Karen Reid Supporter (23:50)

Second trial When I wanted the first.

Juror (23:52)

Trial, that she's innocent, she's factually innocent, there's no way she did it.

Annie Elise (23:56)

Justice. I hope it's a start of justice for Karen.

Karen Reid (24:00)

It shouldn't be a second trial for starters, but I hope that the second.

Annie Elise (24:05)

Trial has a positive outcome and arrives at the truth.

Karen Reid (24:09)

Free Karen Reid.

Annie Elise (24:11)

Now, although her supporters were growing, so did her doubters. And at the end of the day, both sides had presented really significant pieces of evidence to back their arguments. Now, if you follow true crime, you may have heard of cases where it takes anywhere from a few hours to several hours for a jury to be out and deliberate, right? Well, in this case, it took days. Day after day, the jury came back together trying to come up with a unanimous decision, but every day they failed to do so. Then eventually, after the fifth day of deliberations, an official announcement was made. The jury was hung. The trial was ultimately declared as a mistrial. And the note that the jury handed to the judge stated, quote, we find Ourselves divided by fundamental differences in our opinions. The divergence in our views is not rooted in a lack of understanding, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry, ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. So there it was. Not only was the country divided, but the jury was divided. So much so that a mistrial was declared. Now, when it was first announced that the jury couldn't come back and that it was a hung jury in a mistrial, everybody kind of felt like, okay, surely they're not going to try to retry her, especially given what came up during the trial, which I know I keep saying this, don't worry, we will get to that. But for the most part, public opinion was like this. There's no way that the state is going to retry her. There's so much shadiness, so much sketchiness. The jury was even divided. No way. But sure enough, the state announced that they planned to move forward with a retrial. And it shocked everybody. And a lot of people felt like this decision was ego driven, because, remember, so many public officials were brought into this during the first trial. There was allegations of the corruption, the conspiracy with these really big, heavy hitters. So when this was announced, a lot of people were like, okay, is it because their ego is, like, involved in this and they need to prove that they were right about Karen? Why would they go to a retrial if so much of this evidence has been put into question? If things look tainted, if there are suggestions of conspiracy and cover up, it just felt very odd. And if you're not really heavily involved in the true crime or legal world, then the decision of a mistrial might not really even seem like that huge of a deal to you? You know, the jury couldn't make a decision. Big deal. But the reality is, it was much bigger than that. And after all of it was said and done, some of the jurors even started coming forward. And just recently, we're talking, like, only a month or so ago, one of the jurors did an official interview with Court tv. And what this juror had to say, it felt like a bomb being dropped.

Juror (26:54)

All 12 of you inside that jury room agree that Karen Reid was not guilty of murder, Count one in that indictment.

Prosecutor (27:04)

Correct?

Juror (27:05)

Okay, now let's roll up our sleeves a little bit. How did. Did you vote? Was there. Was there a raising of the hands? Was there someone writing down what your vote was? Was it a secret ballot? How do you know? And how was the process that all 12 agreed that she was not guilty? Of murder, count one.

Prosecutor (27:28)

So we all raised our hands in terms of a vote, and we voted on that first count that we all agreed not guilty. Unfortunately, at that time, we did not fill out any of the paperwork there, nor sign it. So we were under the understanding that each charge could not be treated separately. And so we continued to deliberate despite the fact that we had agreed on two of the counts as not guilty.

Juror (28:05)

And the second count was count three. And the same process where I guess the foreperson is asking for a vote and everyone raised their hands and everybody.

Prosecutor (28:15)

Agreed not guilty for those two charges. That's correct.

Juror (28:19)

Was there. Now, you mentioned that you didn't fill out paperwork. Was there any discussion about should we check the box on the verdict slip?

Prosecutor (28:30)

So we didn't check. The box on the verdict slipped because we were still deliberating on the second charge of involuntary manslaughter, and that continued with deliberation. We did send out notes asking for clarification, but unfortunately, we did not ask the question at the time, should we treat each charge individually and separately?

Juror (28:59)

So explain to us why the presumption was that you had to come to a conclusion on all three. Was there any debate among the jurors about whether or not we have to agree on all three counts? Or it can be just one count or it can be two counts. Was there any discussion or debate amongst the 12 of you about what the rules were when it was time to fill out the verdict slip and determine and let everyone know where you were in these deliberations?

Prosecutor (29:37)

So one of the big things that happened was we all agreed and voted, and we kind of not came back to any of those charges. We never revisited them because we had already voted on them. And then we kept on debating on that second charge. And because we kept on debating on that second charge and deliberating, that kind of got us caught off guard at the end in terms of how to respond to that and whether to ask. There was a couple of us who did clearly indicate that maybe we should ask about treating each charge independently. But the majority overruled. And essentially we were left to believe that it needed to be all or nothing.

Juror (30:31)

See, that's interesting. See, that's fascinating. That's something I would think the folks in Massachusetts would be interested in. Is that now you're talking about there's debate about the rules within the jury. See, that's. I look at that. That's the fault of the system not informing you ahead of time about these things.

Annie Elise (30:53)

Now, of course, this is all dependent on whether what this juror was saying was 100% factual or not. Right. However, other jurors have now come forward and have agreed with him. So it seems very likely that all of this was true, which, just based on these accounts, it seems like Karen very well could have walked out of the courtroom last summer being acquitted of two different charges, the worst being second degree murder, which, that is an insane loss for the defense because she could have been acquitted. She wasn't based on what they are calling a technicality with the jury, which, unfortunately, that's just the way it is Until a verdict is actually read and announced. It's not a verdict. It's not, you know, official. But this was a big blow to the defense, which, let's talk about that technicality or that error, because it begs the question, who's at fault for this? It seems like for a murder case, especially one this big, this polarizing, and so public that there shouldn't be an ounce of room for any type of mistake or error. So forgetting to clarify with the jury that each charge can be decided on separately from one another feels kind of like a big mistake. But of course, regardless, there's no going back. The trial was declared a mistrial. That's just that. However, the good news was that Karen's defense team now learning all of this information, it was, in a way, like they were striking gold because it's very rare that you're handed this kind of information or these kinds of chances in the legal world, especially at a second murder trial. So now it's almost like they had the upper hand. They knew that the jury was swaying in their favor on those other two charges, so they were now going to try to use that to their advantage. So since then, Karen's lawyers and legal team has just been putting in overtime, to say the least. But to be fair, they have to. There really are no other options.

Karen Reid (32:40)

I picture every day that they're working on framing me, and every day that they do that, and I'm taking the day off, they're getting one day ahead of me. So I only feel relaxed, as relaxed as I can be if I'm working on the case.

