Defense begins with a battle of experts — likely the 1st of many

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Karen Read Murder Trial - "Defense Begins with a Battle of Experts"

Podcast Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
Episode Title: Defense Begins with a Battle of Experts — Likely the 1st of Many
Release Date: May 30, 2025

---

Overview

In this pivotal episode of "Canton Confidential," NBC10 Boston delves into the latest developments of the Karen Read murder trial. Titled "Defense Begins with a Battle of Experts — Likely the 1st of Many," the episode captures the commencement of the defense's strategy to challenge the prosecution's case through expert testimonies. The episode provides an in-depth analysis of courtroom maneuvers, expert witness exchanges, and the broader implications for the trial's trajectory.

---

Key Events and Developments

1. Introduction to the Defense's Strategy (00:00 - 00:50)

The episode opens with Latoya Edwards announcing the commencement of a new phase in the trial as the defense calls its first witness. Raul Martinez, representing the defense, asserts that "Neither of the events that occurred on that date were triggered by a collision" (00:10). This sets the tone for the defense's approach to dismantle the prosecution's narrative.

2. Motion to Dismiss Charges (00:23 - 01:17)

Before presenting their witness, the defense files a motion to dismiss all charges against Karen Reed. Glenn Jones provides context, explaining that this is a standard procedure at this stage in a trial. Melanie Mendez, a juror from the first trial, elaborates:

"The Commonwealth case fails miserably" (00:23).

However, the judge swiftly denies the motion:

"The motion is denied" (00:29).

Glenn Jones notes that Judge Beverly Canoni "literally" took three seconds to deny the motion after the defense's arguments concluded (01:17).

3. Expert Testimony: Matthew DeSagra (01:18 - 04:34)

The defense calls digital forensics expert and mechanical engineer Matthew DeSagra to the stand. DeSagra's role is to analyze and potentially undermine the prosecution's conclusions regarding the data from Karen Reed's Lexus SUV on the night of Officer John O'Keefe's death.

Key Points from DeSagra:

• He examined the TechStream trigger events and synchronized the Lexus's clock with O'Keefe's phone.
• DeSagra does not claim the prosecution's data is incorrect but suggests alternative scientific interpretations.

"I'm going through his client's phone right now, correct?" (14:47)
"Neither of the events that occurred on that date were triggered by a collision." (03:26)

Cross-Examination Highlights:

• Prosecution attorney Melanie Mendez challenges DeSagra's expertise, questioning his qualifications and experience with mobile forensics.
• DeSagra admits he "didn't do any of his own testing" but emphasizes his role in analyzing existing data (03:00).
• Questions arise about the "three-second delay" in the data records, with DeSagra stating it needs to be accounted for (02:46).

4. Judge's Ruling and Prosecution's Response (04:34 - 07:16)

Following DeSagra's testimony, the prosecution, led by Hank Brennan, counters by highlighting that DeSagra only reviewed the prosecution's data without conducting independent testing. The prosecution contends that Reed's intoxication and conduct that night created a "reasonable, plain and strong likelihood of death" (01:17).

Melanie Mendez presses DeSagra on whether any trigger events were set off by a collision, to which he responds negatively (03:32). The defense maintains that this lack of collision evidence introduces reasonable doubt.

5. Introduction of Kelly Dever (04:10 - 05:49)

As the session nears its end, Judge Canoni introduces Kelly Dever, a witness scheduled to testify on Monday. Dever is a civilian officer who did not testify in the first trial, leaving the jury and public speculating about the potential impact of her testimony on the case.

6. Panel Discussion and Analysis (05:49 - 13:48)

The episode features an expert panel including Morgietta Duricier (Defense Attorney), Ronald Ezenislau (Juror from the First Trial), and Sue O'Connell (Courtroom Insider). The discussion centers around the "battle of the experts" initiated by DeSagra's testimony.

