'If I were Karen Read, I would be worried sick,' former judge says

Summary

Podcast Summary: "If I were Karen Read, I would be worried sick," Former Judge Says

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
• Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
• Episode: "If I were Karen Read, I would be worried sick," former judge says
• Release Date: May 20, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston delves deep into the ongoing Karen Read murder trial, focusing on the complexities surrounding the credibility of key witnesses and the broader implications for related cases. The episode offers a comprehensive analysis of courtroom dynamics, witness testimonies, and expert opinions, providing listeners with an in-depth understanding of the trial's progression.

Key Testimony: Forensic Expert Shannon Burgess Under Scrutiny

[00:50] J.C. Monahan introduces Shannon Burgess, a digital forensics expert whose testimony is pivotal to the prosecution's case. Burgess faced intense questioning from the defense regarding his academic credentials and the integrity of his testimony.

• [01:17] Melanie Mendez emphasizes the significance of Burgess's timeline analysis, stating, "This timeline is so integral to the case. The whole case hinges on the timing of what happened on that night."

Discrepancies in Burgess's Credentials:

• [02:09] The defense, led by Robert Alessi, aggressively challenges Burgess's credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in his resume. Alessi questions, "Have you ever, ever represented that you achieved your bachelor's degree?"

• [03:53] Raul Martinez points out the non-existence of Burgess's claimed degree, stating, "The Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics and Business Administration. That degree does not exist."

Burgess attempts to mitigate the damage by clarifying, [02:24] "I did not depart from my original report. I clarified."

Prosecution's Defense of Burgess's Credibility

Despite the defense's attacks, the prosecution strives to maintain Burgess's reliability as an expert witness.

• [05:38] Michael Coyne asserts, "He just needs to close the doors. For I mean to be really clinical about it. The means of escape for Karen Reid."

• [05:50] In response to questions about the necessity of a bachelor's degree for his expertise, Burgess firmly states, "No, I do not," to which Alessi counters with examples of successful individuals without formal degrees.

Expert Analysis: Judge Jack Lew and Legal Analyst Michael Coyne

[06:22] Judge Jack Lew discusses the impact of Burgess's credibility issues on the trial, emphasizing the importance of the scientific evidence presented. He notes, "The question is, will it be enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[07:05] Michael Coyne supports the prosecution's stance, stating, "The integrity of the investigation is completely unchallenged and locked solid proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Courtroom Dynamics and Karen Reid's Involvement

[09:07] Shannon Burgess explains his incomplete bachelor's degree, attributing it to personal circumstances: "Most people can probably relate. Work, family and life many times get in the way."

[10:00] Sue O'Connell, a courtroom insider, provides insight into Karen Reid's active participation during the trial: "She is actively involved in this. So what the jury thinks about this, I don't know."

Impact on Related Cases: Anna Walsh Disappearance

The episode also explores how the scrutiny of state police investigations in the Reid trial could influence another high-profile case—the disappearance and subsequent murder trial of Anna Walsh's husband, Brian Walsh.

• [15:54] Jack Lew expresses concerns about potential juror biases stemming from the Reid trial: "Potential jurors already have some knowledge of."

Viewer Questions and Legal Implications

The hosts address listener inquiries regarding potential outcomes and legal consequences for Karen Reid and the handling of evidence.

1. Directed Verdicts and Reasonable Doubt

   • [17:28] Michael Coyne clarifies misconceptions about directed verdicts, predicting a strong defense motion for a not guilty verdict: "I guarantee you the defense will give a full-throated motion for a required finding of not guilty."

2. Handling of Evidence Post-Trial

   • [18:43] Jack Lew explains, "You get it back. There's no requirement that they restore it to the condition they were in."

3. Consequences for Drunk Driving Allegations

   • [19:23] Jack Lew discusses potential civil liabilities despite a possible not guilty verdict: "OJ was found civilly liable and not guilty in the criminal case."

Conclusion

The episode wraps up by reinforcing the high stakes of the Karen Read murder trial and its reverberating effects on the local judicial landscape. Host Glenn Jones encourages listeners to stay tuned for ongoing coverage and analysis.

