Round 2 of the battle of the crash reconstruction experts

Summary

Summary of "Round 2 of the Battle of the Crash Reconstruction Experts"

Episode Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
Release Date: June 6, 2025

---

Introduction

In the second round of the Karen Read murder trial, "Canton Confidential" delves deep into the contentious testimonies of crash reconstruction experts. This episode provides an in-depth analysis of the scientific evidence presented, the contrasting viewpoints of prosecution and defense experts, and the broader implications for law enforcement and public perception.

Testimony from Crash Reconstruction Experts

The episode opens with the introduction of Dr. Daniel Wolf, Director of Accident Reconstruction at ARCA, whose testimony is pivotal for the defense. Glenn Jones narrates the high-stakes nature of Dr. Wolf’s involvement, stating, “This could very well be the most critical piece of the defense's case” (02:05).

Dr. Daniel Wolf’s Findings

Dr. Wolf presented extensive visual evidence, including videos of crash simulations and a full tail light assembly of Karen Reed's Lexus. He demonstrated how the tail light's impact on a crash test dummy’s arm at various speeds was “inconsistent with striking an arm” (03:18). Specifically, at the prosecution's alleged speed of 24 mph, Dr. Wolf concluded, “Based upon the test results, it's inconsistent with striking an arm after each test” (04:09).

Cross-Examination Challenges

The prosecution, led by Hank Brennan, aggressively challenged Dr. Wolf’s credibility and the integrity of the ARCA’s involvement. Multiple objections were raised during the testimony, highlighting the contentious nature of the expert evidence (02:42). Notably, Brennan questioned Dr. Wolf’s deleted communications with the defense, suggesting potential bias: “Is there any reason why you deleted all of your text communications with the defense?” (04:17).

Juror and Legal Analyst Insights

The podcast features insights from juror Ronald Estanislau and legal analyst Morgietta Derisier, who provide perspectives on the effectiveness of the expert testimonies.

Ronald Estanislau remarked on the clarity of Dr. Wolf’s presentation: “I think this was the best presentation of science that we have seen in this entire trial thus far. It was clean” (07:19). He contrasted this with the prosecution’s expert, Dr. Welcher, noting a lack of methodological transparency in the latter’s testimony (08:17).

Morgietta Derisier assessed the prosecution’s attempts to undermine Dr. Wolf, stating, “I feel like the presentation was a net zero, meaning he got some information out, but it resulted in nothing that really moved the needle in his case” (13:09).

Financial Implications of Expert Testimonies

A significant point of discussion is the disparity in funding for expert witnesses. The prosecution is projected to spend over $300,000 on expert analysis, while the defense’s ARCA incurs costs of approximately $50,000. Morgietta Derisier explains, “They're trying to create a bias here... I don't see it really mattering in this case, as Ronald said” (15:18). This financial imbalance raises questions about the influence of resources on trial outcomes.

Police Testimonies and Public Perception

Testimonies from Boston Police Officer Kelly Dever and Dighton Police Sergeant Nicholas Barros highlight concerns about potential misconduct and departmental pressures. Officer Dever disclosed a meeting with Police Commissioner Michael Cox, who advised her to “do the right thing” (18:17), sparking discussions on the "blue wall of silence" and retaliation protections for officers reporting misconduct.

Retired Newton Police Chief John Carmichael provided reassurance on departmental protocols, emphasizing, “Now that the Post standards... have built into that law issues about retaliation” (19:07).

Legal Analyst and Defense Perspective

Morgietta Derisier critiques the prosecution’s strategy to discredit defense witnesses without undermining the defense’s case, arguing that efforts to portray financial expenditure as bias are ineffective given the trial's complexity and the number of witnesses involved (13:49).

Conclusion and Next Steps in Trial

As the episode concludes, listeners are informed that jurors will reconvene on Monday for further testimony. The episode underscores the intricate interplay between scientific evidence, legal strategies, and public trust in law enforcement, setting the stage for continued intense scrutiny in subsequent trial rounds.