Annie Elise (33:00)

When her second trial was officially scheduled, her team did everything that they could possibly do to get two of those three charges against her dropped. Remember, they should have technically been acquitted anyway. Their argument was that in keeping the two charges that the jury had supposedly reached a unanimous decision on, the first being not guilty of second degree murder, and the second being not guilty of leaving the scene of an incident in which there was a death. That by keeping those charges in, it goes directly against Karen's constitutional rights as an American, which, of course, people are like, well, how? Why? How would that go against her constitutional rights? Well, they argued that it would be considered double jeopardy. And for those of you who may not be super familiar with that term, it essentially states that in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice after either a conviction or an acquittal.

Juror (33:48)

We had a lengthy argument in front of the Chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of what we contend to be profound constitutional significance, which is whether or not the Norfolk.

Annie Elise (34:02)

DA could reprosecute Ms. Reed when there's.

Juror (34:05)

Such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.

Annie Elise (34:09)

And just to give a really simple example of that to everyone, let's use Casey Anthony as a test case here because, you know, I freaking hate her. But she was obviously found not guilty of first degree murder. So technically, she could come out right now and say, I did it. I killed kaylee. Or like O.J. did, you know, if I had done it, the book that he wrote or whatever. And she couldn't be tried for Kaylee's murder again, which, yes, of course, there are always loopholes with that. You could probably still try her for some kind of crime related to the case as a whole or some sort of workaround, but never again could it be tried as first degree murder. She was acquitted. So, I mean, imagine that. But in Karen's case, those two charges that they had unanimously decided on, according to the jurors. So now that they're being brought in again in the retrial, the defense is saying, no, no, no, no. That is double jeopardy. However, because that verdict was never read into court, it's not official. It doesn't stand. So I can see why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and even the lower federal courts ultimately decided against dismissing those two charges.

Judge Beverly Kanoni (35:13)

Judge Beverly Kanoni denied the motion Friday morning. The judge said jurors private agreements are not the same as a verdict because the defendant was not acquitted of any charges she wrote, and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial. Double jeopardy is not implicated.

Annie Elise (35:30)

There was no verdict.

Karen Reid (35:32)

Their verdict was, we cannot reach a unanimous decision, which resulted in the mistrial.

Judge Beverly Kanoni (35:38)

In the judge's ruling, she pointed out that during deliberation, defense attorneys asked for the court to move towards a mistrial.

Karen Reid Supporter (35:46)

Our view is that it's time for Tui Rodriguez.

Judge Beverly Kanoni (35:49)

Twice Reid's attorneys asked for a dynamite instruction. That's the last Step before a hung jury leads to a mistrial.

Annie Elise (35:57)

He was following the very well founded conventional wisdom which is if you are the defense and you're in a situation where there's a hung jury, grab the mistrial.

Judge Beverly Kanoni (36:11)

But then when lawyers asked the judge to drop two charges later, they said they never agreed to a mistrial. In her ruling, the judge wrote in a remarkable turnaround, defense counsel now argues that the result they twice advocated for was sudden and unexpected.

Karen Reid (36:26)

The defense was being disingenuous. They knew that asking for this instruction was going was implicitly saying if a.

Annie Elise (36:35)

Mistrial happened, happens, we accept that. So now the second trial was scheduled to move forward one way or another and now both sides are playing their cards very, very carefully which like I said, it's really rare that you are given a second chance like this for first or second degree murder charges. So it's almost like that first trial was like, I don't know, some kind of insane trial run, no pun intended obviously. But like now they've learned so much information and they can really use that to their benefit, use that to their strengths. They know what the prosecution is going to come out swinging with. They know how to combat that. And it feels like in my opinion could possibly have a stronger defense this time. Not to mention there have been so many new details that have come out in all of the pre trial madness. I mean, from legal actions both sides have taken, warnings from the judge, new team members and strategies, you name it. So I want to analyze all of it. Not only the stuff from the first trial and all the shady inconsistencies, but also what we can expect now in this second trial because although I'm sure we will see a lot of similarities, there's also some things that are being switched up. For starters, there's a new lead prosecutor on the case named Hank Brennan. And pretty much as soon as Hank was put on the case, he got to work. Now, more or less the defense's entire argument during Karen's first trial was that of course she did not kill John, that his death was this major cover up. Right. Well, in prepar for the second trial, Hank new prosecutor asked the court to block Karen's defense team from arguing that anybody else was responsible for John's death. And what's crazy is that motion was partially granted. Basically the judge ordered that Karen's defense team was not allowed to mention any sort of third party person who was potentially responsible for John's murder. They are however allowed to bring it up and provide evidence for their argument during the trial itself, just not during opening statements. So again, partially granted. And although they can still bring it up in the trial, it was a huge point that the defense had made during opening statements in Karen's first trial.

Karen Reid Supporter (38:40)

Karen Reid was framed. Her car never struck John O'Keefe. She did not cause his death. And that means that somebody else. You will learn that it was no accident that John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29th of 2022. You will learn that at that address lived a well known and well connected law enforcement family in Canton, the Alberts. Because the Alberts were involved and because they had close connections to the investigators in this case, Karen Reed was framed for a murder she did not commit.

Annie Elise (39:31)

