict. As for DA Morrissey, who has been under a lot of fire for retrying this case, Jackson even said it was an ego issue with him. He was not going to accept the idea that his office got it wrong. He would rather put Karen through another horrifying crucible of a second trial with some hired gun and say I'm going to leave it to the jurors to figure it out. It took two days but he released a statement that consists of four words. The jury has spoken.
- [164:48]
David Iannetti
Wow.
- [164:49]
Karen Reid
David Janetti states, the scary thing for me is that and there has been a holdout. Had there been a mistrial, I think Michael Morrissey would have tried it again. Though Key family have since filed a wrongful death suit against Karen Reed. CF McCarthy's the first bar that John and Karen went to and then Waterfall Bar saying that they overserved and they are seeking about 5, $50,000 in damage damages for, quote, conscious pain and suffering and profound emotional distress. Karen states the timing is very weird. She says that they could have sued me right when John o' Keefe passed, but they sued me after they found out that she wasn't going to prison. As for the kids, she really cares for those kids and she says they've been exploited and brought into a trial they have no business being in. The hope for me is that one day one of them will grow up and dig into this case and be ambitious enough to say, I need to see everything. Jackson states about Karen and her criminal trials. Make no mistake, it's not that the Commonwealth didn't prove that she's guilty. We proved that she's innocent. And the unfortunate thing is it's caused a flood of people who probably are guilty that have Proctor and Lally have touched their case in some way that are trying very hard to get their cases thrown out, really. And it's just become a thing where a lot of people say, I mean, looking at the evidence in their cases, it doesn't seem like a Karen Reed situation where they've been framed or potentially there's not enough evidence.
- [166:22]
David Iannetti
But there could be cases that they wrongfully.
- [166:25]
Karen Reid
Oh, yes, of course. Yes, of course. But the two in question that are coming up, often it doesn't seem like that's the case. And I think that's where a lot of netizens are even more infuriated because. Because it's not even just Karen Reid, but you're talking about so much impact that's going to be left because what, you can't do your job? Also, the fact that the Fed's case is closed has been up for debate. Some people think that's the Feds. They haven't responded personally. It's just Hank Brennan and the prosecution saying that the Fed's case is closed, but we don't really know. And one person that has worked with the Feds before the doj, they say, you know, it could be that the Feds are sitting back and not saying anything because the case is closed and they're silently walking away. Or they could be working on this case as we speak. You never really know.
- [167:16]
David Iannetti
Yeah.
- [167:18]
Karen Reid
Karen Reid says even if it's closed, that hardly means anyone involved in murdering John or framing me was cleared of wrongdoing. But everyone should note which side of the case is celebrating the federal investigation supposedly being closed and which side isn't I will tell you which side of this case is culpable and therefore worried about a possible federal indictment.
- [167:36]
David Iannetti
That is true.
- [167:37]
Karen Reid
Yeah. One juror that was on the second trial has come out to say that they hope the FBI is investigating because they want justice for John o' Keefe and they don't think Karen did it. They say that means we have at least one killer in town, a wolf in sheep's clothing. As a matter of fact, I think we might have a whole pack, yes. And that is where I leave you with Karen Reid's Final Part four. What are your thoughts on this case? I know there's a lot more that we could have dug into, but it just would have taken me 20 episodes. What are your thoughts? Leave it in the comments and I will see you in the next one. Be safe.
- [168:29]
David Iannetti
Think you've found the one, but something feels off. If you've met someone online who seems too good to be true, they probably are. Before you fall for flirty texts and stolen profile photos, use truthfinder.com to run a background check. Find out if they're really a Nigerian prince, a hot Co Ed Mr. Perkins, or a total fraud within seconds. Use a name, email or phone number to search for anyone to verify age, criminal and traffic info, and much more. Go to truthfinder.com dating today to uncover who they really are.
- [169:00]
Karen Reid
You're not at your house. You're at a lavish seaside estate. You're not walking the dog. You're hunting for clues in an Agatha Christie mystery. See it differently with Britbox. Stream an endlessly entertaining collection of British tv, including new original series Ludwig, starring David Mitchell. Bit awkward, really.
- [169:18]
David Iannetti
I think I might just have solved.
- [169:19]
Karen Reid
A murder and Outrageous A scandalous true story. Seems there's a political extremist in every family these days. See it differently when you stream the best of British TV with BritBox.