Notable Quotes

• Glenn Jones: “What happens when you impact an arm with a Lexus tail light at various speeds?” (00:56)
• Dr. Daniel Wolf: “Based upon the test results, it's inconsistent with striking an arm after each test.” (04:09)
• Ronald Estanislau: “I think this was the best presentation of science that we have seen in this entire trial thus far. It was clean.” (07:19)
• Hank Brennan: “Is there any reason why you deleted all of your text communications with the defense?” (04:17)
• Morgietta Derisier: “They're trying to create a bias here... I don't see it really mattering in this case.” (15:18)
• John Carmichael: “Anytime a police officer reports misconduct to their superiors, there can be no retaliation.” (19:07)

---

This episode of "Canton Confidential" offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving dynamics in the Karen Read murder trial, emphasizing the critical role of expert testimonies and their broader implications on justice and public trust.

Transcript

[Latoya Edwards]

At Designer Shoe Warehouse, we believe that shoes are an important part of, well.

[Raul Martinez]

Everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal.

[Latoya Edwards]

Bests, from building pillow forts to building a life.

[Raul Martinez]

For all the big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com the.

[Tevin]

Canton Confidential podcast is brought to you by NBC 10 Boston News worthy of you. Start your day with Latoya, Raul and Tevin. Weekday mornings at 6. NBC 10 Boston mornings worthy of you. NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, testimony back on track with talk about Karen Reed's tail light.

[Glenn Jones]

What happens when you impact an arm with a Lexus tail light at various speeds?

[Tevin]

A crash reconstruction expert shares his findings.

[Glenn Jones]

It's inconsistent with striking an arm.

[Tevin]

Plus, money talks. We take a closer look at the bill taxpayers will have to pay once this trial is over. And we're getting perspective from police after two officers took the stand this week. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[Melody Mendez]

Testimony today from an accident reconstructionist at arca. This could very well be the most critical piece of the defense's case. Good evening, everyone. I'm Glenn Jones. JC has the night off. Testimony from the engineering firm's crash experts has been highly contentious in this trial. The firm was first hired by the FBI as part of a now closed federal investigation into how local police handled the case. But since then, ARCA has been communicating with the defense and that put them at the center of feisty pretrial hearings. Melody Mendez is outside the courthouse with more on the testimony of Dr. Daniel Wolf. This was highly anticipated, Mel.

[Hank Brennan]

It was, Glenn. A lot of people were talking about these ARCA witnesses coming in to be the potential star witnesses for the defense team. Well, here's the thing. In the first trial, these ARCA witnesses took the stand and very clearly presented their data and their methods, saying in their opinion there was no way that John o' Keefe's injuries were consistent with having been hit by Karen Reed's vehicle. Now the prosecution fought two thirds and nailed to prevent these ARCA witnesses from ever making the stand in the second trial. Well, they were unsuccessful in that bid. The ARCA witnesses, the first one was back and the science has not changed. Take a look.

[Alan Jackson]

The objection. Sustained.

[Melody Mendez]

That's sustained too.

[Alan Jackson]

That's sustained. That's sustained.

[Melody Mendez]

To the board ask it differently. That's sustained.

[Hank Brennan]

The long disputed status of the witness Made clear by the dizzying number of objections by the Commonwealth. While Dr. Daniel Wolf was on the standard. Almost as numerous as the objections were the visual displays for the jurors. In video after video of accident recreations, Wolf showed their testing methods.

[Glenn Jones]

We applied this same linear impactor to be able to project, if you will, or accelerate the tail light at a known speed into the ATD arm, showing.

[Hank Brennan]

What happens when a tail light collides with a dummy arm at various speeds. Saying the damage to the tail light was inconsistent with the damage to Karen Reed's SUV and inconsistent with the damage to John Okeefes clothing.

[Latoya Edwards]

In any of the testing that you did, did you ever see tail light pieces cut, puncture or fray the sleeve of that hoodie?

[Glenn Jones]

No.

[Hank Brennan]

Often displaying side by side images of the actual damage and damage that resulted from their testing. Here they are talking about testing done at 24mph, the same speed the prosecution is alleging Reed was going in reverse when the SUV hit John.

[Glenn Jones]

We accelerated that vehicle into the arm at 24 miles an hour.

[Latoya Edwards]

Were you able to reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the subject tail light is consistent with striking an arm at 24 mph.

[Glenn Jones]

Based upon the test results, it's inconsistent with striking an arm after each test.

[Hank Brennan]

Showing the damage to the taillight, the arm and the sweatshirt.

