Dr. Judson Welcher (1:39)

Your Honor, the cross examination of crash reconstructionist Dr. Judson Welcher picked back up Thursday with the defense raising a number of concerns. For example, the ring cameras at John o' Keefe's house on Meadows Ave. The images and measurements from those cameras provided the basis for Welcher's conclusions about contact between reed and John O' Keefe's SUVs. But the cameras had been changed, replaced by a new model, and the location slightly shifted from where it was in 2022 to when Welcher did his testing.

Hank Brennan (2:08)

It starts there.

Danny Savalos (2:09)

And if the starting point is wrong, then where you go from the starting.

Hank Brennan (2:16)

Point is going to be at least potentially wrong.

Alan Jackson (2:20)

Correct?

Glenn Jones (2:21)

Potentially.

Dr. Judson Welcher (2:22)

Alessi also raising concerns about the hydraulics and suspension on Reed's Lexus. Alessi pointing out the vehicle lifts when in drive and drops when stopped, changing the SUV's height by some inches. Enough, he says, to throw off their calculations. Welcher acknowledging he doesn't know the suspension height when the car was at Fairview.

Melody Mendez (2:41)

So you don't have the suspension height.

Hank Brennan (2:46)

For that key day, do you? Sir?

J.C. Monahan (2:49)

I only have it two days later.

Dr. Judson Welcher (2:51)

In a very brief redirect, just six minutes, prosecutor Hank Brennan addressed each concern going Methodically, through Alessi's cross, with precision. The ring video, the fact that the.

Hank Brennan (3:01)

Camera was replaced, does that anyway affect your opin to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty about your conclusions relative to that touching between the cars?

J.C. Monahan (3:11)

Absolutely not.

Hank Brennan (3:12)

The suspension, do you have any information that the suspension at any point was changed?

J.C. Monahan (3:19)

No.

Dr. Judson Welcher (3:19)

And the alleged bias?

Hank Brennan (3:20)

74%. Does that suffer from confirmation bias?

J.C. Monahan (3:25)

No, that's a direct reading of a censor. That's objective information. I thought, could I have run him over? Did he try to get me as I was leaving and I didn't know it?

Dr. Judson Welcher (3:33)

The prosecution finished by playing one final clip of Reed's interview. Interview from a docuseries.

J.C. Monahan (3:38)

What if I ran his foot over? Or what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out and David said, yeah, then you have some element of culpability.

Hank Brennan (3:54)

Your Honor, the Commonwealth rests.

Dr. Judson Welcher (3:56)

Reid, on her way out of court.

J.C. Monahan (3:57)

How would you sum up the prosecution's case?

Dr. Judson Welcher (4:03)

One word.

J.C. Monahan (4:04)

Unjust.

Dr. Judson Welcher (4:09)

So, on her way out of court, Karen Reid did tell us the first witness for the defense, J.C. and Glenn, will be a man named Matthew Desaugry. He's a digital forensics expert, mechanical engineer for an accident reconstruction firm.

Glenn Jones (4:22)

Melody, that name doesn't sound familiar. Did he testify in the last trial?

Dr. Judson Welcher (4:28)

No, it shouldn't. Glenn, he did not testify in the last trial, although his name is on the witness list for this trial, so it's not a surprise. Look, I did some research online and of course, according to his biography on the company's website, he teaches a professional course called Pay attention here. Accessing and Interpreting heavy vehicle event data recorders. Those EDRs. That is exactly what we've heard Dr. Judson Welcher speak about for the last three days, and Burgess, the witness just before him. So you could see the logic in putting these witnesses back to back on the stand. He's going to start his testimony first thing tomorrow morning. J.C. glenn, back to you.

Glenn Jones (5:07)

All right, Melody, we'll see you tomorrow. Joining the conversation now is defense attorney Morgietta Derisier. So I guess we'll start with an overall feel for the prosecution's case. What are your thoughts on how the commonwealth performed this time around?

Melody Mendez (5:22)

So I'll definitely say presentation is definitely a B. Last time around we had about 60 plus witnesses. This time around we only had 30 plus witnesses, which is huge. Right? And it also entices the jury to pay attention more. You're going to have them be more engaging because they're not sitting through redundant information, but I think they failed in some of the experts. Right. Some of them had credential issues. Some of them had problems answering the questions directly, so it didn't come off as fluid as it could have. And you really need experts, especially in a murder case, to get the jury to believe your side of the story.