Key Insights:

• Morgietta Duricier: Applauds the defense's strategic use of expert testimony to counter the prosecution's scientific evidence.
• Ronald Ezenislau: Emphasizes the importance of presentation and credibility in expert testimonies, noting that jurors are likely to decide based on who presents their case more convincingly (07:16).
• Sue O'Connell: Observes that the focus is now heavily on data rather than personal narratives, shifting the trial’s dynamics (10:43).

7. Text Messages Debate (14:18 - 19:30)

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to the controversy surrounding Michael Proctor's text messages about Karen Reed. The defense aims to have Proctor's friends read these messages in court, while the prosecution opposes this move.

Prosecution's Position:

• Argues that the text messages are "hearsay upon hearsay" and lack applicable exceptions to be admissible as evidence (15:51).
• Contends that Michael Proctor is available to authenticate and testify about the messages (16:00).

Defense's Strategy:

• Seeks to introduce the messages through witnesses other than Proctor to avoid his direct Cross-Examination and the emotional weight his testimony carries.

Expert Panel Opinions:

• Ronald Ezenislau: Believes that allowing friends to authenticate the messages could introduce reasonable doubt, as they can verify the messages without damaging Proctor's credibility (16:26).
• Sue O'Connell: Highlights the emotional impact of Proctor reading derogatory messages and the potential benefit of having impartial witnesses read them instead (17:43).

---

External Events and Public Reaction (19:30 - 21:20)

The episode concludes with coverage of events outside the courthouse. Karen Reed is seen surrounded by media and supporters, many dressed in pink, indicating public sympathy. Sue O'Connell provides insights into the buffer zone's dynamics, noting an increase in "lookie loos" and supporters traveling from various locations to attend the trial (19:30).

---

Concluding Insights

The first day of the defense's case in the Karen Read murder trial marks the beginning of an intense "battle of the experts," with both sides presenting complex technical data to challenge each other's narratives. The defense's strategic use of digital forensics expert Matthew DeSagra aims to introduce doubt about the prosecution's claims, particularly concerning the alleged collision event. Concurrently, debates over the admissibility of Michael Proctor's text messages introduce another layer of complexity, potentially influencing jury perceptions of character and motive.

As the trial progresses, listeners can expect more expert testimonies, strategic legal maneuvers, and dramatic courtroom exchanges. The episode effectively sets the stage for an intricate legal battle, emphasizing the critical role of scientific evidence and expert credibility in shaping the case's outcome.

---

Notable Quotes

• Raul Martinez (Defense): "Neither of the events that occurred on that date were triggered by a collision." (00:10)
• Melanie Mendez (Prosecution): "The evidence of collision is abundant." (00:26)
• Glenn Jones (Anchor): "The motion is denied." (00:29)
• Ronald Ezenislau (Juror): "It's how they present so totally how a person presents and how they answer the questions and how they testify." (12:03)
• Sue O'Connell (Courtroom Insider): "When you're trying to cover things up, then you kind of have the ums and you're backing up and you're trying to fill in the gaps for people." (12:15)

---

Conclusion

This episode of "Canton Confidential" provides a comprehensive and engaging overview of the Karen Read murder trial's latest developments. Through detailed court coverage and expert analysis, listeners gain valuable insights into the strategic moves of both the defense and prosecution, the significance of expert testimonies, and the broader societal implications of the trial.

For those following the trial or interested in legal battles, this episode serves as an essential guide to understanding the complexities at play and anticipating future courtroom dynamics.

Transcript

[Latoya Edwards]

NBC10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, a new phase begins as the defense calls its first witness.

[Raul Martinez]

Neither of the events that occurred on that date were triggered by a collision.

[Latoya Edwards]

A digital forensics expert takes the stand as the defense tries to cast doubt on prior conclusions involving Karen Reed's car.

[Raul Martinez]

Plus, the Commonwealth case fails miserably.

[Melanie Mendez]

The evidence of collision is abundant.

