Defense resting after heated end to testimony | What's next?

Summary

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Episode: Defense Resting After Heated End to Testimony | What's Next?
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
Release Date: June 12, 2025

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston provides in-depth coverage of the ongoing Karen Read murder trial. The episode focuses on the recent developments where the defense has rested its case after a tense and emotionally charged day in court. Host Melody Mendez and legal analysts delve into the intricacies of the testimonies, expert analyses, and the anticipated next steps in the trial.

---

Defense Rests Its Case

The episode opens with a significant update from the courtroom:

News Anchor (01:21): "The defense rests its case. See you tomorrow morning."

This marks a crucial turning point in the trial, indicating that the defense has concluded presenting its evidence and witnesses for the day.

---

Final Witness Testimony

The final defense witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, took the stand amidst intense scrutiny:

Legal Analyst (01:28): "It is what it is. That's the science. You can't deny it. You have to accept what science tells me."
— [01:28]

Dr. Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer from ARCA, challenged the prosecution's claims by asserting there was no evidence of a collision. He meticulously dismantled the prosecution's "blue paint test" and questioned the validity of the trauma evidence presented against Officer John O'Keefe.

Health Expert (03:22): "Defense witness Dr. Andrew Rentschler testified that there is no evidence to show a collision ever happened..."

His testimony aimed to undermine the prosecution's narrative, suggesting inconsistencies in the physical evidence and the absence of significant injuries that would result from being hit by a large vehicle.

---

Expert Analysis and Cross-Examination

Dr. Rentschler faced rigorous cross-examination, pushing back against the prosecution's expert, Dr. Judson Welcher:

Legal Analyst (04:23): "You can't say that the area where the blue paint is corresponds to the area of the abrasions... you can't say with any scientific certainty that that area of paint corresponds to..."

The defense's strategy focused on highlighting potential flaws in the forensic evidence, questioning the methods and conclusions of the prosecution's experts.

---

Defense Strategy and Prosecution's Response

As the defense rested, discussions highlighted the prosecution's decision not to present rebuttal witnesses:

Legal Analyst (07:03): "They don't have any analysis and they don't have any facts to present through Dr. Welcher, so they're done."
— [07:03]

Chief Legal Analyst Michael Cohen and criminal defense attorney Neil Fager debated the implications of this move, with Cohen noting the prosecution's confidence in their existing case:

Chief Legal Analyst, Michael Cohen (07:40): "I think the Commonwealth has put in a tremendous case so far... they thought enough was enough, and it's ready to go on to closing arguments and get the case to the jury."

---

Jury Dynamics and Courtroom Tensions

The episode sheds light on the internal dynamics of the jury and the courtroom atmosphere:

Courtroom Insider, Sue O'Connell (19:44): "The youngest male juror... sitting next to Hank Brennan, as Hank is yelling... the jury is just getting done with it."

The tension between the defense and prosecution, coupled with the jurors' reactions, underscores the high-stakes environment as the trial approaches its conclusion.

---

Upcoming Proceedings

Looking ahead, the episode outlines the schedule for the trial's final stages:

Health Expert (06:51): "Now is when the hard work begins to craft their closing arguments, which are hugely important."

Closing arguments are slated for Friday, following a late day ruling by Judge Beverly Kanoni. The defense plans to present a required finding of not guilty, emphasizing their stance that the evidence does not support the prosecution's claims.

---

Memorial for Officer John O'Keefe

The episode poignantly remembers the victim:

News Anchor (15:30): "John O'Keefe... grew up in Braintree. He served as a Boston police officer for 16 years... He was just 46 years old."

This tribute serves to underscore the gravity of the trial and its impact on the community.