[Glenn Jones]

It's inconsistent. It was inconsistent. It was inconsistent.

[Hank Brennan]

The doctor was asked about the so called blue paint test done by the prosecution's witness and about its efficacy.

[Glenn Jones]

Doing this at two miles an hour doesn't tell you anything about, well, what happens at 10, what happens at 15, what happens at 20 and what he.

[Hank Brennan]

Says welcher didn't do.

[Glenn Jones]

I'm not aware of any impact testing that he did.

[Hank Brennan]

Under cross Hank Brennan immediately going after his credibility then his prior communications with the defense.

[Latoya Edwards]

Is there any reason why you deleted all of your text communications with the defense?

[Glenn Jones]

Just. I routinely delete them after that communication.

[Hank Brennan]

Is over with and potential bias.

[Latoya Edwards]

You were communicating with the defense and attempting the best you could to assist their cause, weren't you?

[Glenn Jones]

I wouldn't characterize it that way.

[Hank Brennan]

It got heated a number of times.

[Glenn Jones]

I feel like I've answered it the best I can, you, Honor.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay, next question.

[Latoya Edwards]

You don't like that question? Objection.

[Alan Jackson]

Sustainable stripe stripe.

[Hank Brennan]

Jurors disregard on redirect. Jackson went back to the science, asking again if the injuries to John o' Keefe's arm could have been caused by shards of tail light.

[Glenn Jones]

They would somehow have to accelerate with more speed to to catch up and go beyond the arm, essentially.

[Ronald Estanislau]

Is that physically possible?

[Glenn Jones]

No.

[Hank Brennan]

All right, Glenn. Now, the jury will be back on Monday. First thing Monday morning. They're expected to have full days of testimony Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday if need be. Back to you.

[Melody Mendez]

We'll see you back at your post next week. Melody, thank you. We'll get to our trusted legal analyst in a moment, but we want to start with the three of us laypeople who are trying to get through all this scientific testimony, just like the jury is required to do. Welcome back to Ronald Estenislau, a juror from the first trial and our courtroom insider, Sue O' Connell. On the stand today was Dr. Daniel Wolf, the Director of Accident Reconstruction at ARCA. Not only did he show us video of dozens of tests, but he also brought a full tail light assembly with quarter panel and liftgate to the witness stand. So let's talk about this direct examination. Ronald, a lot more visual aids this time around than when Dr. Wolf was on the stand the first time. Does it help in terms of following along with the science? And if so, is there anything in particular you think would be helpful to this jury based on what he showed us today?

[Ronald Estanislau]

I believe that it's so much more helpful to have tangible pieces to show. And all of the presentations that he showed clearly indicated more of what could have happened during that time frame.

[Melody Mendez]

So we know the tests were conducted more recently. So you didn't have access to that at the first trial. But the taillight assembly, those sort of props could have been used. Would they have been helpful?

[Ronald Estanislau]

Yes, definitely. All those props are anything other than what they just did, which was just testimony during the first trial.

[Alan Jackson]

And Glenn Jackson knocked on it.

[Melody Mendez]

Yes, I remember hearing that, how loud.

[Alan Jackson]

It was before the judge said, give it back.

[Melody Mendez]

All right, so there was a lot of physics and math presented during this. Sue, how was the jury following along based on your vantage point?

[Alan Jackson]

So I think they've heard about the scientific method now from a number of experts.

[Melody Mendez]

They could pass the physics test?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes, I think they could. And we keep talking. Both lawyers, both Brennan and Alessi and Jackson all keep talking about it on a sixth grade level. They keep saying middle school level. Let's try and communicate it. And I think I have to say that I think this was the best presentation of science that we have seen in this entire trial thus far. It was clean. I think Trooper Guarino's presentation of the text messages and his presentation, also very clean. But this was really well done. And Wolf's, Dr. Wolf's explanation of the Equations and how they worked. He did it in a very conversational way. I, I don't know about these things, and I think I even understood. So I think there was a success on that level.

[Melody Mendez]

So, Ronald, then let's compare the testimony of Dr. Wolf to the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Welcher. How did those two experts compare in your eyes?