[Glenn Jones]

The motion is denied.

[Latoya Edwards]

The judge rejects the defense's push to dismiss the case. We delve deeper into that, as well as the prosecution's bid to block testimony from witnesses linked to Michael Proctor. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[Morgietta Duricier]

The Karen Reed retrial is now in the hands of her defense team. But before the defense called its first witness, they moved to dismiss all of the charges. Good evening, everyone. I'm Glenn Jones. JC Is off tonight. This is a typical motion at this point in a trial, but typical. It doesn't always rule the day in this case. No one knows that better than Melanie Mendez. She joins us live outside Norfolk Superior Court to explain the day's developments. Good evening, Mel.

[Glenn Jones]

Good evening, Glenn. You're exactly right. I'm glad you mentioned that because here's the thing. It is typical in a trial that at this point in the trial, the. The defense would file a motion to have the charges dismissed. And that's exactly what we saw Alan Jackson do earlier today. Essentially arguing that the Commonwealth hadn't met its burden of proof, saying that they didn't offer any evidence that an actual collision happened between Reid's SUV and John o' Keefe and arguing therefore the charges against her should be dismissed. The prosecution, Hank Brennan, though, on the other hand, saying, listen, they were able to prove that she was intoxicated, arguing that her conduct that night, and this is a direct quote, her conduct that night created reasonable, plain and strong likelihood of death. Now, to your point, Glenn, that this was very much expected. It took Judge Beverly Canoni literally three seconds from the moment those arguments ended to her dismissing the motion denying the motion. And then we moved forward with testimony. Here's what happened. The defense's first witness called digital forensics expert and mechanical engineer Matthew desagra. In accident reconstruction, Desaugra analyzed a report by prosecution witness Shannon Burgess and Dr. Welcher on data from from Reed's Lexus SUV on the night she allegedly hit and killed O' Keefe. He talked about his analysis of the TechStream trigger events in the data records and aligning the clocks of the Lexus and John o' Kee's phone. Desaugra not saying the data the prosecution witnesses presented is wrong. Just saying there are other ways of formulating the science that could give slightly different answers.

[Raul Martinez]

I don't think I've ever said it's not accurate. I said that in the exemplar testing, they documented this behavior of a three second delay and that needs to be accounted for.

[Glenn Jones]

The defense raising questions of reasonable doubt. Prosecution pointing out desaugra didn't do any of his own testing, only used the numbers and data in the aperture reports. He was asked by the defense if any trigger events were set off by a collision with John o' Keefe. He said no.

[Melanie Mendez]

And so your role is to look at other people's work and offer opinions.

[Raul Martinez]

And criticisms, basically, and provide some clarity to the work, but generally, yes.

[Glenn Jones]

He was then asked by the defense about trigger events.

[Raul Martinez]

Neither of the events that occurred on that date were triggered by a collision.

[Glenn Jones]

Prosecution followed up with, so when you.

[Melanie Mendez]

Were saying it wasn't triggered by a collision. It's never going to be triggered by a collision. Ever. On textbeam data?

[Raul Martinez]

Not the collision in and of itself.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Correct.

[Glenn Jones]

Similar to what we saw during the Defense's Cross of Dr. Welcher today, the prosecution's cross of Desaugra went down a familiar path.

[Raul Martinez]

Had aperture done testing with a separate vehicle, then we could establish is the three seconds the same or is it unique?

[Glenn Jones]

Desarga commenting on the method used by the prosecution's witnesses, calling it highly unorthodox.

[Raul Martinez]

This is a very unique analysis. This is not something I've ever even seen. I've never seen the approach taken here in this analysis by aperture. That's what I meant by this.

[Glenn Jones]

The exchange is getting heated.

[Melanie Mendez]

You're not testifying or offering an opinion that there was no collision with this car that night, are you?

[Raul Martinez]

No.

