The last defense witnesses share a view on O'Keefe's injury

Summary

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential Episode: The Last Defense Witnesses Share a View on O'Keefe's Injury Release Date: June 10, 2025

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston provides an in-depth analysis of the latest developments in the Karen Read murder trial. As the trial edges closer to its conclusion, the focus shifts to the defense's final witnesses and their testimonies regarding the injuries sustained by John O'Keefe, the murdered Boston Police Officer. This episode delves into the nuances of the expert testimonies, legal maneuvers, and the jury's reception of the evidence presented.

Today's Testimony Overview

The episode begins with host Scott Aukerman and co-host J.C. Monahan introducing the day's significant testimonies. The defense presented their final witnesses: Dr. Elizabeth La Posada, a renowned forensic pathologist, and Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a crash reconstruction expert from Arca. These experts aimed to challenge the prosecution's narrative by providing alternative explanations for Officer O'Keefe's injuries.

Key Points from Dr. La Posada's Testimony

Dr. La Posada's testimony was a focal point of the day's proceedings. She meticulously dissected the prosecution's theory that John O'Keefe was fatally injured by Karen Read's SUV.

• Inconsistent Injury Patterns: At [03:20], La Posada states, "It didn't hit him. It did not hit him. Those injuries are patterned injuries from an animal bite." She argued that the abrasions on O'Keefe's arm were inconsistent with contact from a vehicle's tail light, suggesting instead that an animal, possibly a dog, was responsible.

• Blunt Force Trauma Analysis: Further emphasizing her findings, at [04:07], she asserts, "No, that project, that rounded thick area would not cause that skin defect multiple times." This indicates that the injuries observed could not have been caused by the alleged impact with the SUV.

• Alternative Causes of Hemorrhaging: Addressing the prosecution's claims of hypothermia, La Posada proposed that the hemorrhaging could have resulted from over 30,000 chest compressions administered during resuscitation attempts, as she notes at [04:38], "It's around over 30,000 compressions."

Panelist Reactions and Analysis

The panel, consisting of legal analysts Michael Coyne and former prosecutor Margaret McLean, along with courtroom insider Sue O'Connell, provided critical insights into La Posada's testimony.

• Credibility of Expert Testimony: Michael Coyne highlights the robustness of La Posada's stance, stating at [08:18], "AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, the judge got it right. We have a coroner pathologist who has multiple years experience...she should be allowed to testify in her opinion, what caused those injuries on the arm and ultimately what caused John O'Keefe's death."

• Legal Maneuvers: The discussion touches on Judge Kanoni's decision to limit La Posada's testimony regarding dog bites. At [07:50], Monahan elaborates, "Judge Ganoni ultimately ruled that Dr. Lapassada would not be allowed to testify about dog bites." This decision led to a strategic shift, allowing La Posada to speak more broadly about animal bites without specifying dogs.

Legal Analysis: Admissibility of Expert Testimony

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to analyzing the legal intricacies surrounding the admissibility of expert testimony, particularly relating to animal bites.

• Daubert Standards: Michael Coyne explains the relevance of the Daubert standards in ensuring that scientific evidence presented in court is both reliable and relevant. At [09:37], he mentions, "Daubert says that if you're going to offer scientific evidence, it has to be scientifically based...and that's the foundation that you have to offer."

• Judge's Ruling on Expertise: The panel debates whether Judge Kanoni's initial ruling was appropriate. Coyne suggests that while the judge sought clarity on differentiating dog bites from other animal bites, the defense successfully argued for a broader category of animal-related injuries.

Jury Reactions and Engagement

Courtroom insider Sue O'Connell provides an insider's perspective on the jury's demeanor and reactions during the day's testimonies.

• Juror Engagement: O'Connell observes at [18:00], "They're paying attention. They're taking notes. They're engaged...but when sidebars occur, they are like, they are waiting at a bus terminal." This indicates a mix of attentiveness and frustration among jurors during prolonged legal discussions.

• Confusion Over Judge's Instructions: A notable moment discussed is when a juror passed a note to the judge, leading to confusion about what needed to be disregarded from their consideration. O'Connell remarks, "What does that mean? I mean, I was sitting there wondering."

Dog Bite Discussion: The Role of Chloe

A recurring theme in the trial has been the potential role of dog bites in causing Officer O'Keefe's injuries. The episode delves into the complexities and risks associated with this line of evidence.

• Introduction of Chloe: The defense introduced Chloe, the Albert family's German Shepherd, as a potential source of injury. However, inconsistencies arise when it's revealed that Chloe was rehomed and the new owners renamed her Cora, leading to questions about the continuity and relevance of this testimony.