[Ronald Estanislau]

So from, from a science background, it seems like there was more of methodology that was given by Dr. Wolf in comparison to that of Dr. Wilcher. So Dr. Wilcher did give his testimony and gave information, but it didn't seem like there was. He didn't show how he got to the data and the conclusions necessarily.

[Melody Mendez]

And you think that's something that Dr. Wolf did?

[Ronald Estanislau]

Well, yes.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay. So, sue, maybe the prosecution really has a problem here, because I know as laypeople, when we look at those injuries on John o' Keeffe's arms, we don't find think pedestrian strike. And what ARCA is saying to us is actually, it's not a pedestrian strike for some jurors. Isn't that going to be the end of the story?

[Alan Jackson]

Yes. But on the other hand, we also had the jurors sitting watching numerous times a car crashing into an arm and a car crashing into a dummy. So if they hadn't been able to visualize how it might have happened, even though the point was to show how fast the car would have had to be going to get this damage, it was to exclude the damage to the vehicle as evidence. That said, as she did it, the driving car did it. It also now gave an actual image to the jurors in their mind of how it could have happened, which was not the intent of the defense. Right. And at the same time, we saw an image of the dummy. I don't want to call it a crash test dummy, because I know that's a technical term. Spin around.

[Melody Mendez]

That's right.

[Alan Jackson]

Rotate and rotate. And the shoe, how it would have come off. Of course, this is right after Hank Brennan said, the dummies aren't real people, so don't expect them to act like real people. But it actually pirouetted, which is what they said in the last. It was a question in the last trial that Alan Jackson had. So you're saying it just pirouetted around. John just pirouetted around. And we actually saw that today happen. So obviously the jurors may not know that that, that is. But to what Ron said a moment ago, where now we can see how it happened, it's a dangerous place to be. So they have to remember that the defense was trying to disqualify the evidence by showing you things that had to happen in order to get to that point. But these didn't happen.

[Melody Mendez]

They say, what an interesting point. Okay, ro, we do have a viewer question that we want to ask you about. You're the perfect person to ask. It comes from a couple in Quincy. When a question is asked and answered and then the judge strikes it from the record, how does that affect the jury? They can't unhear the information. That happened a lot in your trial. How did you deal with that?

[Ronald Estanislau]

So for me, I would cross the. Whatever the note I had taken, I would cross it out, and it would be an X indicating to me not to take that into consideration. Unfortunately, as Margie Edda has already pointed out and sue has pointed out, we've already heard it. So once it's heard, it's kind of hard to really strike it. But during deliberation, if it's an X to me, I did not take it into consideration.

[Alan Jackson]

Can I just ask, does it. Does it. Do you think that someone's getting in trouble when they have to strike something? Like when the judge says strike that, do you think that.

[Ronald Estanislau]

Is it a reprimand right off the bat to me at that time is a reprimand. Like, especially if they say strike that as opposed to just sustain. Sustain is one thing, but as soon as they say strike that, that's like.

[Melody Mendez]

I can't unhear anything. I just want you all to know also, Ronald, as a former jury, we've been relying on your shock radar with just about eyewitnesses. There's a shock moment for Dr. Wolf. I guess that was supposed to be the signal chat for Shannon Burgess. It was the educational. Correct credentials. But with a moment like that for every single witness, does the shock begin to wear off for you?

[Ronald Estanislau]

Yeah. So as soon as there's something there, you suddenly go, oh, okay, hold on. I need to look at the whole thing. I can't just look at one thing. I need to look at the whole picture and take everything into consideration.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay, we're going to have Margietta derisier join the conversation shortly. But let's just listen to this real quick.

[Latoya Edwards]

With regard to the scientific method, did you see Whether or not Dr. Welcher followed this scientific method as you're explaining it to the jury?

[Melody Mendez]

Sustained.

[Latoya Edwards]

What did you note or what opinions or conclusions did you come to about the scientific method, if any, that Dr. Welcher did or did not undertake?

[Melody Mendez]

Sustained.

[Latoya Edwards]

Did he undertake the Scientific method as you know it.

[Melody Mendez]

So that's the state, as promised. Joining the conversation now is Morgietta Durcier, our defense attorney and legal analyst. In that exchange, Morgietta, the prosecution really wanted to prevent Dr. Wolf from critiquing the work of Dr. Welcher. I just want to know, broadly speaking, do you think Special Prosecutor Brennan was able to score any points with this witness? Whether it was, as I mentioned earlier, the signal chat, something else.