---

Conclusion

As Karen Read's defense rests its case, Canton Confidential provides viewers with a comprehensive overview of the trial's current state. With expert analyses, courtroom insights, and a focus on the human elements of the case, the episode prepares the audience for the upcoming critical phase of closing arguments and the eventual verdict.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Legal Analyst: "You can't say that the area where the blue paint is corresponds to the area of the abrasions... you can't say with any scientific certainty that that area of paint corresponds to..." [04:23]
• Chief Legal Analyst, Michael Cohen: "I think the Commonwealth has put in a tremendous case so far..." [07:40]
• Courtroom Insider, Sue O'Connell: "The youngest male juror... sitting next to Hank Brennan, as Hank is yelling... the jury is just getting done with it." [19:44]
• News Anchor: "John O'Keefe... grew up in Braintree... He was just 46 years old." [15:30]

---

Note: This summary excludes advertisements, promotional segments, and non-content sections to focus solely on the substantive discussions and developments of the Karen Read murder trial.

Transcript

[Pandora]

Pandora makes it easy for you to.

[Music Announcer]

Find your favorite music.

[Pandora]

Discover new artists and genres by selecting.

[Music Announcer]

Any song or album, and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

[Health Expert]

Have you ever had to put your.

[Music Announcer]

Plans on hold due to symptoms of.

[Health Expert]

Generalized myasthenia gravis or gmg, like taking.

[News Anchor]

That weekend trip, talking with friends or enjoying a meal?

[Music Announcer]

Learn about a treatment option that may help. Visit treatgmg.com to learn more.

[News Anchor]

That's treatgmg.com.

[Health Expert]

Airwick Essential Mist Diffuser transforms your space, creating your perfect ambiance with a wide range of inviting fragrances that make your guests go.

[News Anchor]

Airwick Essential Mist.

[Health Expert]

Diffuser's easy to change.

[News Anchor]

Refills allow you to choose your perfect.

[Health Expert]

Fragrance for any occasion, like lush honeysuckle and raspberry and vibrant island coconut and warm sands. And if guests start shifting from the.

[News Anchor]

Table to the couches, no worries.

[Pandora]

It's perfectly portable and cordless.

[Health Expert]

Airwick Essential Mist diffuser always inviting.

[Pandora]

NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you.

[News Anchor]

The defense rests its case. See you tomorrow morning. Before that, the final witness returned to the stand.

[Legal Analyst]

It is what it is. That's the science. You can't deny it. You have to to accept what science tells me.

[News Anchor]

Our panel of experts weigh in on his testimony and other evidence presented so far.

[Music Announcer]

And you have no idea where the point of impact was in this collision, do you?

[Legal Analyst]

Nobody does.

[News Anchor]

Tense moments during cross examination we take a closer look at that exchange. Plus, no rebuttal witnesses. Canton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now and the defense says it will officially rest their case tomorrow. And now closing arguments are scheduled for Friday after a late day ruling by Judge Beverly Kanoni. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan. Glenn has the night off. Melody Mendez has been following this case. So Melody, this is a sign we are making progress toward the end, right?

[Health Expert]

J.C. we absolutely are. And I'm glad you mentioned that, because tomorrow the jurors won't be here. But we'll still be making progress even then. And here's why. So tomorrow the judge will take time with both attorneys from both sides and they will essentially iron out the jury instructions and the verdict forms, those very, very important documents that will go with the jury when they go into deliberations. But let's talk about the progress. J.C. you mentioned that happened in court today. So Dr. Andrew Rentschler, we know he is one of the ARCA witnesses. Look, we've known for a long time how Important those ARCA witnesses are to this case. Not just because of the testimony that we saw them give in the first trial, but because of how hard the prosecution fought to not have those ARCA witnesses be on the stand this time around while they were doct. Dr. Andrew Rentschler was out there today. And today we really got to see why the prosecution was fighting so hard that they not testify. Take a look.

[Legal Analyst]

If you can't prove that the impact happened, then everything after that doesn't actually matter, does it?