• Viewer Concerns Addressed: A viewer named Meg raises a pertinent question regarding the absence of Brian Albert, the original owner, in testifying about Chloe. The panel discusses the risk of jurors erroneously attributing the injuries to Chloe without comprehensive evidence, potentially undermining the defense's arguments.

• Defense's Strategy: Coyne points out that the defense's approach seems to focus on creating reasonable doubt by introducing alternative explanations for the injuries, even if they aren't directly causal to O'Keefe's death.

Conclusion and Next Steps

As the episode wraps up, the panel reflects on the significance of the day's testimonies and what to expect moving forward.

• Imminent Jury Deliberation: With the defense having presented their final witness, the judge hints at the case being handed over to the jury by Friday or, at the latest, Monday. This marks the beginning of the final phase of deliberation.

• Anticipation of Rebuttal: The panel anticipates that the prosecution will likely introduce rebuttal witnesses to counter the defense's assertions, particularly addressing the newly presented X-ray evidence of O'Keefe's intact arm bones.

• Final Thoughts: Michael Coyne emphasizes the critical role of expert credibility and the jury's perception of the evidence's validity, underscoring the case's reliance on scientific testimony.

Notable Quotes

• Dr. Elizabeth La Posada at [03:20]: "It didn't hit him. It did not hit him. Those injuries are patterned injuries from an animal bite."

• Michael Coyne at [08:18]: "And I think at the end of the day, the judge got it right...she should be allowed to testify in her opinion, what caused those injuries on the arm and ultimately what caused John O'Keefe's death."

• Sue O'Connell at [18:14]: "I was sitting there wondering. Or did it all get lodged in here and now?"

• Michael Coyne at [22:02]: "So, I think a lot of this is still in the air. Are they hoping that all this information in the air creates reasonable doubt? I think so."

Final Remarks

This episode of Canton Confidential offers a comprehensive overview of the latest courtroom developments in the Karen Read murder trial. By dissecting expert testimonies, legal strategies, and jury dynamics, NBC10 Boston provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding Officer John O'Keefe's tragic death. As the trial moves towards its climax, the insights shared in this episode serve as a crucial guide for those following the case closely.

Transcript

[Jess Pardew]

Hello friends old and new. Do you like video games? Do you like interviews with industry insiders? Do you like stupidity? I'm Jess Pardew, host of the brand new podcast Stupid Little Games. Every other week I sit down with various members of the gaming industry, from CEOs of AAA studios to indie devs shipping their very first title. We chat about our current gaming obsessions, we tell stories from projects past or present, and then we play a stupid little game that I've written specifically for each guest. So search for stupid little games wherever you get your podcast. See you next Tuesday.

[Scott Aukerman]

This is Comedy Bang Bang the podcast, the promo and in 30 seconds I'm going to tell you why you should check out the show. I, the host Scott Aukerman have a light hearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hamm, Alison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers, Jason Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to name a few. Things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well. Each week is a blend of conversations and character work from your favorite comedians as well as some hilarious voices. Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast Listen every Monday wherever you get your podcasts.

[Melody Mendez]

Have you ever had to put your.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Plans on hold due to symptoms of.

[J.C. Monahan]

Generalized myasthenia gravis or gmg, like taking that weekend trip, talking with friends or enjoying a meal?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Learn about a treatment option that may help.

[J.C. Monahan]

Visit treatgmg.com to learn more. That's treat gmg.com.

[Scott Aukerman]

NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, the trial back on track. With a new phase possibly in sight.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

The case may be ready to go to the jury Friday, maybe Monday at the latest.

[Scott Aukerman]

The defense calls its final witness.

[Michael Coyne]

My conclusions with respect to the abrasions.

[Scott Aukerman]

Are that it was inconsistent with contact to the tail light. Plus, the question remains, what really happened to John o' Keefe?

[Glenn Jones]

Did you look at any information that.

[Scott Aukerman]

Would tell you what the speed of that impact may have been or allegedly was?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Well, it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter.

[Scott Aukerman]

Our panel weighs in on today's testimony. Canton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[J.C. Monahan]

There have been 30 days of testimony, and today we learned we're about to enter the final stretch. Good Evening, everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Scott Aukerman]

And I'm Glenn Jones. Today the defense called its final witness, another crash reconstruction expert for Marca, but the testimony from a forensic pathologist dominated the day. Let's get right out to our Melody Mendez. Melody, walk us through what happened in court today.

[Melody Mendez]

Well, