Grading Karen Read's defense before their final push to closing arguments

Summary

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential Episode: Grading Karen Read's Defense Before Their Final Push to Closing Arguments Release Date: June 5, 2025

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of Canton Confidential, hosted by NBC10 Boston, the focus centers on the ongoing murder trial of Karen Read, who stands accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a blizzard. As the trial progresses towards its conclusion, the episode delves into the effectiveness of Read's defense strategy, the prosecution's stance, and expert legal analysis on the case's trajectory.

Current Status of the Trial

The trial, which has been closely followed by the community, was temporarily halted due to extreme heat, leading to concerns about courtroom conditions and witness testimonies. Legal Analyst Peter Ellican highlights the defense’s imminent move to rest their case next week, signaling a critical phase before closing arguments.

“There was no court today, which means we have an opportunity to dig deeper into all the evidence the defense has presented so far,” J.C. Monahan notes at [01:56].

Defense Strategy and Analysis

Karen Read's defense team has systematically worked to establish reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's claims. Over five days, the defense presented seven witnesses, including a former Canton police officer whose demeanor was described as hostile, and a witness from the Waterfall Bar and Grill who was present with Read and O'Keefe on the night of the incident.

Legal Analyst Michael Coyne assesses the defense's performance, stating, “They've helped to create that reasonable doubt, or at least for jurors looking for reasonable doubt, there is some basis to support that verdict” [04:30]. He acknowledges that while the defense has successfully introduced doubt, they have not sufficiently focused on presenting a third-party culprit, a strategy from the previous trial that failed to convince jurors.

Coyne assigns the defense a grade of B, commending their efforts to poke holes in the prosecution’s case but expressing uncertainty about their ability to convince the jury entirely [08:36].

Prosecution's Position and Challenges

The prosecution, led by Hank Brennan, has emphasized the strength of their forensic evidence, particularly regarding the vehicle's impact on Officer O'Keefe. Despite the defense's attempts to undermine the prosecution’s case by highlighting alleged police misconduct and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, Brennan remains steadfast.

However, the prosecution faces challenges as some defense witnesses, like Kelly Dever, have exhibited evasive attitudes, which inadvertently benefits the defense narrative [03:08].

Expert Commentary and Legal Insights

Throughout the episode, Legal Analyst Michael Coyne and Expert Guest provide in-depth analysis on various aspects of the trial:

• Reasonable Doubt: The cornerstone of the defense’s strategy is to instill reasonable doubt. Coyne suggests that while the defense has made strides, the prosecution’s enhanced case this time complicates the path to a not guilty verdict [05:38].

• Expert Testimony: The role of expert witnesses remains pivotal. Coyne critiques the dog bite expert’s testimony for not sufficiently tying medical evidence to actual vehicular impact, questioning the lack of connection between the physical evidence and the prosecution's claims [03:26].

• Jury Instructions: A significant discussion surrounds the proposed jury instructions, particularly regarding the inclusion of consciousness of guilt. Coyne explains that phrases like “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” are standard legal terms necessary for expert testimonies to be admissible [09:58]. The defense’s motion to address missing witnesses like Brian Albert and Brian Higgins is also analyzed, highlighting its routine nature in legal proceedings [21:28].

Witness Testimony and Evidence Review

The episode reviews key testimonies presented during the trial:

• John Maroney, a courtroom insider, outlines the defense’s presentation, noting the hostility of some witnesses and the strategic omission of third-party culprits [02:13].

• Nature Enthusiast, representing one of the defense witnesses, questions the prosecution’s evidence, pointing out inconsistencies in the vehicle’s taillight damage and the absence of medical evidence linking the SUV directly to O'Keefe's death [23:34].

• Sue O'Connell, another courtroom insider, reflects on the first trial's mistrial and the defense team's ongoing efforts to rectify previous shortcomings [16:11].