[Health Expert]

Defense witness Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer from ARCA, on the stand all day testifying there is no evidence to show a collision ever happened and says there's no science to back the prosecution's theory at the very core of this case. First, talking about his own testing, when addressing the damage to John o' Connor Okeefe's clothing, he pointed out the number of abrasions on his skin not matching the number of tears in his sleeve.

[Legal Analyst]

You need 36 different points of contact to get through the sweatshirt and get to the skin.

[Music Announcer]

How many defects were noted by the crime lab in Mr. O' Keefe's right sleeve?

[Legal Analyst]

Nine defects.

[Health Expert]

He testified about O' Keefe's injuries. The lack of any bone breaks or fractures, even minimal bruising to his arm, he says proves there's no possible way he was hit by a 6000 pound vehicle.

[Legal Analyst]

So even at 10 miles an hour, you're going to have 600 to 1200 pounds of force out acting on the arm.

[Music Announcer]

Is that enough to break it?

[Legal Analyst]

That's more than enough.

[Health Expert]

Rentschler then took aim at testing done by the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Judson Welcher, systemically dismantling what Welcher called the blue paint test.

[Legal Analyst]

You can't say that the area where the blue paint is corresponds to the area of the abrasions. If you don't take measurements, if you just eyeball it, all you can say is by eyeballing it, it looks approximately the same. You can't say with any scientific certainty that that area of paint corresponds to.

[Health Expert]

Where the abras under cross examination. Brennan tried to push Rentschler on his criticism of their experts report. But rentschler pushed back.

[Legal Analyst]

Dr. Welcher said in his report on page nine, he said, I have conducted an accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering analysis of this matter. If he did not recreate how he was positioned, if he did not determine the speed of impact, if he did not determine how Mr. O' Keefe's body moved, if he did not determine where he ended up. Then he did not conduct either an accident reconstruction analysis or a biomechanical causation analysis. He did nothing of the sort.

[Health Expert]

Brennan, leaning in.

[Music Announcer]

You have no information about the angle of Mr. O' Keefe's body?

[Legal Analyst]

We have no information that he was even hit by the Lexus. So there wouldn't be any information on the angle if his body wasn't hit.

[Health Expert]

Rentschler doing the same.

[Legal Analyst]

First of all, there's debris in the yard. What that's from. Is there a collision? Was there a collision? Where did that come from? Where it was positioned? That's all conjecture and supposition. Those aren't actual facts.

[Health Expert]

Sir, at some points, clearly alluding to the defense's theory of the case.

[Music Announcer]

Did you consider how that hat ended up on the ground in front of 34 Fairview?

[Legal Analyst]

Someone could put it there. I mean, there's. There's a number of different possibilities.

[Music Announcer]

Do you have a theory you want to share with us about planting evidence? Is that what we're getting at, sir? Judge.

[Health Expert]

We also learned today the judge will give each side 90 minutes for their closing arguments.

[News Anchor]

Chacey.

[Health Expert]

Hopefully that'll happen Friday.

[News Anchor]

All right, Melody, I know you had a chance to speak to Karen on her way out of court. What did she have to say?

[Health Expert]

Listen, you know, Karen is usually very stoic on her way out of court. She does give the media a few minutes every day to answer some of our questions. And today I asked her specifically, like, do you get a chance to rest, no pun intended, just to take a break, take a beat with your team? And she said, absolutely not. Now is when the hard work begins to craft their closing arguments, which are hugely important, and they needed all that testimony to be over before they could begin doing that. She said that's how they will spend their next few days.

[News Anchor]

J.C. melody, thank you.

[Legal Analyst]

What do you make of the prosecution not calling any rebuttal witnesses?

[News Anchor]

They don't have any analysis and they don't have any facts to present through Dr. Welcher, so they're done. What are you doing?

[Music Announcer]

You had said before you have your butterflies at this stage.

[News Anchor]

Are you feeling those? Yeah, of course.

[Music Announcer]

You think your case is stronger this time?