So now with this new partial grant and ruling right away, it kind of seemed like it was a huge blow to the defense and their strategy this time around. I mean, sure, yes, opening statements aren't usually what make or break a case, but they are very important. It sets the tone for the trial. It is the first, first touch point of the jury hearing what may or may not have happened. It's the first impression of the case as a whole. Now, could this ruling affect the defense's arguments? I don't know. But I want you to keep the idea of a third party's involvement in mind because we are going to come back to it later. Now, this was not the only thing that this new lead prosecutor was initiating. And at the time of this recording, a lot of things that are being talked about are just pretrial motions and they haven't been accepted or denied. So by the time this goes live, there might have been a definitive decision made for some of these. But for the sake of this episode, I do want to go over some of the legal lead up just so that you can have a full understanding. Now, for one thing, the prosecution wanted data from a cell phone belonging to the vlogger Turtle Boy to be included in the evidence. And I talked about this before, but more specifically, they want to see text messages that were exchanged between Karen and Turtle Boy. They want these on display due to what they believe shows Karen's, quote, consciousness of guilt. And if you're more familiar with this case or even if you watch the docu series, you're probably a little bit familiar with Turtle Boy. But you'll know that he has been somebody who has shouted corruption from the rooftops pretty much from day one. He also is somebody who is directly responsible for a lot of the inconsistencies and the shadiness to be public knowledge at this point, he brought it to light. And I gotta just say, like him, don't like him. Wherever you sit on that, whether you think it's a drama or not, 99.9% of what he has presented has turned out to pan out. So, I mean, he's the reason, I believe too, that this case got such notoriety and why so many people got involved. And in investigating, with the COVID up piece of it now, in these text messages that the prosecution wants entered into evidence, Karen apparently goes over things with him, like the defense's theories, certain materials, and even other types of evidence, which maybe doesn't seem like it's a big deal on the surface. Like, okay, maybe he's a witness listed in this now, and they want to go through the data, they want to go through the cell phone records. But the reason that this is such a big deal is because there are actually criminal charges against Turtle Boy for witness intimidation. So it seems like the prosecution is potentially trying to, like, tie those two things together. Almost like Turtle Boy and Karen are kind of working in cahoots with one another. And sure enough, one day before jury selection began, the motion was granted. Although the judge specified that any communication between Karen's attorneys and Turtle Boy was completely off limits. So the prosecution was only allowed access to the text messages between him and Karen directly. However, there were a lot of them. Karen even said on the docuseries herself that she was going through a third party as she was communicating with him in the beginning. But then she just started going to him directly and sending him things directly. So I don't know. We'll see. This obviously wasn't brought up in a huge way in the first trial, so we will see how the prosecution positions this in the second trial. Another motion that the prosecution made is one that has to do with two key experts during Karen's first trial. Their names are Andrew Rentschler and Daniel Wolf. And both of these men are crash reconstruction experts who testified for the defense during the first trial. And their testimony in Karen's first trial, it was honestly really huge details. It was massive because they both testified that based on their knowledge, John's injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. And that I would think could make or break a case. Right. If you're trying to prove that somebody is innocent, what better way than to bring in experts whose testimony goes directly against what the prosecution is arguing? If they're like, there's no way that these injuries on his Arm are consistent with a vehicle hitting him regardless how fast it was going. That right there should be clear cut. Right? Well, as it turns out, in one of the prosecution's pre trial motions, they are requesting that both of these experts not be allowed to testify during the second trial. And the reason that they are citing, the reason they are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed is because the prosecution is saying that the relationship between Karen's defense attorneys and these experts is, quote, cozier than once portrayed. And there were a few things noted in this filing to back this up. The first was a footnote stating that the new prosecutor, Hank, has pictures of Andrew at a private luncheon where he and Karen's dad were speaking together. Apparently, Hank also provided documents and a $24,000 invoice which allegedly shows Karen's lawyers contacted the witnesses despite the defense claiming that they had never met. So they're alleging. Look, they're buddy, buddy. They're chummy. Of course they're going to testify and say whatever they need to say to be on Karen and the defense's side, not only because they're paid experts, but also because they're, quote, cozier than once portrayed, saying they've paid them, they've had private lunches with them. Like, clearly this is a conflict of interest, which I gotta say I understand the prosecution wanting them removed because their testimony was so detrimental the first time around. So they are, of course, going to try to stop them from testifying in the second trial, right now. Karen's team, on the other hand, wants any mention of that payment, that $24,000 payment to the consulting agency to either be partially or fully excluded from the trial. They don't want it brought up, which, again, I understand, because it doesn't look great, right? But what I will say, just in case you again, don't follow. A lot of these trials regularly, experts that the defense or the prosecution bring in typically are paid. So the fact that they were paid at all isn't really, in my opinion, that surprising or shocking. But I think what they're trying to say is that the amount was so high that maybe there was some colluding, something like that. Just, again, power of suggestion. Right now, Hank hasn't just been active with his own court strategies, but has also been vocal in regards to the defense's motions and strategies as well. In late February of this year, the defense had filed a motion to dismiss. And this accused the prosecution in Karen's first trial of, quote, extraordinary government misconduct. And one of the main things that's Discussed in this motion had to do with the evidence that was presented by the prosecution. More specifically, the surveillance camera video Of Karen's suv Once it was taken into police custody. Remember, I told you they seized her vehicle, took it for evidence. That's where they saw the shattered taillight. And then, hours later, coincidentally, the CERT team, who responded again back to 34 Fairview to continue their investigation, Found pieces of the tail light, Even though they had not been found that entire morning, Even when using a leaf blower to move the snow. So her defense team has been arguing that the damage to her tail light could have been damaged or made worse after it was taken in. And the fact that the video evidence provided Was inverted Was a huge red flag, because what I mean by inverted is it was almost, like, mirrored. So when they were looking at her car in this surveillance footage, they thought that what they were seeing Was the right passenger tail light, and nobody was going near the tail light. Nobody was walking by it. So they were like, there's nobody who would have messed with it, Nobody who would have shattered it or taken pieces from it. There's no way that there's some bigger conspiracy here. But then, upon closer look, the footage had been inverted, Meaning that what they were actually looking at, where nobody was walking by, Was the driver's side tail light, not the passenger side. And when you looked on the opposite side, that was a little bit difficult to see because it was on the opposite side of the camera. So it was kind of, like, hidden behind the car. You could see somebody standing there. So, again, it's just one more question that is raised here about what's the truth. There's so many questions, and I'm somebody where it's like, where there's smoke, there's fire, and there are so many inconsistencies in this case to be explained away by pure coincidence. That's my opinion, Whether or not Karen and I'll get to this in a minute. But whether or not Karen did it, obviously, people are still divided. But it's my opinion that, like, there are enough inconsistencies to certainly raise reasonable doubt 1000%. I digress. Let me continue, and then I will get on. I will go back to that and, like, touch more about, you know, the guilt and the innocence of it all. But going back to the car and the surveillance footage, Like I said, Hank was now speaking up about it. And to put it bluntly, he claimed that this video being inverted Was just due to the camera settings. That's all. It was just. It wasn't intentional. It was just the settings. It was, you know, not even a glitch, which I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if it's bullshit. I don't know if it's solid proof. Because again, what people are alleging is, no, they purposefully inverted the footage so that it looked as though to a normal person's naked eye that they were looking at the passenger tail light. And unless somebody looked really closely and noticed that it was inverted, they never would have caught on to it. But he's just saying, no, no, no, that was just the camera settings. Nobody tried to mess with this or like lead somebody astray. So all of that stuff I just went over was coming from the prosecution's side of things. Now I want to dive in a little deeper into what Karen and her defense team have been up to the last several months. Foreign have you ever just kind of hit that like meh phase in your day where you're like dying for a little thrill? You feel like you need a pick me up, maybe something to pull you out of the routine and like drop you right into, say, a story that grabs you? Because that's me. Every time I open my Audible app, whether I'm out on a walk, I'm at home doing the dishes or stuck in traffic trying to get here to the studio. Audible is my go to for all things like grippy, creepy, romantic, or even just like flat out kooky and weird. They have everything from heart racing thrillers and fantasy romance adventures to true crime and horror, which will, you know, jolt you if my stuff doesn't jolt you enough. Enough to keep the lights on when you're sleeping. But I recently have been hooked on this one audiobook called Mad Love. It's a twisty, suspenseful Audible original that honestly felt like I was kind of watching a Netflix series, but in my head, if that makes sense. Like I was like doing it with my inner voices, if that makes sense. But like it wasn't because it was actually an audiobook. Whatever. I'm trying to explain it, but it's like it felt like a Netflix series. And if that's not your vibe, that's totally fine. There's Onyx Storm for all my fantasy lovers out there. Never Flinch by Stephen King if you want nightmares in like the creepy way that we all apparently do. Or even the Tenant by Frida McFadden if you're in like a psychological thriller mood. And it's not just audiobooks. They have podcasts, exclusive, exclusive originals, comedy Guided Wellness, you name it. With over a million titles, there's seriously something for every mood. And here's the best part. As an Audible member, you get to keep one new release or bestseller each month forever. Say it with me. Forever. Plus, you get unlimited access to a huge collection of included titles, so you're never stuck wondering what to listen to next. So start listening and discover what's beyond the edge of your seat. New members can try Audible now for free for 30 days and dive into a world of new thrills. Visit audible.com seriously or text serial lessly to 500500 that's audible.com serial lessly or text serial to 500500 Karen's defense team has of course grown since the first trial, and interestingly enough, a new addition on her team was technically involved in her first trial, though under a different job. A woman named Victoria George served as an alternate juror in Karen's first case, but now she's going into this second trial as part of Karen's legal team. Apparently during Karen's first trial, she was just so moved by what was going on and what she was witnessing and seeing that she felt like she had to get more involved. She even gave an official statement about her involvement which reads, I was a fair minded juror who left this trial questioning the integrity of the system long before the defense filed a motion to dismiss with allegations of jury tampering. It is the Reid case itself and the fact that it is still being brought that has left many in Massachusetts wary, distrustful and scared of our system. As a lawyer, this reality saddens me even more because I remember how much faith I had in our system as an optimistic law student, which I haven't heard that this move will have any sort of implications and I haven't heard a ton of people talking about it. But I do think that that is very interesting. Right? An alternate juror who is a lawyer watched this whole first trial unfold and was so moved by it and felt like there was such an injustice that she is now going to be a part of Karen's legal team for the second trial. That kind of speaks really loudly right now. As far as new strategies go, it seems like some new witnesses have been added to the list for both the prosecution and the defense. And one of the main witnesses that people are commenting on is Karen's dad because he is listed as a witness on the prosecution's list. And all we really know about this in particular is that the lead prosecutor previously had said that Karen's dad's testimony is important due to various admissions made by the defendant to him. So only time will tell what exactly these alleged admissions were. But I, for one, am extremely curious to see what is said. I mean, is it going to be something that literally has my jaw on the floor like an outright confession, or is it just circumstantial evidence? Only time will tell. Now, one name that stood out to me on the defense's witness list is Michael Morrissey. Because Michael is the District Attorney of Norfolk county and he previously made his thoughts and feelings on this case pretty well known.