Notable Quotes:

• Melanie Mendez [01:17]: "This timeline is so integral to the case. The whole case hinges on the timing of what happened on that night."
• Robert Alessi [02:09]: "Have you ever, ever represented that you achieved your bachelor's degree?"
• Jack Lew [07:05]: "The question is, will it be enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?"
• Michael Coyne [05:38]: "He just needs to close the doors."

Final Thoughts

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential provides a nuanced exploration of legal strategies, witness credibility, and the interplay between personal backgrounds and professional expertise. By dissecting courtroom interactions and expert opinions, the podcast equips listeners with a clear understanding of the trial's complexities and its broader implications within the Massachusetts legal system.

---

Stay Connected:

• Watch Full Episodes: Stream on Peacock starting Sunday or visit the NBC10 Boston YouTube page.
• Join the Conversation: Submit your questions at cantonconfidentialbcuni.com.
• Tune In: Weeknights at 7 on NBC10 Boston for ongoing coverage of the Karen Read murder trial.

Transcript

[Latoya Edwards]

NBC10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, timelines and tech data under scrutiny as a digital forensics expert returns to the stand.

[Raul Martinez]

Are Lexus SUV's trigger happy?

[Shannon Burgess]

I do not know, sir.

[Latoya Edwards]

Did the prosecution repair the damage done to the witness's credibility after the defense exposed mistakes and misstatements in front of the jury?

[Robert Alessi]

Why didn't you finish Your degree in 2024?

[Shannon Burgess]

As most people can probably relate, family and life many times get in the way.

[Latoya Edwards]

Plus, several state troopers linked to this trial. In court for another high profile murder case, our legal experts weigh in. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[J.C. Monahan]

Second day of scientific testimony. A forensic expert back on the stand just a day after getting grilled by the defense over his academic credentials. Good Evening, everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Glenn Jones]

And I'm Glenn Jones. Today we learned why there was a discrepancy on his official resume. Let's get right out to our Melanie Mendez. She joins us live outside Norfolk Superior Court. Melanie, why is there so much attention on this particular witness's testimony?

[Melanie Mendez]

Really? To put it simply, Glenn, it's because this timeline is so integral to the case. The whole case hinges on the timing of what happened on that night. Now, Shannon Burgess, as we now know, he's a forensic data analyst, and he analyzed the data on Karen Reed's SUV on the night John o' Keefe died. Now, according to his updated numbers, it falls in line with the prosecution's narrative that the moment John o' Keefe's phone moved for the last time, Karen Reed's SUV backed up. But that is if the jury believes.

[J.C. Monahan]

Him incredible or uncredible. I'm not sure what the word is.

[Melanie Mendez]

Either way, credibility was the central focus of today's testimony by Shannon Burgess. Karen Reid addressing that as she left court. The defense started their cross today by pointing out a glaring error in the centerpiece of Burgess testimony. The date on the timeline.

[Shannon Burgess]

If I misspoke and said the 29th, then, yes, I misspoke on that.

[Latoya Edwards]

Yes.

[Melanie Mendez]

Alessi pressed him on why, weeks after the trial had begun, he issued a new report with different numbers, contrary to the timing, filed in several other reports, some by colleagues within his own company.

[Shannon Burgess]

I did not depart from my original report. I clarified.

[Raul Martinez]

You don't call that a change, sir?

[Shannon Burgess]

No, sir, I do not.

[Melanie Mendez]

Alessi, alluding to something we've heard from the defense, inconsistencies in witness statements and expert reports suggesting the prosecution's witnesses are using selective evidence to fit their narrative.

[Raul Martinez]

Isn'T what you did. And we just Discussed a classic example of confirmation bias which is to be avoided in science.

[Shannon Burgess]

No, it is not.

[Melanie Mendez]

Specifically asking why Burgess used the term collision in recent reports. Burgess saying it came from Massachusetts State Police crash reports.

[Raul Martinez]

None of the information in that black box that you referred to on your direct testimony indicates that there was a collision on January 29, does it?

[Shannon Burgess]

Not by itself.

[Raul Martinez]

Not by itself, Correct.

[Melanie Mendez]

Then more hammering of discrepancies in his CVs, noting that he does not have a bachelor's degree despite multiple resumes like on LinkedIn. Saying so on redirect. Hank Brennan methodically going through the claims, trying to clean up some of the damage.

[Robert Alessi]

Have you ever, ever represented in that you achieved your bachelor's degree?

[Shannon Burgess]

No, I have not.

[Melanie Mendez]

Alessi pulled up documents from a federal case out of Texas.

[Raul Martinez]

You stated again, sir, that you have not filed a document that misstates your educational background, correct?

[Shannon Burgess]

Correct.

[Raul Martinez]

Bachelor of General Science in mathematics and Business Administration. That degree does not exist. It is not offered at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Correct?

[Shannon Burgess]

No, there's not.

[Raul Martinez]

So therefore, an incorrect statement about your educational background was filed in a federal court in Texas, correct?

[Melanie Mendez]

Yes, it was, but Brennan had the last word. Trying to shift the focus back onto the data.

[Robert Alessi]

Does your opinion regarding the data change in any way in light of his questions about a 2023 filing that you didn't file and someone filed on your behalf?

[J.C. Monahan]

The objection sustainably. Strike that question.

[Melanie Mendez]

So court will be back in session tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, by the way, will be the final full day of testimony this week. Glenn, J.C. back to you.

[J.C. Monahan]

Melody. Thank you. Joining the conversation now is our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne, a retired Massachusetts jug judge Jack Lew. All right, a lot of. A lot of Burgess on the stand today. Digital forensic expert. The defense tried to poke the holes in the timelines. We know that be also all of that information was based on the information that came from Karen Reid's Lexis. And the question is, is this a credible witness? You may remember yesterday, her legal team attacked Burgess credibility, essentially grilling him about his education, forcing him to admit, as you heard, no, he does not have a bachelor's degree, despite his company's website saying he does. Today, as you heard, the Commonwealth tried to prove to the jury that this mistake takes nothing away from the work that he has done on this case.

[Robert Alessi]

You mentioned that you had over 700 hours.

[Shannon Burgess]

Yes, I do.

[Robert Alessi]

Of classes and certification.

[Michael Coyne]

Yes.

[Robert Alessi]

Do you need a bachelor's degree to be competent and achieve in this area?

[Shannon Burgess]

No, I do not.

[Robert Alessi]

Is a bachelor's degree a prerequisite of success in a particular field.

[Shannon Burgess]

No, it is not.

[Robert Alessi]

You ever hear of Bill Gates?

[Michael Coyne]

Yes.

[Robert Alessi]

Stephen Jobs?

[J.C. Monahan]

Yes.

[Glenn Jones]

Oprah Winfrey. Sustained.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay. It's clear he's not Bill or Oprah. But the point being, of course, that can we believe in the work that he has done? When it comes especially to the science, you have to believe the person who is presenting the numbers. The question is, did Brennan do enough? Did the prosecution do enough to sort of clean up the, you know, perceived mess I see you looking at.

[Jack Lew]

If judge would like to go first, he can.

[Michael Coyne]

No, no, no, go ahead.

[Jack Lew]

Okay.

[J.C. Monahan]

Oh, so polite.

[Michael Coyne]

All right, well, if you want me to, Mr. Brennan. All he's doing.

[J.C. Monahan]

Did he do enough?

[Michael Coyne]

All he's doing is, according to standard prosecutorial theory, is closing doors. He does not need to nail the doors shut or hermetically seal them with plastic so no air gets through. He just needs to close the doors. ForI mean to be really clinical about it. The means of escape for Karen Reid. And what the defense should be worried about with that witness is nothing is nothing. He's nothing that happened fundamentally undermines the substance of what he's saying.

[Jack Lew]

Well, that's the question, is why would he lie? Let's put aside the resume, put aside some of the mistakes he made, but why would he lie about something so fundamental as to that timeline? He made a mistake in the timeline as well by using the wrong date. But the key here is that science that he did talk about, assuming that that is, in fact what the jury decides to believe, is very, very damning evidence because it ties with some of the other science that's already in. And so did he do a good job on redirect? I thought he did a great job on redirect. The question is, will it be enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Because that's the real challenge.

[Glenn Jones]

You both kind of laid this out in your answers because defense attorney Robert Alessi had two clear missions here. He had to damage the credibility of the witness through his bio, through his cv. Did that mostly yesterday, but he also had to poke holes in his scientific theory that he was putting forward because it's so germane to the Commonwealth's case. So I guess I want to ask you guys, which of those two did Alessi do more effectively, and to what extent does that matter to the jury?

[Jack Lew]

Well, it's the resume, obviously, that's a big hole with respect to his LinkedIn profile and all of that. Not finishing his college degree. But did the explanation that life gets in the way before you always can finish all your educational requirements. We're working with adult learners. I know that that's the case. So I think there will be people on the jury that that message will resonate with is, well, I wish I had done this. I wish I had completed my education that you might be able to close. The problem is there are still mistakes with respect to dates and things like that, even though the science otherwise is solid and backed up by other information already in evidence.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, thank you to Michael and to Jack for giving you giving your takes. Before we change one more word from the witness on his credentials, the digital forensics expert gave an easy to understand reason for not having a bachelor's degree. As Michael just mentioned, why didn't you.

[Robert Alessi]

Finish your degree in 2024?

[Michael Coyne]

Sure.

[Glenn Jones]

So.

[J.C. Monahan]

I'm going to allow it as.

[Shannon Burgess]

Most people can probably relate. Work, family and life many times get in the way. So as a personal objective, I would like to finish my bachelor's. But again, work and life gets in the way.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, we also want to draw your attention now to an interaction between Karen Reed and defense attorney Alan Jackson. Normally, Reid is fairly stoic in the courtroom, but you can see here she is listening very intently. She's whispering. She's even pointing to something on a notebook. All right, let's bring in our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell, because, Sue, you're in there and you can watch all of this happen. We know she's heavily involved in her case. A moment like this, does it play to the jury? Does a jury notice? And if it does, are you our psychic over here? Are you reading into any of that?

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah. So unlike the first trial, the jury doesn't see very much of Karen Reid sitting in the courtroom because she's been going up to the sidebar. So remember last time they got to sit and just watch her all the time. And during the trial, there are so many lawyers there with big chips. Shares that the view of Karen Reid, from most of the jury seats, they can't see her. So in some regards, this is like the first time they're really just seeing her sitting there. Also, though, they can see the hubbub when things happen at the table. There's whispering, there's so many lawyers, there's notes being passed. I can actually see her screen a little bit from where I am, and she is working on things that are going to come up later in the trial that I can see. So she's actively involved in this. So what the jury thinks about this, I don't know. Right you know, they are often with their heads down taking notes. They're not observing the courtroom the way the last jurors did. They're not like gazing at people and looking at people. They are when there's a break, either just taking a break and looking at the fan like the rest of us are or they are taking notes. Some of them are reorganizing their notes. So I feel very much like I'm in a classroom. I said this yesterday. And Karen is just one of the students or one of the teachers, depending on how you look at it.

[Glenn Jones]

You know, Michael, Karen Reid is her own best advocate. And you can't hate on somebody for being that. But I wonder, when you look at this in comparison to other trials, particularly murder trials, do you see the same level of involvement from other defendants?

[Jack Lew]

No, you do not. And I do. I'm going to disagree with you, Glenn, that I'm not sure she's the best advocate for herself. Some distance from the incident, from distance from and some less emotion from the acts themselves. That generally helps, right? The old saying that person who represents themselves has a fool for a client. She's got three, four terrific lawyers. I would let them drive the bus. And she should be listening to the advice from them to me to a much greater extent because they have the experience and the qualifications to be able to get her not guilty verdict.

[Sue O'Connell]

I will say she's the one that discovered the inverted video though last trial when it got played in the courtroom. So there are things that she is seeing that they don't know about that she recognizes.

[Glenn Jones]

Okay.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay.

[Glenn Jones]

Michael Stone, thank you so much. Don't go anywhere. We want to get some more from you. We'll have Judge Liu back after the break as well. Up next, another high profile case in Norfolk county involving the same group of state police investigators as the Reid trial. Coming up, the law enforcement officers recently appearing at a hearing for yet another murder trial facing a lot of scrutiny.

[J.C. Monahan]

And the most important thing to remember is John o' Keefe, the victim in this case. Braintree native. He was a Boston police officer. He 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 Reid murder trial.

[Latoya Edwards]

Don't miss any of the Karen Reid 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.

[Glenn Jones]

We're back now with retired Massachusetts Judge Jack Lew and Our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. We can't get enough of either of them. All right, I want to get your take, gentlemen, on two different people's testimonies in this case and what the Commonwealth is asking the jury to believe. In the case of Michael Proctor, he was the lead investigator. His conduct was unbecoming, but they're saying the quality of the investigation is just fine. We need you to believe that. In the case of Shannon Burgess, a much different witness, they're saying the quality of his work is very good, but we know he's got some credibility issues. Are they really stretching the imaginations of the jury, or are these things you ask of juries all the time, all.

[Jack Lew]

Jury, all witnesses come with some baggage. And that's the question in this case. They come with a lot of luggage.

[Glenn Jones]

Yeah, a lot of luggage.

[Jack Lew]

And that's the burden the government has here to try and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because if jurors have started to think about that she's guilty or not guilty, there is ample support already for both verdicts that they could come to.

[Glenn Jones]

Can the commonwealth overcome this baggage, Judge?

[Michael Coyne]

Oh, absolutely. If I were Karen Reed, I would be worried sick, and I'm sure she is. Let's be face it, they can overcome this. Proctor, who I've said was fired for something everyone else was suspended for, he just use your esp. He'll come in and say, I apologize for my errors, but the integrity of the investigation is completely unchallenged and locked solid proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[J.C. Monahan]

Well, let's see how this plays in other trials because we're hoping both of you can weigh in on this possible impact on another high profile trial that is happening here in Massachusetts. It's the disappearance of Anna Walsh. Just a bit of background. The Cohasset mother of three has not been heard from since early January 2023. Her husband Brian is accused of killing and dismembering her. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. We're talking about this because former state police trooper Michael Proctor was the lead investigator in this case. As in the Reid cases you just mentioned, several other state police investigators were in court yesterday to talk about their involvement in the Walsh murder investigation. Take a look. These are all officers who took the stand in the Reid trial. So knowing that the police investigation is under a microscope for the Reid trial and we have another, what will be another high profile trial, how does it or does it impact that next trial?

[Jack Lew]

I think it impacts potential jurors because I'm going to disagree with the judge. It wasn't handled professionally. Many of the results, many parts of the investigation may be solid, but so much of what they did was unprofessional. The preservation and collection of the evidence the witness is questioning and the like. I think there's a carryover to this case that potential jurors already have some knowledge of.

[J.C. Monahan]

Can they bring that up, though, when they're on the stand for the Brian Walsh can this can.

[Michael Coyne]

The short answer is not directly.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay.

[Michael Coyne]

Not directly.

[J.C. Monahan]

The door has to be opened, and.

[Michael Coyne]

That would be unusual.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay.

[Michael Coyne]

All right.

[J.C. Monahan]

So this might. This might be more public perception than anything else.

[Jack Lew]

Well, it's there. It's. It's. It's part of the foundation that these jurors potentially come with is saying there's some level of distrust of the Norfolk county state troopers who were involved in these murder investigations. And all the defense then has to do is build on that. So it is problematic for that case as well. Plus, remember, you don't have a body, and that's usually the easiest part of proving a murder took place as you have the body.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, let's get to some viewer questions now about the retrial of Karen Reid. And we want to think ahead for a moment. Jennifer from Long island in New York wants to know. This case screams reasonable doubt. Do you think the defense could motion the judge for a directed verdict, or do you think they would they want the not guilty to end it once and for all? Maybe we'll start with you on that one, Jack.

[J.C. Monahan]

Sure.

[Glenn Jones]

And maybe also put into context what a directed verdict is.

[Michael Coyne]

Yeah. That reveals a slight misunderstanding of what's going on, but they will, I guarantee you the defense will give a full throated motion for a required finding of not guilty. I will take a seat before they start. And so that will be done after.

[Glenn Jones]

The commonwealth wraps up its case.

[Michael Coyne]

Yes, and after they finish their case. And apparently they have a case, which.

[J.C. Monahan]

Is unusual, but they have to wait. They couldn't do it just after the prosecutions.

[Michael Coyne]

No, they can. They can do it.

[J.C. Monahan]

But you think they'll wait till after the.

[Michael Coyne]

I think they'll do both. I know they'll do both.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay.

[Michael Coyne]

These are high level lawyers, Mr. Yannetti and company. They're not missing anything. That's, you know, that's how they picked up on all the resume business with the opinion witness. But.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay, let's get to another viewer question because this one comes from Connor and he says in the event Karen Reid is found not guilty. What happens to Alexis in their investigation? We know the state police has dismantled the interior components. They've removed integral components. This may seem trivial, but if she walks out of that court a free woman, what does happen with evidence that you take? It doesn't just have to be a car. People take your computers and they take apart all sorts of things, and then what happens?

[Jack Lew]

You get it back.

[J.C. Monahan]

You get it back?

[Jack Lew]

Yes. Yes. There's no requirement that they restore it to the condition they were they. They had it in. Same thing with search warrants as well. If you think about it, if sometimes the police are going to go through a house with a fine tooth comb, you're the one that's going to put it back together.

[Shannon Burgess]

Yeah.

[Michael Coyne]

It's junk now, though, the cut that. That truck is junk.

[J.C. Monahan]

Well, they've taken it all.

[Michael Coyne]

It destroys the car.

[J.C. Monahan]

Yeah, they've taken it all apart.

[Glenn Jones]

We've got to get to one more question from a viewer. It comes from Jen in Duxbury. She wants to know, if Karen Reid is acquitted, will there be consequences for having drunk nine drinks and then driving? What are your thoughts on that?

[Jack Lew]

Civil. Potentially. And we know there are civil suits already pending, and so that that suit would have been impacted with a guilty verdict. It would have made the civil suit easier, but it doesn't mean that the civil suit doesn't still have significant viability. OJ Was found civilly liable and not guilty in the criminal case.

[J.C. Monahan]

Wow. So she's not done, no matter what the verdict is when she walks out?

[Jack Lew]

Far from it.

[Michael Coyne]

You know, what this case shows or raises is the apparent immunity that some Boston police, some Canton police, and some, let's face it, other police have from arrests for operating under the influence of liquor, including those police. And they're very close friends and family. And it's wrong and it's corrupt. And I think people should know, just because the police are corrupt, the rest of the system is absolutely not corrupt.

[J.C. Monahan]

And their blood alcohol was not taken, by the way, the other people who were there drinking in the bars and such. So nothing could come, I assume, of that.

[Jack Lew]

Well, nothing again. But there are potential civil suits that could form on the periphery of the initial case against the bars themselves, as well as Ms. Reed. And so there may be others brought in at some point that contributed to this as well.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, Michael. I think, you know, Judge, there's a lot of speculation out there around the sanctity of our judicial system in that county in particular. So it's a conversation we'll have to continue in the future, please.

[J.C. Monahan]

Yeah, please.

[Glenn Jones]

Judge MICHAEL thank you very much.

[J.C. Monahan]

Thanks for joining us. As always, if you have questions, you see it, we answer them right here. The email is on your screen. Canton confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can every day.

[Glenn Jones]

And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from Cord as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock starting on Sunday, but you can watch any past episode on Peacock right now. This is 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.