[News Anchor]

I thought it was strong last year. It's. It's stronger, yes. Well, that is Karen Reid also reacting to the Commonwealth's decision not to have any rebuttal witnesses in her retrial, thankfully. Joining us now to talk about it all is our chief legal analyst, Michael Cohen, criminal defense attorney Neil Fager. Fagel. This decision to not call any rebuttal witnesses. Seems to be a big decision by the Commonwealth. Were either of you surprised by it?

[Pandora]

I wasn't surprised, no. JC I think that the Commonwealth has put in a tremendous case so far. The defense as well has put in a good case. And you can't, you know, we're not in the courtroom. And when you're in a courtroom during a trial, you get a sense of the dynamics in the courtroom. I think they thought enough was enough, and it's ready to go on to closing arguments and get the case to the jury.

[News Anchor]

Did you have the same feeling?

[Music Announcer]

No, I was a little surprised. I never get the last word at home, so I always want the last word in court. And you always generally do want the last word on an argument. So I was a little surprised, although I'm not sure who I would have called. I don't think the dog bite expert was helpful. I'm not sure I would put my accident reconstruction expert on again to face some more cross examination. I agree with Neil when he says, I think the government feels that they're presented a strong case. If the jury finds their witnesses credible, they believe there's enough evidence to convict her on at least one of one or more of the charges.

[News Anchor]

We know that the FBI was a part of what commissioned that first reconstruction expert team arca. Due to court rules, Alan Jackson can't say FBI during the proceedings. He kind of has to dance around it a little bit. Take a listen. At this moment, Mr. Brennan asked you.

[Music Announcer]

A couple of questions about they being your employer. Do you remember those questions at the beginning of his cross examination?

[Legal Analyst]

I do, yes.

[Music Announcer]

Who is your employer actually, the. The actual employer that you work for arca. Okay. Wasn't them, no. It's a client. Correct.

[Legal Analyst]

It was a client, a completely separate.

[Music Announcer]

Entity that hired you for that work, correct?

[Legal Analyst]

That's correct, yes.

[News Anchor]

All right, so we have a viewer question from Janet in North Reading. Just heads up. It's three parts. She wants to know, is that normal for the FBI to get involved? Will the jury be told that ARCA was originally hired by the FBI? And if the FBI had these results from arca, why was Karen Reid charged? Who wants to take that first one? Is it normal for an FBI to get involved in a case?

[Music Announcer]

Not normal at all. Especially in a state case that's already pending. Very highly unusual.

[News Anchor]

And this time around, what was the basis for it? Do you know?

[Music Announcer]

Well, the basis for it was to investigate, in essence, the investigators to make sure and you know, in part that Sandra Birchmore Case that likely the Fed have now charged likely was found, at least in part as a result of some of the investigation concerning this case.

[News Anchor]

Cross pollination here?

[Music Announcer]

Yeah, absolutely. And I do think what happened is the lawyers brought some of the information to the feds, asking them to investigate it further to see if there were a basis to argue that the charges were not appropriate and that the investigators had done things that were inappropriate in violating federal law.

[News Anchor]

Does the jury get to find out?

[Pandora]

Absolutely not. It's highly prejudicial. They would never hear that.

[News Anchor]

And that's the reason they have to dance around.

[Pandora]

Absolutely.

[Music Announcer]

And the reason Karen Reid has to pay for both this series of witnesses and testimony, because she hired them this time. The reason she paid for them last time, just for their attendance at trial and the testimony and the time they gave then is that they were no longer. No longer employed by the federal government at that point. If you wanted to bring them for the first trial, you had to pay for their time and travel.

[News Anchor]

Okay, so here's an example of when the prosecution has their expert witnesses, the defense has their expert witnesses. So our viewer Janet says, well, if the FBI had these results from arca, why was Karen Reid charged that? Implying that what the FBI or what ARCA found is the fact.

[Pandora]

But the FBI is not the charging entity in this case. The case went before a grand jury.

[Music Announcer]

Right.