[Morgietta Derisier]

So I said this to a number of my colleagues, especially earlier this afternoon, that I feel like he did a great job in presentation. You have to remember, Hank Brennan is a defense attorney, so this is his wheelhouse. However, I feel like the presentation was a net zero, meaning he got some information out, but it resulted in nothing that really moved the needle in his case. Remember, this is the defense's case in chief. This is not the prosecution's case in chief. So his job to discredit witnesses is what he's supposed to do in cross examination. But he's not supposed to disprove the defense's case. That's not his job. And I think that's what he was aiming for. And that's why I called it a net zero.

[Melody Mendez]

You agree with that assessment, Sue? It being in the courtroom?

[Alan Jackson]

Yeah. I mean, absolutely. I was saying earlier to Morgietta, there was this big moment when they were talking about the difference of the weight of John o' Keeffe's arm versus the dummy arm that they had. And you know, he was using the percentage of all the calculations must be wrong if he didn't do that. And then Alan Jackson gets up and says, we have no idea how much John o' Keeffe's arm weighs. That was just an estimate. And I could actually see the jurors go, oh, okay, never mind. You know, so it wasn't at zero.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay. After today's testimony, we know a little bit more about the money being spent for crash reconstruction experts on both sides. And there is a big difference. Take a look. Massachusetts taxpayers will be on the hook to pay well over $300,000 for apertures experts, while the defense is paying 50,000 to ARCA. Both sides probably have logistical expenses. And of course, the FBI presumably billed ARCA for work that seems to now be benefiting the defense. So the jury has this information through testimony. So, Ronald, I guess starting with you, is this something that you weighed? Did you even have any of that information during the first trial?

[Ronald Estanislau]

No, we didn't have any of that.

[Melody Mendez]

Would it have mattered?

[Ronald Estanislau]

I don't so Looking back at it, I don't think it would have mattered. I think all we would have cared about, at least based on our charge, is to look at the evidence that was presented to us.

[Melody Mendez]

The attorneys have been careful to get this information into evidence. What do they hope to convey to the jury about this information?

[Morgietta Derisier]

So they're trying to create a bias here. Right. And so the implication is the more you pay someone, the more they're going to favor what you want them to say. But I don't think in this case where you have 60, 70 plus witnesses, it really matters at this point. Right. Because it's really, really about the credibility of what the witness is saying, how they're saying it. We've seen great witnesses and we've seen some really horrible witnesses. So I feel like the expenditures are kind of going over people's head. I think if it was a smaller trial, you could see where that bias is really being pushed in. But I don't see it really mattering in this case, as Ronald said.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay, Ronald Estanislau, thank you very much for joining us again. Sue and Morgietta, you will be sticking with us. Don't go anywhere. Before we go to break, we want to take a moment to remember John o' Keefe, the victim in this case, the Boston police. Police officer and Braintree native became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after their children lost both of their parents to illness. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Raul Martinez]

Want to pull off the season's freshest trends? You just need the right shoes. That's where designer shoe warehouse comes in. Loving wide leg jeans. Pair them with sleek low profile sneakers. Obsessed with the sheer trend. Try it with mesh flats. Feeling boho comfy sandals. Nail the whole free spirited thing. Find on trend shoes from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at dsw.

[Tevin]

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.

[Morgietta Derisier]

I'm telling you I did not see anything.

[Melody Mendez]

Factually, I've been provided evidence by a timeline that it is not correct.

[Latoya Edwards]

Did you ever see them approach and touch the rear tail light of the defendant's Lexus?

[Melody Mendez]

I did not.

[Latoya Edwards]

You ever see them manipulate in any way that rear tail light of the defendant's Lexus?

[Melody Mendez]

I did not. That was just a snippet of some of the testimony From Boston Police Officer Kelly Dever and Dighton Police Sergeant Nicholas Barros earlier this week. And back with us now is Morgieta and Sue. And we're joined as well by retired Newton Police Chief John Carmichael. Welcome back to Canton Confidential. It's great to have you. All right, so we just saw two different people there, two different professionals with two very different temperaments on the witness stand. Officer Dever said in her testimony that she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox before her testimony, and she says he told her to do the right thing. I've just been so anxious to ask you, have you ever had one of your officers in ahead of testimony to counsel them in some way before they took the stand?