[Melanie Mendez]

Because if you were implying that or suggesting that or insinuating that, that would be misleading, wouldn't it?

[Raul Martinez]

It's not.

[Sue O'Connell]

Sustained.

[Glenn Jones]

Brennan, at one point, questioning the expert's level of knowledge.

[Melanie Mendez]

Are you sure you know a lot about texturing data?

[Raul Martinez]

Yes.

[Sue O'Connell]

Sustained.

[Melanie Mendez]

Have you ever taken any class or study? Have you ever attended any seminars? Have you ever testified about variances in mobile forensics before you testified in this court today?

[Raul Martinez]

No.

[Glenn Jones]

Here was Jackson on redirect.

[Raul Martinez]

Were you being truthful about your credentials? Yes.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Have you ever lied about your credential.

[Glenn Jones]

Apparent reference to Shannon Burgess, who was caught with inaccuracies on his resume while on the stand last week on your direct examination? All right. Now one more interesting bit from court today. Before, right before things ended in the courthouse, Judge Beverly Canoni called in a witness who'd been waiting to testify all day long. Her name is Kelly Dever. Essentially, we know that she'd been waiting to testify. She didn't get the chance today, but the judge asked her to come back on Monday morning first thing to testify. Here's what we know about Kelly Dever, and it's not much. She is a Boston police officer. She's a former Canton police officer, and she did not testify in the first trial. So it's really anyone's guess what direction this could go. And we asked Karen Reed on her way out of court whether she could give us any insight as to where that testimony might take us in this case. And she said, you have to wait until Monday to see Glenn. Back to you.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Another interesting character to follow in this case. Melody. Thank you. We have much to talk about tonight with defense attorney Morgietta derisier, a juror from the first trial, Ronald Estenislau, and of course, our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. We're going to really dig into the first day of the defense's presentation of its case. But, Morgietta, I have to ask you first about this motion for a finding of not guilty. We've been talking to you for several days, so we knew to expect this. But once you heard the arguments in the and the judge's ruling, anything stand out to you?

[Ronald Ezenislau]

So the arguments were great. And I think what everyone is looking at is why wasn't Proctor call. Right. It's really unusual in any murder investigation to not call the lead prosecution. But the motion is pretty standard, and it's also pretty standardly denied. It's usually favored to the prosecution anyway. So it's a pretty standard ruling. I'm not surprised there, but the arguments were really great.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Okay, so as Melody mentioned, the first witness was digital forensics expert Matt desargra. He specializes in vehicle black boxes, and he took the stand right after a prosecution accident, reconstruction expert Dr. Judson Welcher. And Desargua's testimony seemed to be designed to contradict Shannon Burgess, the Commonwealth's digital forensic analyst, who works for the same company as Dr. Welcher. So, Morgietta, the Commonwealth ended its case heavy on science, and the defense decided to start heavy on science. Do you like this move by the defense?

[Ronald Ezenislau]

I love this move and I'll tell you why. The jury's already paying attention to the data. Right? And as Hank said in his opening, this case really is going to rest on the data. So to keep their attention going, you're now having what we call the battle of the experts. Right. And it really is going to come down to who came across more likable, whose testimony was clearer and even some of the credential issues. You know, where did they go to school, how likable are they, how much research have they had, how many times have they testified in a trial? So it's a smart move to put all that information together so that you can kind of go down the rabbit hole, which I think we know is coming up soon, and, you know, get this part kind of out of the way. So really good move.

[Morgietta Duricier]

So, Ronald, for us watching the trial, the data can be very dense. You can sometimes lose your way. I wonder, when you watch this witness from a juror's perspective, is he giving you some tangible things? And ultimately, is he contradicting Shannon Byrne Burgess, who testified in the same category for the Commonwealth?

[H]

He actually was very convincing to me, more convincing than Mr. Burgess. And so it was data points that were very valid and very diplomatic and professionally done. So that resonates well to a juror.

[Morgietta Duricier]

So then is he a witness who would have been helpful to you in the first trial?

[H]

Certainly he would have been helpful.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Okay, so sue, let's talk about the Commonwealth's case in comparison to this one, because I know you were critical sometimes of Dr. Welcher, maybe even your Buchanan, as well as being evasive on cross examination. This witness faced some cross from Hank Brennan. How did he stand up?

[Sue O'Connell]

He did great. Hank Brennan did a great job on the cross. Right. Remember, Hank Brennan is a defense attorney, so this is his sweet spot. This is what he's made to do, and he did a very good job. But you notice that this witness answered yes or no on cross when he could. When he couldn't answer yes or no, he didn't go down a winding road. Of all the reasons you're asking the wrong question and doing the wrong thing. He just said, well, I don't have enough data or, you know, that isn't how it works. And he wasn't combative and he didn't match Hank Brennan's attitude back at him when Hank was justifiably going at him. So, you know, I think that if you're going to be an expert witness, this is a good example of how to do it, because I think we also could have gotten through it more quickly if Jackson and Brennan had cut this witness short a little bit and we could have gotten to some more witnesses. But it isn't the witnesses fault today that they went as long as they did with him.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Okay. With the defense calling another digital forensic expert to the stand, it feels like we're starting to see a battle of the experts. I think you already used that term tonight. DeSargro and his critique of Shannon Burgess, who testified for the prosecution. We've been talking about that already. We expect more battles going forward. Take cell phone data for ex. Jessica Hyde and Ian Whiffin were on the stand for the prosecution and were expecting Reed's lawyers to call expert Richard Greene with a completely different take. We saw him in the first trial. The defense is likely to call ARCA again, an accident reconstruction firm. They'll be trying to Convince the jury Dr. Judson Welcher didn't get things quite right when he testified earlier this week. Now, during opening statements, the Commonwealth teased a lot of data, a lot of science. So, sue, from your perspective inside the court courtroom, is it fair to frame this as a battle of the experts now?

[Sue O'Connell]

Absolutely. There's no doubt about it. I mean, we're still going to get those spices of the personalities. Remember last case, it was built around trying to defend Higgins, trying to defend McCabe, trying to defend the Alberts. We haven't done any of that basically at all thus far. Now it's just about the data. And the jurors keep hearing it's about these 10 seconds. Right?

[Morgietta Duricier]

Right.

[Sue O'Connell]

When did this 10 seconds happen? When did these 36 steps happen? Before, if you recall, the circles of how much the coverage was. Was so confusing. But not now, because now we understand there are different timelines. There are not just three different clocks. There's lots of different clocks. There are variances, there's alignments that have to happen. So if they're following this, which I think both sides are doing a good job presenting, and if they get down to nope, that 10 seconds means something, those 36 steps mean something. It's going to be the case is going to hinge on the data rather than what we thought it was going to hinge on last time.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Ronald, let me tell you the roller coaster I was on while this witness was on the stand. He came out for direct examination, and I'm like, this guy teaches people how to do this stuff. In comparison to Shannon Burgess, who had challenges with his resume, then he goes to cross examination and he has to sort of concede. Shannon Burgess kind of came up with a discovery that maybe he couldn't have come up with on his own. So when you're weighing competing experts, how do you decide which is more credible?

[H]

It's how they present so totally how a person presents and how they answer the questions and how they testify. So it's all in the how they present.

[Morgietta Duricier]

And that seems like a hard thing to do.

[Ronald Ezenislau]

Morgieta it does seem like a hard thing to do. But as all attorneys say, when you're telling the truth, it comes out pretty smooth. Right? When you're trying to cover things up, then you kind of have the ums and you're backing up and you're trying to fill in the gaps for people. So as Ronald said, if it comes out clean, you're going to believe that person more likely than the other person, because you're not fighting with the information that they're giving you. So it really does hinge on presentation. And he could have said something completely different. But if he presented really nicely, you know, the jury may be like, hey, I kind of believe what he's saying.

[Morgietta Duricier]

You know, what else I found interesting about this witness is he did not necessarily do his own research. He was critiquing the research of the commonwealth's experts. And is that typical?

[Ronald Ezenislau]

That's typical. And I think in a case like this where time not only in the case, but to prep for the case was really shortened, you know, they had the case on appeal, then they went to the sjc, and for a long time we didn't even know if it was going to start in April. So I think this witness was qualified to not only, you know, if he had time, do his own, but review the data that he was given very carefully. And he conceded, as you said, he didn't really argue with the information that's there. So it goes again to his credibility because he's just analyzing what's in front of him, which is the true definition of an expert.

[Sue O'Connell]

And Glenn, he didn't say that was wrong. He never said the other. The prosecution, he said there are other ways to get there. Like you can get to 12 by 6 plus 6. You can get to 12 by a bunch of twos, you know. So what he did was introduce, well, you know, I could be right about this as well. And wouldn't that be reasonable doubt?

[Ronald Ezenislau]

Yeah.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Thanks to the three of you. Don't go anywhere. We need your insight going forward. When we come back, we have another area to discuss. Up next, we're focusing on Michael Proctor's infamous text messages about Karen Reed and the possibility those messages may be read aloud in court, but not by Proctor himself. After the break, the debate taken up today that involves some of Proctor's longtime friends. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Latoya Edwards]

Don'T miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial. Get the the full recap of what happened in court, expert analysis and what we could see next. This is coverage you won't see anywhere else. Canton confidential, weeknights at 7 on NBC. 10 Boston.

[Morgietta Duricier]

I text my wife waiting to lock this whack job up. Yes, she's a babe. Weird Fall river accent, though. Though.

[Raul Martinez]

I'm going through his client's phone right now, correct?

[Morgietta Duricier]

Yes. After the picture, sir.

[Glenn Jones]

Yes.

[Raul Martinez]

Who's the client?

[Morgietta Duricier]

I was referring to Ms. Reed. Michael Proctor reading derogatory text messages sent to his friends. A notorious moment from Karen Reid's first trial. I've heard them many times. I still cringe. But tonight the question is, who will read those text messages in the retrial? We're back with our panel, Morgietta, Ronald and Sue. It appears the defense wants some of Proctor's friends who were in the text chat to read the messages in court, but the Commonwealth opposes that. So let's take a look at the Commonwealth's position in a new motion. It says, quote, the text messages contain hearsay upon hearsay and each statement and text message must conform with an exception to the hearsay rule. There are no applicable exceptions. Michael Proctor is available to testify and could authenticate and perhaps adopt and acknowledge the statements sought to be introduced. The matter was debated in court this afternoon after the jury left. Let's listen to some of that.

[Melanie Mendez]

I don't necessarily disagree that it's relevant, but it should come through Michael Proctor. And if the defense wants the value, they should call Michael Proctor.

[Raul Martinez]

We appreciate the offer to help us.

[Morgietta Duricier]

With strategy about which witness we should call, but that's solely the province of the defense. To determine which witness we want to use to authenticate and admit text messages, that's our choice. Judge Kanoni is now weighing whether to allow a Proctor friend to read those text messages. Morgieta, can you put on the robe and make a decision for us who's right in this situation?

[Ronald Ezenislau]

If it wrote to me, I'd just call Michael Proctor. I mean, let's just get it over with. You know what's going to happen. But the real legal issue here, whether it is hearsay within hearsay. Right? And so the hearsay exception says you can cannot allow messages or prior written statements for somebody who actually is available, meaning they're not deceased or otherwise incapacitated. Because that's not fair. You can't have the person cross examined and questioned as to the context of it.

[Morgietta Duricier]

But in this case, we're talking about somebody who was in the text exchange.

[Ronald Ezenislau]

Absolutely. So that. And so the question that he was talking about is authentication, meaning is this the same line of text messages that was between you and Trooper Proctor at the time? So I disagree with Hank that somebody else can authenticate, including the person who was also in the text message chain. Now that's part one. Part two is do you allow it in because it's hearsay. So somebody can talk about their own statements if they're available, but can they talk about somebody else's statement? So at the end of the day, if this friend can authenticate that these are in fact the messages between him and Trooper Proctor, I think they come in.

[Morgietta Duricier]

So you spent a lot of time in the courtroom during the first trial. The moments that Michael Proctor was reading those text messages were some of the biggest moments. Can you divorce yourself from that? Can you imagine a trial without Michael Proctor reading those text messages?

[Sue O'Connell]

Yes, because I was in the courtroom when they read the R word text earlier in this trial and it had a reaction in the jury there. People were, as I've been saying, this is a very stoic jury. They're not making a lot of facial expressions. They've been warned about it and they are now doubling down and putting their heads down a lot if they think they're going to have a reaction. And that hits. So I think keeping Michael Proctor as the boogeyman, meaning he doesn't testify, he did do some good things for prosecution. He was the lead investigator. There are some evidence pieces he can authenticate. He can answer some questions about how evidence was collected, which is missing from for the prosecution. So I can see why Hank Brennan wants to have him on the stand. But at the same time, if he's not there, we just have these terrible words that his really, you know, best friend since childhood has to sit there and read and be horrified about having to read aloud, hearing probably if he has a wife. I told you, you know, to get off that text chain, you know. So I think there's some value here to just having someone who's not really, you know, involved in this case, but somehow got dragged in. It's another Proctor victim.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Ronald, forgive me in advance, cuz this will be somewhat of a superficial question, but when you think back to when you heard those text messages read by Michael PROTOR in the first trial, you're SH level from 1 to 5 was.

[H]

What, over 5, 6? Yes.

[Morgietta Duricier]

When you were deliberating what relevance that those text messages have to you, on a scale of one to five, it.

[H]

I would say probably again over six because we, we looked at it and I looked at it and said this is the credibility of the person who is investigating the case.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Right. It told you more about character than anything else.

[H]

Correct.

[Morgietta Duricier]

Very interesting. We saw a bit of action today inside the buffer zone outside the courthouse. We're going to show you some video following court this afternoon. Reid is surrounded by the media as she walks toward that black car. This happens often. Other supporters are standing across the street, many of them dressed in pink. Crew insider Sue o' Connell actually took this video. Sue, what can you tell us about these moments?

[Sue O'Connell]

Well, this is a, you know, the buffer zone is relaxing a bit. The rulings keep changing. There's people are behaving, they're paying attention, of course, to the state troopers. But at the same time, it is starting to grow. There's been some conversation about the schools down south are getting out. I met a man today from Iowa. I think that he came to the van to talk to me and Mel about supporting Karen Reed and his family had come up from Warwick, Rhode island, also to support it. So I think we're going to see some more of what the state troopers call lookie loos. But at the time, at the moment, it is being very, very polite and controlled.

[Morgietta Duricier]

All right, Sue o' Connell, our courtroom insider. Ronald Ezenislau from the first trial, one of the jurors and Morgie ADA Duricier, our defense attorney. Thanks to all of you tonight. If you have questions about this, capes, keep sending them our way. The email address is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can. And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from court as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock on Sunday. And be sure to check out our true crime podcast about the case. It's the audio version of our nightly show perfect for commuters. We catch you up on all the twists and turns up until this point in the case. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Latoya Edwards]

Watch Latoya Edwards and Raul Martinez weekdays at 6am on NBC 10 Boston. To watch full episodes of Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial. Tune in to NBC 10 Boston weeknights at 7 through the duration of the trial. You can also catch past episodes on the NBC 10 Boston YouTube page. Full episodes are posted one day after airing. NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you.