Karen Reid Supporter (53:31)

This will be the first statement of its kind in my dozen years as Norfolk District Attorney. The harassment of witnesses in the murder prosecution of Karen Reed is absolutely baseless. It should be an outrage to any decent person, and it needs to stop. Innuendo is not evidence. False narratives are not evidence. However, what evidence does show is that John O'Keefe never entered the home at 34 Fairview Road in Campden the night he died. Location data from his phone recovered from the lawn beneath his body when he was transported to the hospital shows that this phone did not enter that home. 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 one. Some have, without any 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 O'Keefe never entered the home at all. Testimony from witnesses tell us that 18 year old Colin Albert had left his uncle's home before John O'Keefe and Karen Reed had arrived outside the residence. There was no fight inside that home. John O'Keefe did not enter the home. Colin Elvid, 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.

Annie Elise (55:12)

I mean, that was pretty obvious how he felt about the case and about Karen's innocence, right? So, needless to say, I'm extremely curious how and why he ended up on the defense's witness list and what, if anything, this testimony might offer as far as new information goes. Now, as for new strategies on the defense's side of things, let's get into that third party culprit strategy that I briefly mentioned earlier. Now, the idea of a third party defense isn't exactly new, per se. Her team has been arguing since day one that she is innocent. And then somebody else killed John.

Karen Reid (55:45)

O'Keefe said it feels we're the only ones fighting for the truth of what happened to John O'Keefe. And me and my family and my attorneys and my team have marshaled every resource to get to the truth. It just feels like no one else wants it.

Juror (55:57)

And Karen, just to be clear, you didn't do it.

Karen Reid (56:01)

We know who did it, Steve. We know. And we know who spearheaded this cover up. You all know?

Karen Reid Supporter (56:06)

Yes, we do.

Annie Elise (56:07)

And no, she didn't do it.

Karen Reid Supporter (56:08)

No, she didn't do it.

Annie Elise (56:10)

This is an innocent woman. She didn't do it.

Karen Reid (56:12)

I tried to save his life. I tried to save his life. At six in the morning, I was covered in his. I was the only one trying to save his life.

Annie Elise (56:19)