J.C. Monahan (6:00)

But they do have the chance when the defense puts on their experts to be the ones to cross. We know Hank Brennan is a former defense attorney, and we're told he's very good at it. So could they make more headway, in other words, if haven't reached the burden yet, could they? Throughout the course of the defense's time on the stand?

Melody Mendez (6:17)

They could. And also remember, the prosecution has the opportunity to do a rebuttal presentation after the defense's case rest, which is an advantage for them. So I think they definitely need to be on their A game, listening to the defense witnesses, but also thinking about what's the rebuttal presentation, because if they don't use that to their advantage, I think it's a. It's a loss. So I, you know, I hope and anticipate that they will.

Glenn Jones (6:40)

Let's dig a little bit deeper on the comparison, because I know at the end of the process, prosecution's case. Last time, as we talked to analysts like you, you felt like there was a lot of doubt about the case that the prosecution presented. Do you think that doubt has been shrunk now and have they presented their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Melody Mendez (7:00)

So I will be quite honest, and I think a lot of illegal analysts will say this, that there is an extreme amount of reasonable doubt, and that has nothing to do really with the presentation of the prosecution case. I just think it's the facts that they had to present to the jury. You really cannot get around the investigation and the lack of clarity and the lack of professionalism, despite how many witnesses say it was professional. There was so many issues that no prosecutor, no attorney could really get over. And as a result of that, there's an enormous amount of reasonable doubt. To be honest with you, without this rebuttal, I don't think they've met their burden yet.

J.C. Monahan (7:36)

Let me play a little bit of sound for you, because during opening statements, the prosecution used clips from Karen Reid's interviews with different media companies, and then they did that again on this final day before they went to rest. So in that case, what do you think about the fact that they opened with Karen Reed in her own words, and they concluded their time with Karen Reed in Their own words.

Melody Mendez (7:58)

Honestly, that was the strongest part throughout this prosecution case, was strategically weaving in testimony of Karen Reed because we don't know if she's going to testify. She may not. And in many, many cases, you don't hear from the defendant. And this is one of the very few opportunities that the jury is actually going to hear from their own, with their own ears and see with their own eyes her voice, her tone, her attitude, what she actually thinks. And again, we've talked many, many times on the show. Consciousness of guilt is one of the elements of the prosecution has to prove. And some of these clips, unfortunately, a lot of defense attorneys are cringing, especially with the last clip that was played today. Yes, because you're piercing into her mind. And we haven't had the opportunity to.

J.C. Monahan (8:42)

Do that just because we don't have that exact. Just to say that she was questioning herself once again. Did I clip him? Could I have clipped him? But I think the key, and tell me more, Jada, if I'm wrong, is at the end, she said, I asked my lawyer, David Yannetti, if I clipped him, if somehow I ran over his foot and he passed out or whatever, then what? And he said, then you're partially, partially culpable.

Melody Mendez (9:08)

Absolutely. Because remember, the second element is the one that requires there to be some wanton or recklessness. It doesn't have to be an intentional act in that second element. So if there is a possibility that she believed that there was some wanton and reckless endangerment, either from the drinking or not knowing or not paying attention, then yes, there is some culpability that she may have to face. And you can't take those clips back. What I anticipate will happen is the defense will try to place some context around those clips, just try to see if they can even out the information that the jury has heard so far.

J.C. Monahan (9:42)

Do you believe her when she says when she's out of court and they say, are you going to testify? And she says, tbd, you think she really hasn't decided?

Melody Mendez (9:49)

I do believe because she has been very, very engaged in her own case. And I think if she knew she was going to, she would have said it from the outset. I think she's a very honest, straightforward person. As you can see, she does not sugarcoat any of her conversations in any way. And I think she would have just straight out said it. But it is a, you know, game day situation. Sometimes you don't know. You have to see how the evidence plays out, especially in a defense case in chief. So it'll be interesting. But technically we've already heard her speak.

Glenn Jones (10:17)

Right. And I know you've been really uncomfortable with the amount of speaking she's been doing even now as she does so on the courthouse steps almost every day after court.

Melody Mendez (10:28)

Yes, absolutely. I haven't found a colleague on the defense side that is comfortable with her speaking to the public at all. But as I said before, her story was going to be told either way. It's either with or without her input. How do you dance around that topic? But when you're in the middle of a case, you can't deny the fact that that's damaging to the prosecution. I mean, they could use any of the clips that she's made outside the courtroom as well inside of the case as it's going on. So it's definitely hard to watch because it's also very raw. There's no, you know, editing. There's no cutting. It's just as it is. So it is a little bit uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable.

J.C. Monahan (11:07)

I should say more, Jen, to stay right there. We're going to get back to in just a moment. Right now, though, we have NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos back with us tonight. Thank you for joining us, Danny. We mentioned the prosecution has rested its case against Karen Reid in the second trial. The burden of proof is on them did. Let's play a clip from special prosecutor Hank Brennan's opening statement last month and then I'll ask the question.

Hank Brennan (11:31)

And you're going to hear from a very renowned doctor, a neurosurgeon who has treated thousands and thousands of dental. You're also going to hear from an active reconstruction. His name is Judd Welching. He does not work for the state police or local police. He was hired to take a look at this case and the data. He will come in and explain to you exactly what I talked about, how the data from that black box coincides with the cell phone and the movement of the moments before, during and after the defendant struck Ronaldi with her car.

J.C. Monahan (12:06)

There was the outline of their case. Now that they've rested, did they hit the mark?

Danny Savalos (12:12)

You know, somewhat. Welcher was a good witness. He's obviously very experienced. He was very good at frustrating a lessee when he was trying to cross him and doing that sort of innocent. Oh, I'm just trying to help you when everybody knows this expert's not trying to help the defense. I thought that he went into so much detail about the issue of whether Karen Reed's SUV backed into John Okeefes car in the parking lot we got so much tech on that one, so much graphs and so much computer aided imagery. And then we got to the second test where he just painted some blue paint on Alexis and backed it into himself. And I thought the defense correctly pointed out that really all he did was pick the angle and the theory of impact that best worked for the prosecution and just proved that out. It was just another form of confirmation bias. Any sort of variables would have changed the outcome. And there were moments where this expert actually conceded, we just didn't have all the data. We didn't know everything. Believe me, I expect to see that verbatim as a quote in the defense's clothing.

Glenn Jones (13:18)

So, Danny, I want to ask you two things that compare your point of view to what Morgieta, our analyst here on set, said. She gave the prosecution a B. I wonder what your grade is. And she also thought the prosecution was very effective in using Karen Reid's words woven into their presentation before the jury. What are your thoughts about that tactic?

Danny Savalos (13:41)

Well, sure. I mean, anyone who wondered whether Karen Reid was helping herself by going out and talking in a documentary, there's your answer. Because if the commonwealth believed that this was bad for them, they never would have included it in their case in chief. And voila, there it is. Living proof why, for the most part, clients should not be talking to the press. They especially shouldn't be talking to a documentarian, because, as you know, the production there is. They just tape hours and hours and hours of what you say, and then you can cherry pick anything that's really bad for you. So I don't think Karen Reid helped her case one iota by talking to the press and talking to documentary producers. But I think the defense here did an admirable job. We're going to see their case in chief. It's the prosecution. If I were to grade them, I would say where they fell short was not owning up, was trying to pretend there never was a trooper, Proctor trooper, who we've never heard of. Yee. And I think that was a bad idea. And I think that really came out in the. In some of the witnesses testimony as they all tried to even evade whether or not he was the lead investigator, when of course, he was.

Glenn Jones (14:47)

How about that grade, Danny?

Danny Savalos (14:50)

I give him, you know, look, a B. Maybe I give him a B. But the bottom line is for beyond a reasonable doubt, you got to do better than a B.

Glenn Jones (14:58)

Fair point. Thank you so much, Danny Savalo's NBC News legal analyst. But don't go anywhere. We're back with Morgietta after the break. And we're looking ahead to what the defense will bring to the table.

Alan Jackson (15:08)

This case carries a malignancy, one that has spread through the investigation. It's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.

J.C. Monahan (15:29)

Could Michael Proctor be called to testify? When we come back, our experts talk about that and other people that we could see take the stand. You're watching Canton, the Karen Reed murder trial.

NBC10 Boston News Anchor (15:43)

Don't miss any of the Karen Reid murder 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.