[Pandora]

And the evidence was presented to the grand jury, and the grand jury determined that there was enough evidence to charge her, not the FBI. The FBI's job is only to investigate cases and develop evidence and then bring that evidence in the case of the FBI, most likely to the U.S. attorney's office. And if it was a state police case, it would be to the Norfolk County District Attorney's office.

[Music Announcer]

And Reid wouldn't have been charged for the initial work, the initial report, their preparation, and their findings for that. That was charged to the federal government. What she would have been charged for and what she paid for ultimately was their time in May and June when they actually came to Boston to testify, both for the Voir Dia hearing as well as the actual trial.

[News Anchor]

Let's talk about the last witness that they did call. Dr. Rensselaer was called as a witness by the defense during the first trial. So how do you think he did this time around compared with the first trial in terms of thinking of it from the jury's point of view? Was he easier to understand? We have the advantage of having heard it twice, but since we have, what do you think?

[Music Announcer]

I thought he was pretty easy to understand. He used Illustrations that would help convey the information to the jury in a reasonable fashion. He held his own with respect to most of cross examination. But again, the real question comes down to which series of experts the jury's going to find more credible because at times there was some hostility to the questions of the questioner. But that comes with part of the give and take between lawyers and professional witnesses as well.

[News Anchor]

Did you think he held up well?

[Pandora]

I think they both held up well. And I think one thing that Michael and I talked about was that the defense expert, with regard to his diagrams in his video, actually helped the prosecution. Helped the prosecution where the defense expert put a video on that showed that the. I'll call them the crash test dummy was hit and then spun out and around. And that was really the case that Attorney Brennan is making and the Commonwealth is proffering.

[News Anchor]

Let's go to a. If you don't. Let's go to another viewer question while we're on the topic of arca. Rose, hello from Pennsylvania. She asks, the Commonwealth was offered ARCA for the trial but refused. And this goes back to what we said before. Could the jury hear that they refused to use them?

[Music Announcer]

Not likely.

[Pandora]

Never, never.

[News Anchor]

Can't say we had this evidence and they chose not to use it.

[Music Announcer]

I thought, I did think one witness offered testimony to the point of, well, we would have testified for either of you, but the Commonwealth didn't want the testimony. The fact is, is that they don't believe that their investigation was as thorough as it could have been. And even today they've testified that they were on a relatively short budget. And at least Attorney Brennan tried to elicit the idea that, well, they didn't get to run all the tests and all the information that they would have liked to have obtained.

[News Anchor]

Battle of the experts again. I am running out of time for this segment, but I just want to get quickly. We are not saying the defense has officially rested. They plan to rest tomorrow. Can you just very quickly explain that semantics on that?

[Music Announcer]

Yeah. Once you rest, the evidence is closed. They're fighting about one small piece of evidence with respect to the PowerPoint presentation. The defendant wants to in their opening. So technically, I would say the defendant is resting. They're not quite rested yet. They'll resolve that issue in the morning with respect to this one somewhat disputed piece of evidence that Attorney Brennan is opposing, and they'll resolve that. And then the defendant will formally rest. The defendant will then move for a required finding of not guilty tomorrow.

[Pandora]

Agreed?

[News Anchor]

Agreed.

[Pandora]

Agreed.

[News Anchor]

All right. That's why. Okay. That's why we have you, because the facts matter. So, Michael Neal, thank you for being with us, but don't go anywhere. We have much more to talk about. Our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell joins us next to go over a few heated moments inside the courtroom today. But first, once again, as we always want to do, we want to take a moment to remember the victim in this case, John o' Keefe. Few facts he grew up in Braintree. He served as a Boston police officer for 16 years. We've heard a lot about what a good friend and brother he was and how he became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after they lost both of their parents to illness. He was just 46 years old. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Pandora]

Don't miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial. Get 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. Finding the Music you love shouldn't be hard. That's why Pandora makes it easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artists and genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album and we'll make a station crafted just for you.