So nothing really new. However, the focus of who her team will be pointing the blame towards now is a little bit new. So her defense team previously stated that going into this second trial, they really wanted to focus more on three specific people. Colin Albert, Brian Albert, and Brian Higgins. However, Judge Kanoni ruled that Colin could not be named due to insufficient evidence. So pretty much they're going to be focusing on both of the Brians, Brian Higgins and Brian Albert. And here's what we know about these two guys. First, there's always been some speculation about whether or not there was some kind of fight inside the Albert home that evening. Whether or not that's actually something that is just hearsay and rumors. It's still up in the air. But I want to start with Brian Albert. Now, of course, the most obvious thing is that John was found deceased on his lawn, you know, right in front of his house. But it's more than that because Karen's team argues that Brian was known for being a bully, particularly among his other colleagues, his other law enforcement colleagues. Apparently there was even a time or two when he was known to punch other co workers after a night of heavy drinking. Like he just couldn't handle his alcohol and he had a short fuse and would just react. So the idea of him getting into a fight with John, it doesn't really seem all that out there. But then there are some more circumstantial things which the defense believes shows that Brian's consciousness of guilt, the biggest thing, is that Brian failed to ever come out of the house and speak with all of the first responders that morning. The people who were swarming his front yard trying to save John Okeefe's life. And many people on both sides are saying, like, that's really weird. He himself is a trained first responder, he's a big name cop in the town and there's a dead body on his lawn and he doesn't even come out of his house. I mean, weird, yes, but does it prove his guilt? Not necessarily. It is though, pretty strange. Another thing is that the investigators never went into the house to take photos, to look at a potential crime scene, to ask questions, to just look around. And that's concerning because it's suggested that John could have been murdered inside that house, yet nobody even went inside to take a look around. And something I'm still stuck on that does kind of coincide with Brian Albert's possible guilt is the topic of that Google search by Jen McCabe. Remember, Jen is Brian's sister in law and the defense claims that at 2:27am Jen searched how long to die in the cold. The search was then later deleted though she claimed on the stand during the first trial that she's not the one who deleted it, that she doesn't even know how to delete a search and that it's all once again a big coincidence. But I genuinely can't think of any reason why she would have been Googling that at 2:27 in the morning, especially that night in particular. It's just something I cannot wrap my head around. However, I will say that both Jen and the prosecution argue that the search was actually made much later, that it was made at around 6:23am that you know how you have in Google like different tabs that open that she went to a tab that she had been using at 2 in the morning and searched how long to die in the cold at the direction of Karen while they were on the scene and that it just triggered that previous timestamp, it was a fresh new search, it wasn't an old one. Which even though it's only a couple hours apart, it does make a world of difference. Right? Because on one hand if it happened at 2:27 that was hours before John's body was even discovered. On the other hand, if it happened after 6am Once his body was discovered, that would make more sense and let's just say it was a glitch or the way you know that Apple has the different pop up windows when you're searching on Google, let's say she did search it at 6:23am why would you delete that search? Why would you need to delete it? Why would you ever delete a search like that? It just makes no sense. I mean if you found your friend and you're Curious, like, oh, my God, he's here. How long does it take to die in the cold? I get that, but why would you delete it after the fact act? That feels a little shady. Another thing that stuck out during the first trial, too, was, remember how it was alleged that while they were on the scene, Karen repeated the phrase, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Well, during the first trial, they brought in several witnesses who said they heard her say this. First responders, friends, people who were there on site saying, we heard it, we heard it, we heard it. However, every single person who testified that was picked apart because that statement was never written down in any single report. During all of this, nobody ever wrote, she said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. However, what they did write down in the report was the question that she had asked of, could I have hit him? So now you have multiple people saying, she said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Yet it's nowhere in the report from first responders on the scene, any even interviews immediately in the aftermath. None of that. All that there is in the report is the question of, could I have hit him? Did I hit him? So their testimony was quickly picked apart. And again, just goes to the credibility of, like, did you guys really hear that? Why wasn't it in the report then? If that was such a significant thing that you heard as a trained professional reporting to the scene of a crime, why wouldn't you have included that in your statement? Right. Let's also talk about the lead investigator of this case, Proctor, because, boy, oh, boy, I could go on and on about Proctor for its own episode, but in the first trial, a lot of his text messages and things that he said about Karen were put on full display where he was talking about nudes, how he hasn't seen her nude yet. He called her a see you next Tuesday. Just very vulgar, unprofessional, horrific messages. And we're going to talk more about Proctor in a minute. But these are just some of the things that had been coming up in the first trial, which in my opinion, rightly so, created a lot of reasonable doubt for the jury, which obviously we know it did. Right. Another piece of all that that didn't quite add up was the pieces of taillight, because, remember, they seized her car in the afternoon. It's taken to the Sally Port. Some of the footage is like, there's a lot of discrepancies going on with the footage. Then they send the cert team out to 34 Fairview that evening in the dark at I think it was 5:46, 6pm and while they're searching, they find these pieces of taillight right there in the snow. Some of them even on top of the snow, which earlier when they were first responding at the crime scene and doing the initial search, as I said, they used a leaf blower to move the snow. They found pieces of clear cocktail glass in the snow. That's how much visibility there was. So you're telling me that they could find clear pieces of cocktail glass, but didn't see red taillight plastic until after Karen's car was seized, taken to the Sally Port, and somebody was near the back corner. Then the cert team came, and within moments they found these pieces of taillight. Kind of feels suspicious. Like that's suspicious. That's weird. And pieces of the taillight kept showing up days later. Every time they would go out there to do a search, more pieces were found. And what's so interesting about this too, is because, yeah, while on paper it makes sense, okay, she may have backed into him, shattered her tail light, hit him with such force, took off. The pieces of taillight are left behind. They don't see them. It doesn't appear that that's accurate or that it can be proven without doubt. Because when they went back and looked on ring camera footage of Karen at John's house, when she's pulling out of John's house at 5 in the morning to go over to Jen McCabe, you can see her reverse into John's car. And if you zoom in on the wheel of John's car, when she hits it and reverses into it, it moves and it's that back corner that bumps into his car, the passenger tail light that bumps into it. So that easily could have been when her tail light was first shattered. It doesn't mean that it was shattered the night that she was dropping him off at the house party. Again, not concrete evidence either way, for whatever side you stand with, but enough to feel bizarre and make you question things and have a little bit of uncertainty. Right then we also have the Brian Higgins of it all, because Brian Higgins, in the weeks leading up to John's death, was sending very flirtatious messages back and forth with Karen. And it's worth mentioning that during Karen's first trial, her lawyers claimed to have caught Brian in a lie while he was on the stand. Brian, of course, denied that he was lying, though. Now, where this idea comes from, though let me give a little bit of background story is the night after the house party, when he was leaving the Albert house. And remember, he's an ATF agent. He's buddy, buddy chummy with all of them. So he's now leaving the Albert house. And Brian Higgins testified that he went to the police station so that he could help move patrol cars so that the lot could be snowplowed. Because, remember, it was a blizzard, a lot of snow was coming in, and there was just this massive snowstorm. Then he said he headed home. Afterwards, he ate a little, drank a little, and then he fell right to sn sleep. But one thing that he made a really huge point to mention was that he was woken up the following morning by all of the frantic phone calls from his friends and from his colleagues, making it seem like that was the first he ever heard about any news, the first he heard about anything related to John, that he hadn't even talked to anyone on the phone until he woke up and received all those phone calls. Here's the thing, though. His call logs tell a very different story. Because at 2:22am Right before that Google search that people have in question of how long to die in the Snow. But at 2:22am There was a one second phone call from Brian Albert to Brian Higgins. Higgins then called him back 17 seconds later, and when he did, the call connected for about 22 seconds. However, Brian Albert claimed on the stand that this was all just a butt dial. A huge coincidence. He didn't purposefully call Higgins. He was being intimate with his wife at the time, and something hit his pocket and it caused him to butt dial him. Which, okay, fair, makes sense. But what about 17 seconds later when Higgins called you back? Because Higgins also said, oh, no, no, no, that was a butt dial on my end. I butt dialed Chris Albert. I didn't even see that I had a missed call. I was drinking or I was asleep or whatever his story was like, that was. It must have been a butt dial. Not on purpose. Which my question for you out there is, what is the likelihood of two people who are somehow involved in this investigation and this case where somebody ends up being found dead on Brian Albert's lawn? What is the likelihood that Brian Albert and Brian Higgins just coincidentally butt dialed each other at the same time in the middle of the night, right around the time? There's also a questionable Google search about how long to die in the cold. Now, as