Jury Deliberations and Potential Outcomes

As both legal teams finalize their arguments, the focus shifts to the jury's impending deliberations. The episode explores the possibility of split verdicts, where Karen Read could be convicted on some counts but acquitted on others. Legal Analyst Coyne emphasizes the complexity of such an outcome, considering the robust evidence presented by both sides [05:49].

“If jurors are looking for reasons to convict, there's evidence there. If jurors are looking for reasons to acquit, there's evidence that supports it,” Coyne explains [08:21].

Public and Media Reactions

Karen Read has been active on media platforms, issuing statements that have influenced public perception and potentially the jury’s view. Her fundraising efforts and public comments are scrutinized for their impact on both the criminal and potential civil cases [22:32].

Conclusion and Next Steps

The trial stands at a critical juncture as both the defense and prosecution prepare for their final arguments. The outcome remains uncertain, hinging on the jury's interpretation of the evidence and the effectiveness of both legal teams in presenting their cases.

“You never know what a jury's gonna do, and you also never know how long you're gonna be out,” Legal Analyst Peter Ellican remarks, encapsulating the unpredictability that lies ahead [04:06].

As the community awaits the final verdict, Canton Confidential continues to provide comprehensive coverage, ensuring that listeners remain informed about every development in this high-stakes case.

---

Notable Quotes

• “There was no court today, which means we have an opportunity to dig deeper into all the evidence the defense has presented so far.” — J.C. Monahan [01:56]

• “They've helped to create that reasonable doubt, or at least for jurors looking for reasonable doubt, there is some basis to support that verdict.” — Michael Coyne [04:30]

• “If jurors are looking for reasons to convict, there's evidence there. If jurors are looking for reasons to acquit, there's evidence that supports it.” — Michael Coyne [08:21]

• “The horse is already out of the barn here. She already said these things. They're already being heard.” — Morgietta Darcier [25:33]

• “Can you describe him going to the house, which door and how and when?” — Legal Analyst Peter Ellican [24:14]

---

Looking Ahead

As the trial progresses, Canton Confidential remains committed to delivering in-depth analysis and updates. The upcoming closing arguments and jury deliberations are poised to unearth further insights into this complex case, shaping the ultimate resolution of Karen Read's legal battle.

---

For more detailed coverage and expert analysis, subscribe to Canton Confidential on Peacock and stay informed with NBC10 Boston.

Transcript

[Announcer]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting 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. Building a business may feel like a big jump, but On Deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, Ondeck's team of loan adv can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank On Deck does not lend in North Dakota all loans and amounts subject.

[Legal Analyst]

To lender approval we all belong outside.

[Nature Enthusiast]

We're drawn to nature. Whether it's the recorded sounds of the.

[J.C. Monahan]

Ocean we doze off to or the.

[Nature Enthusiast]

Succulents that adorn our homes, nature makes.

[Expert Guest]

All of our lives, well, better.

[Nature Enthusiast]

Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it, but the outdoors is closer than we realize. With Alltrails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently with offline maps and on trail navigation. Download the free app today.

[Announcer]

NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you Tonight, court is canceled because of the heat.

[Legal Analyst]

Court officers are concerned about how we're.

[Expert Guest]

Going to keep the fans and air.

[J.C. Monahan]

Conditioners going and the allowed to hear the witnesses.

[Legal Analyst]

We will be in session Friday all day.

[Announcer]

Plus, as the defense prepares to rest next week, we get a progress report on the evidence Karen Reed's team has presented so far.

[Legal Analyst]

What was on the ground on the Alberts lawn?

[John Maroney]

Nothing.

[Announcer]

And our panel of experts weigh in on your questions. Canton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[J.C. Monahan]

There was no court today, which means we have an opportunity to dig deeper into all the the evidence the defense has presented so far. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Glenn Jones]

And I'm Glenn Jones. Karen Reid's team is expected to rest its case next week. Our John Maroney walks us through what they've brought to the table.

[John Maroney]

Good evening. It's hard to believe, but this trial is coming to an end. The defense knows it and will be making one last push to swing the.

[Nature Enthusiast]

Jury Tuesday, give or take.

[John Maroney]

Tuesday Karen Reed says she expects her defense will rest next week. She's pleaded not guilty to hitting John o' Keefe with her suv, resulting in his death During a blizzard.

[Legal Analyst]

It can be argued that the defense here has really done what they needed to do in order to raise the issue of reasonable doubt.

[Glenn Jones]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth rests.

[John Maroney]

Last Friday, the prosecution wrapped, and so far, the defense has presented seven witnesses over five days.

[Expert Guest]

Like, you can't remember my name.

[J.C. Monahan]

I don't remember.

[John Maroney]

One of them, a former Canton police officer, was hostile. Others included a woman who was with Reed and o' Keefe at the Waterfall Bar and Grill. Canton snowplow driver and Dighton police officer. Legal analyst Peter Ellican says the defense did get help from some of them.

[Legal Analyst]

The fact that there are likable people testifying on behalf of Karen Reid is kind of an icing on the cake. But again, the key is the search for the truth or the search for reasonable doubt.

[Nature Enthusiast]

I don't see any medical evidence that there was impact with the vehicle.

[John Maroney]

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan gave dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell a hard time.

[Glenn Jones]

There will be serious charges brought on the girl.

[John Maroney]

A friend of Michael Proctor's read inappropriate text messages the former state trooper wrote about the defendant. It seems the jurors won't hear from him or Brian Albert and Brian Higgins, both of whom the defense says are third party culprits.

[Legal Analyst]

They're focusing a little bit more on the forensic evidence as opposed to just the police misconduct.

[John Maroney]

The defense team is expected to close with the controversial accident reconstructionist from arca. The jury will then get the case, and anything can happen.

[Legal Analyst]

You never know what a jury's gonna do, and you also never know how long you're gonna be out.

[John Maroney]

Testimony resumes tomorrow morning. And at this time next week, the jury should be in deliberations. In datum, I'm John Maroney. Back to you.

[J.C. Monahan]

Joining us tonight is our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. All right, Michael, how effective has the defense been so far?

[Legal Analyst]

Reasonably effective. They've helped to create that reasonable doubt, or at least for jurors looking for reasonable doubt, there is some basis to support that verdict. But I think what we have to be very careful of is last time, as we were looking at this case, and we didn't think the government did a very strong job. We thought that all the smart money thought that it would be a not guilty verdict and relatively quickly. So I think we have to be careful in assessing the government's case in toto and the defendant's case. The fact is that the government has tried a significantly stronger case this time around. The defendant has done a good job creating reasonable doubt and what they haven't done is focus on that third party defense. And I think that that was a tough sell last time based on our talks with jurors. And so I think what they're really trying to do is chip away at what we always thought should be done is create that reasonable doubt, use whatever opportunity you can to do so, and hopefully have some jurors agree with you so that they come back with a not guilty verdict on all three counts.

[Glenn Jones]

Michael, are there any noticeable missteps to call out on the defense up until this point, like, for example, not calling Michael Proctor or the testimony of Kelly Dever?

[Legal Analyst]

I think the testimony of Kelly Dever helped them. At the end of the day, she really was too evasive. They obviously would have liked her to acknowledge having made the statement earlier, that it was true that she saw Higgins and the former police chief in that Sally port for an inordinate amount of time, but she wouldn't budge. And the problem is, from the prosecution standpoint, as a law enforcement officer, she did appear too evasive and argumentative at times. So that still ended up helping the defendant. I'm not so sure they've tied a lot of these threads together yet. You know, we know we have a dog bite expert, but if you look at that testimony, it was more helpful in the fact that it's that she said it wasn't a vehicle that struck him. We don't haven't heard much about Chloe. We don't know whose dog it might have been. We don't have him in the house. And that was a promise that Jackson made. So as we wind down here, it does appear that some of the promises the defendant made in their opening statements, they're not going to deliver on. And you can be sure that Attorney Brennan will call them on that in his closing argument.

[J.C. Monahan]

You just mentioned one of them, which is that third party culprit argument. So at this point, it doesn't seem. We don't know. Doesn't seem like the defense will be calling Brian Albert or Brian Higgins. What do they do with that? You just said Brennan will exploit that if they don't use it because it was something that they put in opening.

[Legal Analyst]

Well, remember, the judge said that they could not argue third party culprit in the opening and that they could not even put it before the jury until they produce some credible evidence, admissible evidence, during the. They really haven't done that. And that's the question is, does this little kerfuffle with Higgins in the bar that night, does that create the opening for it. There really is still no one who has placed him inside the house where either of the Bryans could have participated in John o' Keeffe's death. I think they've got to be careful trying to still sell that to the jury because the government has done a terrific job on the state from the standpoint of the science, putting his last steps shortly after he left that vehicle. Have they tied his last steps to being struck by the vehicle? That's really going to be determined with respect to the next witnesses that we're likely to see, the ACA reconstruction experts. Hank has to not just deliver a crushing blow to impeach them. He's got to get them to acknowledge some of the basic parts of his case that she could have struck him with the vehicle that night.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, professor, give a grade to the defense so far and notice it. Acknowledging, of course, that their bar for success is a little bit lower than the prosecution's.

[Legal Analyst]

Yep, it's a lot lower. And that's the whole key here, Glenn, as you point out, is that they have to. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt. I think they've done a very good job at that. I'm not so sure that it's a convincing job to the jury yet, but I'm going to give them a B. I think abandoning this whole argument about the broad conspiracy, I think that's a wise choice, because I think that's a very tough sell. I think what they've done instead, through a very selective group of witnesses, is try to poke holes in the government's case. And that's all they need to do to be successful here. And so that's the question. If jurors are looking for reasons to convict, there's evidence there. If jurors are looking for reasons to acquit, there's evidence that supports it. And that's what makes it a really interesting question at this point. Could they again be as riven as the rest of society? And we have a split jury yet again.

[J.C. Monahan]

Michael, throughout the course of the trial, we've heard attorneys on both sides use a certain phrase while questioning expert witnesses. Which, by the way, brings us to this viewer question. Mitchell asks the attorneys, especially Prosecutor Brennan, say reasonable degree of scientific or medical or engineering or even forensic certainty. Is this a recognized legal term? So we put together a few examples from this in the case. Take a listen.

[Legal Analyst]

Can you testify to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?

[Glenn Jones]

Are you suggesting to a reasonable degree of medical certainty? To a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

[Legal Analyst]

Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty.

[J.C. Monahan]

Is there a reason for that, Michael, or is it just theatrics?

[Legal Analyst]

No, no, it's not theatrics. The whole world is learning how to be a lawyer here. That is the key phrase and the key in order to have the experts testimony admissible as to their opinion. Cuz that's what it is. They have to establish that it is to a reasonable degree of scientific or medical or engineering certainty in order to lay that foundation so that the jury can hear the opinion. So those are, that's a key legal phrase. And absent that, the testimony wouldn't be admissible. So that's why you constantly hear that reference when you're using experts. They have to establish that they hold their opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, medical certainty or engineering certainty, depending on their specialty.

[J.C. Monahan]

Can we follow up for a second on a discussion that we had earlier this week? It centers around the charges that Karen's facing. There's second degree murder, we know there's manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a fatal collision. Our viewer Kelly from South Carolina wants to know are Karen Reid's charges all or nothing? For example, can she be convicted of one count but not the other two? This was huge in the first trial.

[Glenn Jones]

Oh my goodness.

[J.C. Monahan]

I mean this is it. This is the question, Michael, how do you answer it?

[Legal Analyst]

The jury could come back and find her guilty of any one of those charges or not guilty on all of the charges. And in fact there are lesser included offenses on count to the DUI manslaughter charge that it's commonly referred 2 so it could end up being a lesser charge conviction on that count, for instance, for involuntary manslaughter. But I do think that when the jury looks at it that the top count, the second degree murder is a very difficult finding. But the other two on counts two and three, dui, manslaughter and leaving the scene having caused injury and in this case death. Could, could there be a conviction? There certainly is evidence to support it if a like minded jury sees it that way.

[J.C. Monahan]

Michael, as always, thank you for joining us tonight. We appreciate it. Don't go anywhere. We have much more to talk about after the break.

[Glenn Jones]

Up next, both legal teams has officially filed their instructions for the jury. As JC mentioned, this was huge in the first trial. We go into detail of those documents plus Karen Reed in her own words. We take a look at what the murder defendant has said outside of court. But before we go to break we want to take a moment to remember John o' Keefe, the victim in this case. The Boston police officer and Braintree native became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after the children lost both of their parents to illness. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Announcer]

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. Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio.

[Glenn Jones]

Andy Live and uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about.

[Announcer]

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.

[Expert Guest]

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

[Reba McEntire]

Nearly Home Isn't home where we all want to be? Reba here for realtor.com, the Pro's number one most trusted app, Finding a home is like dating. You're not just looking for a place to live, you're searching for the one. That's where realtor.com comes in. Like any good matchmaker, they know exactly where to look. With over 500,000 new real listings straight from the pros every month, you could find your perfect match today. Ranch style with a pool, barndominium with an in Law Suite. Realtor.com's got em modern craftsman with a big yard and a treehouse out back. Realtor.com will have you saying, yep, that's the one. No more swapping. It's time to start finding. Download TheRealTor.com app today. Come you're nearly home. Make it real with realtor.com Pro's number.

[Announcer]

One most trusted app based on August 2024 proprietary survey. Over 500,000 new listings every month based on average new for sale and rental.

[Glenn Jones]

Listings February 2024 through January 2025.

[Announcer]

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but on deck, small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Legal Analyst]

The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be fewer and only served to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. I'm not going to do that to you folks. Your service is complete. I'm declaring a mistrial in this case.

[J.C. Monahan]

That was the moment that marked the end of Karen Reid's first trial last year. Judge Beverly Kanone declaring a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. We are back now with defense attorney Morgietta Derisier and of course, our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. If we go back to that first.

[Morgietta Darcier]

Trial, I'm triggered now.

[Expert Guest]

Ptsd.

[Glenn Jones]

Yes, we all had it right.

[J.C. Monahan]

Afterwards, the defense said a number of jurors reached out to them again to the defense team to say, no, no, no. We did come to a full agreement on the first charge, on the third charge, but it wasn't announced in court. Apparently some of them were saying they didn't know that was even an option. One juror spoke to us about that. Take a listen.

[Glenn Jones]

Unfortunately, we didn't get clarification early on that we could look at each charge individually and independently of each other. If we had done that, then I.

[Expert Guest]

Don'T know where we'd be.

[Glenn Jones]

With Reid's retrial approaching deliberations, both the defense and commonwealth have proposed jury instructions to the judge in the section titled consciousness of guilt. The Commonwealth's proposed instructions include this passage. You have heard evidence suggesting that the defendant may have intentionally attempted to harass and intimidate witnesses whom the defendant believed would testify against her. If the Commonwealth has proved that the defendant did, you may consider whether such actions indicate feelings of guilt and whether in turn such feelings of guilt might tend to show actual guilt on these charges. Morgietta, help us understand whether this kind of request is boilerplate or does Brennan have some specific objective in mind when he puts this in?

[Expert Guest]

So I would argue that this is pretty boilerplate when you're talking about consciousness of guilt, because, again, that's one of the elements that the defense is the only person or a team that can put that forward, and that would be by having Karen retestify or, as we've seen in this trial, some of her clips from the interviews being weaved in. And so when you have to infer, which is what this specific jury instruction is asking it leads the jury to have that option. Can you infer from what you've seen or haven't seen from a witness that Karen Reid has put her guilt out there for you to decide as a jury?

[J.C. Monahan]

All right. Glenn and I have tried to read through as much of the requested jury instructions as we could. Sue, in general, do you think more is better in this case or does it get more confusing?

[Morgietta Darcier]

J.C. you know, I'm not a court reporter. This is all brand new to me. And one of the things that is so appalling to me, not just here in Massachusetts, but across the country, is how little information the jurors are giving. I have been emailing Morgieto through this entire trial. Do they know this? Have they been told this? What about this instruction you're basically just sent in there? Given the booklet that we all get, when you get jury request, you get jury duty requests, and that's it. And it's just shocking to me that we ask these citizens to go in there and judge these very important life or death situations for everyone without giving them enough information or instruction. So I think there should be more. I think we should pass laws to make sure that they are totally educated in what they need to know. Not about the law, which the judge keeps saying, as they all do. I'm going to educate you about the law when you're ready to deliberate, but about what their roles and responsibilities are while they are jurors. Not just don't look at the TV and don't talk to people, but how to consider these things. It's just terrifying.

[Glenn Jones]

She's raising such a good point because I believe she's proven correct just based on the first trial. I mean, they did not know for whatever reason. And there's gonna be so much attention on this judge when it's time to instruct this jury.

[Expert Guest]

Absolutely. And I think the hard part to answer this question is that the jury is not just labeled the jury, they are the triers of facts. Right. And that really is what their job is to do, is to take the information that they have received and decipher that information and fit it into these jury instructions. Unfortunately, too much information, I think, is going to confuse them. Giving them just limited instructions written down on paper is actually going to be easier for them because not only do they have the jury instructions, they have all the evidence, which is 60 plus witnesses, who knows how many hours of video clips, documents, medical reports. It's going to be a lot for them. And the most important Thing that the judge will explain to them is that they have their common sense. They came in with their common sense. They are smart individuals. They're going to use that to decipher all the information that they're going to get. And I think if you haven't sat on a jury, it sounds like a daunting thing to do.

[Glenn Jones]

Sure does.

[Expert Guest]

But at the same time, you're going to be in a group group with 10 plus other people. Right. So collectively, all of you will be able to take this information and make the decision which is fair and reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

[Glenn Jones]

All right. We also want to circle back to another topic. We addressed this on Tuesday, the missing witness motion from the defense. Here's a refresher on that, which reads, quote, this jury should be provided with the necessary framework for considering the absence of evidence or witnesses should they deem it relevant information to their deliberations, and assess the weight and significance of the missing evidence or witness in relation to the evidence presented against the defendant. The motion addresses the Commonwealth's decision not to call Michael Proctor, the former lead investigator or two other key witnesses in this case, Brian Higgins and Brian Albert. It got plenty of people talking, including Michael from Melrose, who sent us this. If these witnesses are so critical to the case, wouldn't the jury wonder why the defense didn't just call these witnesses themselves? Well, Jada, what do you think?

[Expert Guest]

Because, again, the defense doesn't have to prove their case. They just have to defend the case that is put against their client, which is Karen Reed. And this missing witness instruction is actually routinely common, especially in cases where you have a lead prosecutor or critical piece of information that's not coming in. What I'm surprised hasn't been filed yet is the Bowdoin defense, which is, I think we've talked about several times on this show, is where you can infer a plea of not guilty to the jury for the fact that the investigation was done so poorly that there's enough reasonable doubt that you can infer that, you know, it should be titled Against Karen Reid for that. And I'm surprised they haven't filed that instruction because I feel like that's more overwhelming.

[Glenn Jones]

The defense is making a request. They are making that request.

[Expert Guest]

It's in there. And I think that that's excellent that they're doing that because very clear that unfortunately, this investigation was not done properly. And to the o' Keefe family, what do you do with that? Right. But for Karen Reed, I think that's one of her strongest requests. At this time, the judge has put.

[J.C. Monahan]

A gag order, as we know, on the attorneys, which means we haven't heard from prosecutor Hank Brennan or members of Karen Reed's defense team most days outside of court, though Reid will talk to the media. Here's a look at some of the things she has said throughout this trial.

[John Maroney]

What sort of stood out for you.

[Nature Enthusiast]

That the taillight was not completely smashed? I think the word the independent cop, as the prosecutor himself called him, was it was not completely smashed in or busted in at 3pm as it went into state police custody. That's all that matters. We subpoenaed her to testify to what she told other authorities and just wanted her to be as honest with us as she was with them. And today she's now telling us that was a lie. So we just wanted her to repeat what she told other law enforcement agencies under penalty of perjury. He backed up into himself at 2.2 or something miles per hour. So he tried to dress identically to John but didn't do anything else to mimic what the Commonwealth is accusing me of. So did you go in reverse?

[J.C. Monahan]

24 miles an hour, 53ft.

[Nature Enthusiast]

The date is what the date is and it's going to come out cleanly. More cleanly. In our Case in Chief, it matched the glass on the bumper. But the bumper glass didn't match the glass. The cocktail glass, the cup. Nothing on the bumper matched the cup. One piece on the bumper matched a piece found the second week in February by the former trooper Michael Proctor. So he found a piece at 34 Fairview allegedly that matched a piece on the glass on the bumper. Nothing else on the bumper matched the cup. What is the other breaking event of glass? There's multiple sources of glass.

[J.C. Monahan]

Did you see John go in the house? I did. You saw him go in the house?

[Nature Enthusiast]

I saw John go in the house.

[Legal Analyst]

Can you describe him going to the house, which door and how and when?

[Nature Enthusiast]

No. I have though and I'm sure the prosecution will play it.

[Legal Analyst]

Do you think Proctor will testify, Karen?

[Nature Enthusiast]

I don't believe so. But you've seen this afternoon how much evidence has not been shown to this jury. And we've had to work really hard. Allen's had to work really hard to organize it so that they can can be presented with the actual evidence in this case.

[Reba McEntire]

Would you?

[Nature Enthusiast]

To be determined, what do you think.

[Glenn Jones]

The jury thought of Jen McCabe?

[Nature Enthusiast]

What anyone with common sense would think of Jen McCabe, I hope.

[John Maroney]

Who's the mastermind behind this? You guys have pointed to Albert, but She certainly spent a lot of time on her in terms of, you know, her role in this.

[Nature Enthusiast]

But it's always inconsistent. There's. She's not, not consistent. So.

[John Maroney]

So she can't be a mastermind if she's inconsistent.

[Nature Enthusiast]

I would maybe use the word quarterback.

[J.C. Monahan]

Keeping in mind the jury shouldn't be seeing or hearing any of that. What's your take on the fact that she has said that much?

[Expert Guest]

Again, I've said it before, it's an Achilles heel and I understand why. Or I can infer why they would want her to testify or make these comments in her own case, because if she doesn't, somebody else will be making them for her. But it's an Achilles heel. It's hard to hear some of these things that she's saying. I mean, I just wouldn't do it if it was me.

[Morgietta Darcier]

But look, the horse is already out of the barn here. She already said these things. They're already being heard. And she has to fundraise, right? She has to fundraise because there might be a civil suit, there might be a mistrial.

[Glenn Jones]

And you think that's what she's talking.

[Morgietta Darcier]

To and absolutely fundraising.

[Expert Guest]

And I think that's the reason why, because there's another lawsuit that's going to be pending and all this information can also be used in that civil lawsuit as well. These are prior recorded statements that can be used in any further proceedings. So it's a risky move, but here we are.

[Glenn Jones]

Morgietta Darcier, Sue o' Connell, thank you both very much. We'll see you soon.

[J.C. Monahan]

And be sure to join us weeknights at 7 o' clock. And of course, we are streaming these episodes on Peacock. The new ones start every Sunday. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Announcer]

Chief meteorologist Pete Bouchard. Weeknights at 5, 6 and 11 on NBC 10 Boston. Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting 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.