[Music Announcer]

Best of all, you can listen for free.

[Pandora]

Download Pandora on the Apple App Store.

[Music Announcer]

Or Google Play and start hearing the.

[Pandora]

Soundtrack to your life. What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it. That condition is Obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD, and in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who were suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most, make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in Exposure and Response Prevention Therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team that's nocd.com.

[Legal Analyst]

He has no evidence to say the position and orientation of the arm in the lacerations, which are abrasions, are consistent with the taillight cover. That's the only test he did. So if it doesn't represent that, it's really meaningless in his his analysis and conclusions.

[Music Announcer]

Now that you've shared your opinions, can I get back to my question?

[Health Expert]

Sustained.

[News Anchor]

So, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brent, I'm going to see counsel at Saigon. Yes, that was one of the moments during the testimony of the final defense witness, Dr. Andrew Renssler. We're back now with Michael O' Neal and of course, our courtroom insider, Sue O' Connell, defense attorney. You could hear him. He wasn't quite in front of a microphone. But it was Alan Jackson asking Judge Kanone to admonish special prosecutor Hank Brennan for the comments that he said. Thank you for your opinion. Can I get back to what I wanted to ask you? She called that sidebar. Can you read into any of that, that moment in terms of where we are, where Hank Brennan's head is, or they're both.

[Music Announcer]

They're both at an end. We talked about this briefly the other night. Their patience is gone. They're a little sick of having been in the same room with each other for far too long with, with or without air conditioning at times. And so they both pushed the boundaries on that at many times. And it's reason why we have had so many sidebars is that they've both gone beyond what her rulings are and been inappropriate at times. And she's trying to rein that in. And that was a particular acute moment where they needed to be brought back and both of them needed to be told to turn the temperature.

[Pandora]

But they're both advocating for their clients. Attorney Brennan's client is the Commonwealth. Attorney Jackson's client is Karen Reed. They're both doing the best they can. But I think what you say that they're getting to the end of the debate.

[Music Announcer]

Well, but respect, civility and professionalism are important. And I think over the last week or so, we've seen that line extended a little too far. And I don't know whether what you've seen as someone in the courtroom.

[News Anchor]

We're going to play a little sound of that because we need Sue's opinion here. The little heated moments in courtroom. Take a listen.

[Music Announcer]

You have no idea where the point of impact was in this collision, do you?

[Legal Analyst]

Nobody does.

[Music Announcer]

I'm asking you. Not nobody. You. Excuse me.

[News Anchor]

So let go ahead and ask the.

[Music Announcer]

Question, Dr. Rentschler, before this jury have no idea where the point of impact was of this collision, do you?

[Legal Analyst]

That's correct. There's no evidence.

[News Anchor]

All right, sue, you were in there. Mm.

[Courtroom Insider]

So, you know, one thing I want to say is that all of these lawyers, because there's a gag order, we have a lot of great conversations, conversations about diets and food and suits, and they're all warm and friendly and nice. Having said that, you know, today there's the youngest male juror, who I'm not even sure is breaking 25, sitting in the front row of the jury box right next to Hank Brennan, as Hank is yelling, and he went like this, right? And then Jackson jumps up and yells, and I'm like, you know, he's just a very fidgety kid. He's doing this. And I think they are also at their last nerve in the jury box because of all the sidebars. When there's testimony, things happening, they're paying attention, but then they're like, oh, come on, you can just see it. Let's get this going. So all of this arguing, which I think is a lot of lawyering, which, to your point, is for their clients, but it's too much lawyering, and the jury is just getting done with it. And when they're fighting with each other, they're just like, ugh, okay.

[News Anchor]

And then Judge Canoni is playing referee.

[Music Announcer]

In between, and then she's got to tell the jury to disregard things that took place, and that's an impossible task for them to have, to just simply disregard the last couple minutes of this skirmish that occurred in front of them or whatever the questions were.

[Courtroom Insider]

And we think that question that the juror asked yesterday about, you know, what's it mean when it struck, it wasn't necessarily what the definition is, but they're confused as to what they're striking.

[News Anchor]

Right? Sure.

[Courtroom Insider]

They just strike what he just said. Well, what part? The last word, the last sentence, last.

[News Anchor]

Paragraph, the last hour.

[Courtroom Insider]

What are we striking?

[Pandora]

The thing is, we have all done trials, and you've sat through many trials.

[News Anchor]

Oh, no.

[Music Announcer]

J.C. was found innocent.

[Pandora]

What we understand is an ebb and a flow to a trial and what a trial consists of with the prosecution's job, the defense job, and it's a choreograph. It's a dance. The jury doesn't understand that it's 18 lay people who have never been involved with the legal system, probably for the most part, and now they're getting an understanding of it, and they don't understand.

[Music Announcer]

Well, it's not a good One sometimes.

[Pandora]

Well, they see it, but they don't understand everything. And it's up to the judge to impart to the jury exactly what's going on to educate the jury.

[News Anchor]

Jerry, let's go to this viewer question right here. It's from a viewer in Shrewsbury, and it says, please help us understand the dynamic in witnessing the dueling opinions testimony from, well, credentialed professionals or experts. It's likely that some are willing to shape their conclusions, to concur with the prosecution or the defense's theories. Again, this goes back to if they all have these stellar resumes, how do you in the deliberation room say, well, we're going to take his out and we're going to take hers, or vice versa.

[Music Announcer]

You got to remember it's an opinion, right at the end of the day, it's an opinion. Experts get to give their opinion. Most lay witnesses cannot give opinions. We don't care what they think. We do care about this group. And so you've got to evaluate whether what they think at the end of the day has a solid basis in both expertise as well as science, and if so, which at the end of the day, you credit to a greater extent or decide you're going to reject both of them. And that can happen as well.

[Pandora]

And one of the things today was that. But Attorney Brennan kept asking the ARCA expert whether or not variables existed, and.

[Music Announcer]

That changes everything, and that's what they're trying to bring out. So it's still a hard job for the jury.

[News Anchor]

But just quickly, sue, in terms of this last witness, how would you assess compared to the other experts? Because again, dueling experts, the ARCA guys.

[Courtroom Insider]

Did a great job presenting. Both witnesses did. And I will say there's a lot of male alpha energy in that room as we keep seeing a lot of measuring of things, if know what I mean. So Dr. Russell and Dr. La Posada, they both brought a different sort of energy. And especially the young women on the jury, they were reacting very favorably to both of those witnesses. And I think that also makes them hear the expert testimony differently when they're not being yelled at.

[Music Announcer]

And I think that's something to really look for as we come down to what who are the 12 that are going to decide it? What's going to be the gender makeup there? Because I think that can make a huge difference. As sue points out, two of the women witnesses, the doctors, likely highly welcomed and received by the women on the jury. And some of the plaintiffs, the Commonwealth experts, might have been seen as a little too arrogant by some. So I think the gender distribution at the end of the day on the final 12 is going to really be important to what this jury does.

[Pandora]

But you don't know.

[Music Announcer]

Excludes six people Randomly selected.

[News Anchor]

Closing arguments Friday. Michael, Neil, sue, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And of course, thank you for tuning in. If you have any questions about this case, keep sending them our way. The email on your screen, canton.confidentialbcuni.com will answer as many 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. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reeve murder trial.

[Music Announcer]

Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio.

[Pandora]

Andy live and uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about my latest obsessions, relationship issues and bodily ailments. With that kind of drama that seems to follow me, you never know what's going to happen.

[News Anchor]

You can listen to Jeff Lewis live at home or anywhere you are.

[Health Expert]

Download the SiriusXM app for over 425 channels of AD, free music, sports, entertainment and more. Subscribe now and get 3 months free offer details.

[News Anchor]

Apply.