if that is not shady enough, it gets even worse. Because Brian Higgins destroyed his phone and also destroyed his SIM card, getting rid of any possible way to digitally trace what really happened here. He put both of them in a trash bag. He drove to a military base and he tossed them in a dumpster after destroying both of them. And get this, this disposal was the day before one day before he was given formal notice. Don't destroy your phone. Literally the day before they formally said, don't destroy your phone. We're going to be looking at it as evidence. He goes off, cracks the sim, cracks the phone, puts it in a trash bag, drives to a military base and puts it in a dumpster. That's weird. That's suspicious. Like I don't know many cops who are doing that unless you have something to hide. Right? And although he wasn't given the formal notice not to destroy his phone yet because remember he disposed of it one day prior before he was given that notice. Who's to say there wasn't someone internally who tipped him off that that formal notice was coming down the pike? There's just so many questions and shady shit that is going on in this case. And look, I don't get super conspiracy often, but something is weird here. Something is not right. Now Jen McCabe also had more bizarre phone activity aside from just that Google search, because she also called John rapid fire multiple times in a 10 minute period. Now this was around 12:45am Right, when Karen said she dropped John off at the house or shortly after. And Jen, what did she claim these phone calls were for? These rapid fire calls to John in a 10 minute period. What do you think? Butt dial? How many, like how many people in this situation in this house are butt dialing people? Like make it make sense. Right. The defense is of course arguing, saying no, it's because something happened inside that house. There was an altercation, whether it was Brian Higgins who had been flirting with Karen, and there was an altercation between him and John O'Keefe. Whether it was something else going on, there was an altercation in that house. Then as they're cleaning up or moving things around or frantically trying to like whatever with the scene that they were looking for his John's phone and they couldn't find it so they had Jen call him multiple times to try to find the phone. I mean, how many times have you misplaced your phone and you're like, hey, can you call my phone so I can find it? Call it again, call it again. I'm going to go from this room to this room to this room and look for it. So the defense is saying that's why she rapid fire called him, because they were looking for his phone. Now was that the Truth or was this just an on the spot lie? I don't really know but if I was a betting person I would bet money that all of these call logs are once again going to be brought up during the second trial. And even though Colin Albert was excluded from the defense being able to focus on him, it is worth mentioning why the defense questioned him in the first place because they were stuck on two key things. The first being that his knuckles had clear evidence of being red and like super messed up. Almost as if he had been in some kind of fist fight which he claimed wasn't the case. I think his reasoning for it was actually that he fell on some ice or something like that though his knuckles were all banged up in red and so they were like, it looks like you were in a fight. He's like, no, I fell on the ice. I mean what the truth is, who knows. But what sticks out to me is that his name was left out of all of the police reports. And that seems like it could have been a very deliberate thing to have been done or maybe just a completely innocent coincidence mistake. You be the judge. But like I said, the judge ruled that there wasn't enough sufficient evidence to place any kind of blame on Colin as a third party person. And I do, before I get into the balance of this, I do want to just quickly say since we're on the topic of Colin, there is a rumor and a theory out there. And let me be crystal clear, there is no proof of this. It is all talk. You can probably find more information on some other channels about this. But I was told this information by somebody who has been glued to this case from day one. And it is rumored and suggested that Colin possibly is a dealer in the area and specifically I believe cocaine. And that John was kind of on his scent, like on his trail, knowing what he was up to. So that night when he got to the house, to this house party, Colin saw John come in and didn't like that. And that the fight did break out between Colin and John and that because Colin is related to Brian Albert, the owner of the home and he's in with all these cops and stuff, the suggestion is that they tried to cover for him. I've also heard allegations that perhaps the dealing is not just on a public level but also there are people in the department who partake in this drug, if you catch my drift. And so that's why this was all like a bigger scheme of a cover up. Again, that is all alleged rumor and theory. But I thought it's worth mentioning because the defense did want to bring Colin in. They did say it looked like he had been in a fight. And that is some of the information that word on the street is saying of what went down or could have gone down. Now, this next thing that I want to go over doesn't necessarily have to do with any pre trial hearings, motions to dismiss, or anything like that, but it is still very important to go over because literally just hours after Karen's first trial, Michael Proctor, that dirtbag who sent all those text messages, called her a see you next Tuesday, was doing some shady stuff throughout the investigation. He was relieved from duty, and then weeks later, he was suspended without pay. Now, this came after he was questioned during Karen Reid's first trial about all of those unprofessional messages that he had sent his friends calling her a whack job, a cunt, among all of these other things. So he was suspended without pay. But just recently, In March of 2025, he was officially fired. The superintendent released a statement following his termination stating, our mission to deliver the highest level of police services depends on the public's trust in our professionalism and integrity. It is incumbent upon me, as well as every member of this department, to hold one another accountable when any member compromises our mission by failing to uphold our values. As superintendent, my role demands that I do what is in the best interest of the department. My decision to terminate Mr. Proctor follows a thorough, fair and impartial process. I have weighed the nature of the offenses, their impact on our investigative integrity, and the importance of safeguarding the reputations of our dedicated women and men in the State Police. This decision reflects our unwavering commitment to upholding our values, enhancing public trust, and ensuring the highest standards of service and accountability. Finally, recognizing the ways in which this process has affected the family of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, I would also like to renew our condolences to them. So take that statement how you will. But with Michael being fired, this technically did close the internal investigation that was ongoing into him and into his conduct. But I have no doubts that this will once again be a huge topic of discussion during this next trial, especially when it comes to his credibility. Now, one of the other things I want to go over is some of the more questionable things that have transpired during this case as a whole. Not just Karen's first trial or all the pre trial stuff that's going on right now, but we're talking literally since the very moment that John was found dead. I mean, it's hard to Talk about this case without talking about all of the major screw ups and possible corruption involved. Right. I mean, the case is very, very intriguing and very compelling in part for those very reasons. Okay, guys, can we talk about something that I used to dread shopping for because I could never find a good replacement? I've been using the same kind since I was literally 15 years old. And it's bras and underwear and I'm not going to tell you who, but I'm gonna just say it starts with a V. That's all I'm gonna say. But, like, nothing ever fit right. The bands of the straps either were digging in, the straps were falling down. The underwear. I like the seamless ones, tmi, but like the seamless, like little scalloped ones if you know, you know. But they were always like tearing and ripping and I always wanted seamless, so I kind of just stuck around. And it's literally, gosh, it's literally been decades that I've been wearing the same ones. But then so many people are talking about it forever. I should have listened because I should have tried skims. My sister has been talking to me about skims for literally a year. But I finally caved and I finally tried the Fits Everybody collection. And now I'm kicking myself for not doing it sooner because I hate the cliche. But it is game changing. The fabric is like buttery soft. It literally feels like it's melting into your skin. And I'm not exaggerating, it feels like you're not wearing anything at all, but in the best way. And I tried the Fits Everybody thong, which was like a replacement to what I was wearing. And I forgot I was even, like, wearing anything. There was like, no bunching, no writing up, no weird seams showing through my leggings. It was just comfortable. And also, don't get me started on the triangle bralette, because I started wearing that too. I hate underwire. I hate the way it digs in. But I also have like a short torso, so, like, things just fit me funny. But this feels so good. It's actually like magic. It gives me shape, it gives me lift, but it's not squeezing the life out of me. I mean, it's supportive and I just wear it all day and I feel like I'm not wearing anything. So whether you're lounging, running errands, or filming content all day, all day long, like me, you need these things in your drawer. I'm already planning to replace all my old underwear because nothing compares. So I need to do like a Massive haul. Maybe I'll do that right after this actually. So trust me, if you haven't tried skims yet, this is your sign shop, Skims Ultimate Bra Collection and more@skims.com and at the Skims LA flagship on Sunset Boulevard. After you place your order, be sure to let them know that I sent you though select podcast in the survey and make sure to select my show in the drop down menu that follows again, that skims.com and their ultimate bra collection which has like their bras, their underwear, it's so soft. I think next up, I'm going to try their pajamas too because that's what Amy has been like hounding me on for a year. But I don't know why I'm so late to the skims game. Guys. It really is good stuff. So check it out. Skims.com tell them we sent you in the survey section after you select podcast. I keep talking about the defense getting this second chance and how it's a positive thing now, how they have so much more information, how they're armed with maybe a better strategy. But for Karen's friends, family and supporters, it also feels at times like a slap in the face, like she keeps getting screwed over again and again and again and that this second trial should not even be happening.

Karen Reid (77:51)

We're here to shed light on the corruption that exists in this state. And I feel humbled by it. In some ways it's a nightmare and I wish it never happened. But I also feel that I can handle this and I don't feel weaker as it goes, I feel stronger. And the public support is a big, the restoration of my reputation, which was a big loss, has re. Energized me, has energized me, rejuvenated me. But this is, this is what I'm here for. And I get messages constantly, mainly from people I've never met and from people that are suffering. And it's a lot of women that have either had like a physical loss of a spouse or a child or an illness similar to mine, or with a colostomy bag or have been the victim of, you know, police harassment or some type of unfairness with the criminal justice system. And there's a lot of suffering in this world. Mine is just very visible. But I do feel honored isn't the right word, but I'm humbled by it. And I feel like this is your purpose. And a lot of people have purposes thrust on them that they didn't really want.

Annie Elise (79:08)

And let's talk about the judge in this case. Judge Beverly Kanoni. People are not fans of her, to say the least. Just in the more recent months, as far as Karen's second trial is concerned, people have been really picking apart her actions and really questioning them. For example, in March, Karen's defense team filed to add a fifth lawyer to their team, New York attorney Mark Betteau. And this request was denied by the judge, who claimed that due to Mark also representing Turtle Boy in his own case, that it would be a conflict of interest in Karen's case case. Karen's supporters, though, feel like it was a direct violation against her right to counsel that she could pick whoever she wanted her counsel to be. Even more recently, Judge Kanoni placed a buffer zone outside of the courthouse in preparation for this trial. The buffer states that within 200ft of the courthouse, nobody is allowed to wear pink, nobody is allowed to hold signs, and nobody is allowed to protest. And as we know, hundreds of people have been outside of the courthouse wearing pink in support of Karen, holding the signs that say free Karen Reid. And it has been just kind of, I mean, honestly, yes, a circus. But allegedly, this decision for this buffer zone was due to some of the jurors in Karen's first trial claiming that they could hear all of these protesters outside while they were in deliberations. However, as you can imagine, people feel like this is far from being fair and that it also violates their right to free speech and their first amendment rights. A number of Karen's supporters even came together to file a federal lawsuit against this decision. What makes the judge superior over everybody else to, you know, constitutional rights? Seems Beverly Kanone don't know what they are. So those are just a few of the things that people aren't happy with when it comes to Judge Kanoni. But trust me, there are plenty of more reasons on who she's allowing as witnesses, who she's allowing in the trial, what she's doing during jury selection, and who she was vetoing as a juror. But then allowing in. I mean, the list goes on and on. And there are plenty of more people who are upset about many things, especially when it comes to the pre trial motions. For example, Judge Kanoni allowed one of the prosecution's motions to exclude testimony from a retired FBI agent named Michael Easter. The defense was planning to call Easter as an expert witness so that he could discuss the quality of the police investigation, whether it was competent, whether it was compromised, that sort of thing. But Judge Kenone allowed this motion from the prosecution to extend exclude his testimony. And her reasoning for excluding the testimony was because Easter's proposed testimony concerns basic aspects of a police investigation which are within the common knowledge of a layperson, which I don't know. Make your own decision on that, I guess. Now, on the topic of corruption and feeling like this case has been just a major slap in the face to Karen, I also have to bring up one last thing. Karen's case hasn't been the first to question the integrity of Norfolks county law enforcement and the investigators. It is not the first case to suggest corruption, cover up and conspiracy. Not at all. You may have heard our episode about Sandra Birchmore. Sandra Birchmore's case is one that immediately comes to mind. And while these cases aren't necessarily linked, they do have many similarities. The main similarity being in poor police work and investigating with then, you know, a little salted added treat of potential corruption involved. But Sandra, for those of you who aren't familiar with the case and if you want to take the deep dive, you can search it after this episode. But Sandra was a young woman in her early 20s and she was found dead in Canton in 2021. Her death was originally ruled as a suicide, but the truth that came out was so much worse. She was part of this Explorers program from a very young age where it's basically all these young, I don't know if you'd call them cadets, maybe you could. But all these young people who aspire to either learn from law enforcement, be in law enforcement one day and their mentors are many men primarily in powerful law enforcement positions. And Sandra was groomed by one of these men from I believe starting at just 13 years old. And she then ended up, he was married, had kids and she ended up getting pregnant by this guy. She wanted to keep the baby. She was excited to keep the baby. And then she was found deceased in her apartment, I believe, hanging from a doorknob. And it looked as though she had taken her own life. However, when we first talked about this, we talked about all the reasons that that didn't add up. There was a lot of inconsistencies, a lot of things that just did not make sense. And sure enough, her police officer boyfriend, her creepo police officer who had been grooming her for years, ended up being arrested and charged with her murder. He hasn't been convicted yet, so it's all alleged, of course, at this point. But it's disgusting. It is truly disgusting. And then of course he is being accused of staging the scene and he killed her because he didn't want her to ruin his life with his family. And then he staged it because he's a cop. And it was ruled as a suicide initially. But then they took a closer look after a lot of public demanded it. And sure enough, he's now been arrested and charged with her murder. So again, it's the Sandra Birchmore case. And you can go search it on my channel or my podcast after this if you want the deep dive. It's gross, though. Just a warning. Now, the reason I bring it up is because interestingly enough, Karen's case and Sandra's case potentially have, and I use potentially very carefully, but they have potentially crossed paths because one of the lead detectives, Lieutenant John Fanning, was heavily involved in Sandra's death being ruled a suicide. And last year, during Karen's first trial, his involvement with the jury ended up being brought into question because Karen's team alleges that he was involved in reporting an incident during the trial, which ultimately led to a juror being dismissed. However, the judge claims that he had no contact with the jury whatsoever. So does this necessarily mean that something sketchy is afoot? No, not necessarily. But it does seem to be something that weighs heavily on the minds of people who believe that Karen is truly innocent. They already don't trust this judge. So, I mean, her word doesn't really mean much. Right. And I think that the thought process is that this guy could have also been involved in a cover up of Sandra's death, which shows he could have been doing shady business in Karen's trial as well, that they're all connected, they all work together, and that there is a lot of history with conspiracy and cover up with this county. Again, just to be clear, it's all speculation, all accusations, but it is something that I have seen a lot of, so I wanted to throw it out there for you. Now, as far as the details of the theories of what really happened at 34 Fairview Road, I want to discuss a few of the main ones. So one theory suggests that John O'Keefe went inside this house and that he might have been attacked by a dog, not hit by a car. And according to this theory, John was already inside the house on Fairview