Alan Jackson (16:04)

You'll also learn after this incident and within days of one another, both Brian Higgins and Brian Albert, both police officers, both both trained investigators, got rid of their phones, both of them shortly after this incident. Brian Albert got rid of his house, the whole thing, just sold it. His childhood home, a home that had been in the Albert family for generations. He literally sold it mere months after this incident. Dog rehomed, phones destroyed house, soldiers. You'll learn that all these things happened shortly after the incident where John o' Keefe was found unresponsive and dying in Brian Albert's front lawn.

J.C. Monahan (16:46)

That was defense attorney Alan Jackson during opening statements last month. Giving us an idea of what Reed's lawyers will present with their evidence. We expect that to begin tomorrow. Joining us now to talk about it is our courtroom insider Sue o' Connell. And we have Morgietta staying with us here. We want to quickly highlight what the defense did during the first trial. The team presented all of its evidence in just two days with only six witnesses called to testify. And Karen Reed did not testify in the first trial.

Glenn Jones (17:14)

So who was at the defense table with Karen Reed this time? There's attorneys David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Both were there for the first trial. There's also attorneys Elizabeth Little and Robert Alessi. Little was also on the team for the first trial, but Alessi joined the team for round two. Virginia George was also added. She was an alternate juror in Reid's first trial, but she has not questioned any witnesses in the retrials so far and was only seen in court during the first few days. All right. So now let's get back to the defense team's third party corporate strategy alleging someone else did it. We heard Alan Jackson just talking about that in his opening statement. So sue, because of that, because he, in that clip was so adamant about Brian Albert's culpability. Does he have to call him since he wasn't called as a prosecution witness like the first time around?

Sue O'Connell (18:02)

Yeah, I think he does. I mean, you know, we've been talking about the street streamlined. Part of the prosecution, part of it is because they had to fight a case within a case within a case in the last trial. This time they. Brennan didn't do that. So these witnesses, Higgins and Albert, Brian Albert, are going to have to be pushed over to the defense side, which is why there are more days that are scheduled from the defense side to make their case. And I think they have to talk to Higgins and they have to talk to Brian Albert in order to establish and introduce the evidence that they're going to allege should give reasonable doubt that these two might have had something to do with something. They don't have to prove anything, remember. They just have to bring up enough reasonable doubt that the jurors consider it.

J.C. Monahan (18:42)

And Morjayda, how long do you think they'll spend on Michael Proctor? I'm not even going to ask you anymore if you think he's going to be called the stand. We know you think so. Right. Everyone's saying there's really. It'd be very difficult not to.

Melody Mendez (18:53)

Very difficult not to. But at this point, how much more do you need? Right. The prosecution has already mentioned his name so many times with other witnesses that the defense really doesn't need to do much with him, but really put him on the stand and kind of go through, you know, the reprimands that he's had. And he can't deny any of it. Right. So I don't think that they'll need much from him other than to put the icing on the cake of the investigation. That was clearly poorly done in this case. And I think that they'll. A day, maybe a day and a half. I don't think they're going to need much for that.

J.C. Monahan (19:27)

All right, we have a viewer question we'd like to get your take on. Tom from Winchester is wondering if Michael Proctor is called as a witness by the defense, can he take the fifth?

Melody Mendez (19:35)

So the Fifth is when people refer to that it's your right to not self incriminate. If you are going to testify in a proceeding, it doesn't have to be in court. It can be any recorded proceeding. But here he's already been reprimanded. Right. So unless he's going to talk about new crimes that he's being committed that he's trying to protect himself. He can't assert the Fifth. He has to answer the questions about the work that he's already done. So the information is not new. It's actually information that everybody knows about. So unless he's going to stand out and say, yeah, I actually murdered her, that's different.

J.C. Monahan (20:05)

Right.

Melody Mendez (20:06)

But he can't just say, I don't want to answer these questions. He's subpoenaed to court to testify. It's probably going to be extremely uncomfortable for him to be there, but there's no Fifth Amendment for him to assert in this presentation.

Glenn Jones (20:20)

Okay. Suakano Morgietta, thank you very, very much to both of you. It's always a pleasure having you. Thank you, of course, for tuning in. If you have questions about this case, keep sending them our way. The email is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can.

J.C. Monahan (20:37)

And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from court as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock, added to our show on Sunday.

Glenn Jones (20:51)

And be sure to check out our true crime podcast about this case. It's the audio version of our nightly show that will catch you up on all the twists and turns up until this point. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed Murder Trial.

NBC10 Boston News Anchor (21:11)

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.