[J]

Yeah. No, not for testimony, but for certainly for a lot of other different things. And I think that this has just been a unique case that has been out there in the media so prevalently that I think that, you know, the commissioner probably wanted to ease her mind a little bit and bring her in and maybe give her a pep talk. And, you know, the whole issue of do the right thing is, you know, go, go in there and do what you have to do, tell the truth, and everything will be fine. You know, I think that that's just great show of leadership where he's supporting one of his officers during a situation that's just so much in the media that I think it's a good thing.

[Melody Mendez]

If an officer has to report a fellow officer for misconduct or their suspicion of misconduct, does that officer's superiors have a responsibility to protect that officer from harassment or intimidation within the department?

[J]

Yes, they do. And actually, now that the Post standards, the Peace Officer Standards and training, the new law that went into effect a couple of years ago, it actually has built into that law issues about retaliation. So anytime a police officer reports misconduct to their superiors, there can be no retaliation.

[Melody Mendez]

So that insight is very helpful. The public's perceptions about police has taken a lot of heat as a result of this trial. Here's a couple of clips from testimony this week that might create even more unease with the public.

[Latoya Edwards]

Have you ever heard of something called the blue wall of silence? Objection.

[Melody Mendez]

Sustained.

[Latoya Edwards]

Do you think it's important for police officers to protect one another in the field and out. Objection.

[Melody Mendez]

Sustained. Sir, did you follow protocol that night? I did not.

[Latoya Edwards]

Why not?

[Melody Mendez]

Knowing the Albert family, knowing that there was a first responder, I gave him.

[J]

Respect and opted not to follow procedures.

[Melody Mendez]

Sue, you and I have talked a little bit about.

[Alan Jackson]

Off the record.

[Melody Mendez]

Yes, we talk a little bit. Really? No, just about the way that this case is maybe exposes what seems to be a different set of rules for police officers than the rules that everybody else has to abide by. You know, the Brian Albert situation, what Lucky just explained, we could go on and on. Is the damage exposed in this case repairable for law enforcement across the commonwealth?

[Alan Jackson]

Yeah, I mean, there is. There's different problems and different levels of problems. I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember the cartoon of the police officer walking by taking the apple off the stand. It was an old depression era that the officer got to get the apple for free. And I think it's a big difference between calling your second cousin to get a ticket fixed versus, you know, not following proper procedure on an investigation. So you have to look at the totality of this. I was accidentally on a live stream this morning. Someone, you know, came up to me and interviewed me, and I said, listen, we all want police from our community that we know that will help us. We just don't want it to go over the line. So, you know, worrying about, you know, the Albertson maybe having a car out there and getting some preference, not a big deal. Following proper procedure, though, I think is a big deal.

[Melody Mendez]

Morjida, we only have a few seconds less. But you have been critical of the way police handle this investigation. How do you expect that part of it to be instructed to the jury? How much can they weigh that in their decision?

[Morgietta Derisier]

So they should take that decision very heavily in their deliberation. And we've said it before, it's called a Bowdoin defense. And it's not to discredit police officers in general, but it is really talking about the investigation, that of a murder of an individual. And you have to put that in the forefront when you're deciding all of the evidence in the case, because that's what actually brings the case forward. So if you can't trust that, then how can you make a proper deliberation?

[Melody Mendez]

All right, guys. We could talk for so much longer, but we're out of time, unfortunately. Chief, thanks for coming back to see us. We really enjoy having you here. Sue o' Connell. Morgietta derisier. Thank you all. Remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from from court as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock starting on Sunday. But you can see any episode right now by going to Peacock. You're watching Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial.

[Tevin]

Watch Latoya Edwards and Raul Martinez, weekdays at 6am on NBC.

[Latoya Edwards]

10 Boston this season, let your shoes do the talking. Designer Shoe Warehouse is packed with fresh styles that speak to your whole vibe without saying a word. From cool sneakers that look good with everything to easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat, DSW has you covered. Find a shoe for every hue from the brands you love, like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas, New Balance and more. Head to your DSW store or visit dsw.com today.