Road and he was potentially injured during some sort of altercation, possibly involving a dog bite. Supporters of this theory point to his injuries on his arm and they speculate that a German shepherd who was owned by some people in this house could have played a role. This German shepherd was also between 70 and 90 pounds. And admittedly, according to the owners, the Alberts, he was not good with strangers. And People have long suggested that the injuries on John's arm are not consistent with being hit with a taillight, that they look more like narrow gashes, superficial wounds, bites, claw marks, things like that. And in fact, a defense expert, forensic pathologist weighed in on this back in the first trial and said his wounds are consistent with bite wounds and scratch wounds. Specifically that there are several patterns of superficial wounds that are consistent with teeth marks. She also said that she has seen hundreds of car accident victim photos, hundreds of them, in her over the course of her career, and that when she saw these photos of John O'Keefe's arm, she quickly ruled out the wounds as being attributed to a car accident. Something else that I thought was interesting from the first trial, going back to this theory, is that there was no dog DNA found on his arm or on his person. However, there was pig DNA. And that's really weird because it's explained that pig DNA could show up on somebody from food or from bacon or bacon grease, but also that it could be pig DNA from dog treats or from a pig ear that, say, a German shepherd was chewing. So this was one of the theories, right, that a dog was involved in the altercation and that's what those marks are from. Not that the dog is necessarily the cause of death, but that he was involved in this and that he could forensically be linked to John O'Keefe. And sure enough, notably, this dog was rehomed shortly after John's death in May of 2022, about four months later. So some people find that incredibly suspicious and potentially indicative of a cover up. Like, why are you rehoming your dog, who is now a topic of conversation, as being a link in this murder investigation, when you've had this dog for so long, like, make it make sense, right? So once again, it's like it's a theory that really fuels the idea that Karen Reed is being framed and that the true events of that night are all being concealed. I mean, think back to the SIM card being destroyed, the phone being destroyed, the butt dials back and forth, the rapid fire phone calls, the tail light not being found until after her car was seized and way later by a team, even though the team had already done a huge search. Like, there are so many things here that do not add up. And another big theory in this case centers around the basement of the home where John O'Keefe was last seen. Supporters of Karen's suggest that John may have been injured or killed inside that house, specifically in the basement, whether by Higgins, by Colin, by Whomever it was. But they suggest he was killed inside that house and not by her suv. And the theory started gaining a lot more traction when it was revealed that the basement floors at this home were reportedly redone. And not just, you know, your run of the mill, oh, we're going to renovate the basement, we're going to refinish the floors. But these floors had already been redone three years prior. So why would they then need to redo them right after John's death? Unless they were trying to hide something. So once again, some argue that this could indicate an attempt to either clean up, conceal evidence, or cover it up. Once again further fueling suspicions of a cover up and reinforcing claims that Karen is wrongfully accused. Now, regardless of how this trial plays out, it is already one that has made history. And I have no doubt that this case is going to be a case that people remember for years to come. I personally am extremely eager to see how this all plays out. I really don't know what direction it's going to go. I have a feeling of what direction I would like it to go, but I really don't have a strong feeling of where it's actually going to land. Now, I know I've said this a million times, but everybody is divided. But I want to just remind you about all of the inconsistencies because while you. It may seem clear cut to some that either Karen was being framed, that she's innocent, that she's guilty, wherever it is you sit with this. There was a lot of things that were mishandled and a lot of things that are questionable. And let me just run through a short list. Okay. The solo cups that were used to collect evidence. The stop and shop bags that were used to transport evidence. Not securing the crime scene, not going inside the house and looking around or talking to anybody. A snowplow driver who never saw John's body that morning when they drove by and plowed the snow. Multiple partygoers who left after Karen left and also did not see John. The missing carpet or like the floor that was redone in the basement. The missing dog that's been rehomed, that it looks like there were dog bites on his arm. This home itself in question being sold soon after the Google searches from Jen McCabe at 2:27 in the morning. How long to die in the cold. The claims of all the taillight damage, which it looked like it was from backing into John's car rather than maybe happening on the scene. I mean, a lot of different weird Stuff with the tail light, them finding pieces too, after they already blew the snow and looked for pieces and found clear cocktail glass but didn't see red tail light. Proctor, the lead investigator, the state investigator being removed and fired and like the all of his messages that came out and just horrific behavior himself, the Sally Port footage that was inverted and kind of was insinuated that it was done sneakily. So, I mean there is so, so much in this case, I mean that I just rattled off probably 12 different things. And so when you have that much reasonable doubt or that many coincidences or poor investigation, how do you not step back and ask yourself, like, can we really convict this person without a reasonable doubt? I don't know. As I said, we are live streaming every single day of this trial over on my YouTube channel, 10 to Life. We have a live chat feed going during the whole trial as well. So if you want to watch this trial in real time and chat with us about everything that's going on, all the testimonies, all the witnesses, hop on over to YouTube. We'll be there. We also have our correspondent Boots on the ground in Boston who is going to be reporting on this every single week with us telling us what it's like in the courtroom, what's going on. And we're gonna see is Karen going to be found guilty of murder or will she be found innocent? And where do you sit with this case? What do you believe do there? And I guess there's three buckets, right? Probably more if you really break it out. But there's Bucket one where you believe that Karen was wasted, she hit him, it was intentional or accidental, who knows. But she hit him, doesn't remember it, and she should be held accountable. There's Bucket two of she's being framed. This is a conspiracy. He was murdered inside that house. She had nothing to do with it and they're pinning it on her. And there's Bucket three that says, you know what? I think she's guilty. I think that all the evidence points to her accidentally being wasted and hitting him with her car. However, there is enough inconsistency and enough cover up to make me question if I can say that with 100% certainty, there's reasonable doubt. And for that I'm out. Where do you sit? Which bucket do you fall in? Let me know in the comment section on the Spotify, comment section on the review section on Apple and we will watch this all unfold together. As mentioned, I have covered this case for years now. So if you want to revert back to any of those episodes. You can definitely search them. I will also link them in the show notes. But let's see what happens with Karen Reed. Thank you guys for tuning in to another episode with me. This is going to be a trial. We are all glued to and let's see what happens. All right, guys, until the next one, be nice. Don't kill people. Don't Google search at 2 in the morning. Don't butt dial people back and forth. Don't be a disgusting human and text people, foul offensive things and just be a good person. Okay? All right, guys, take care. Bye. Sa.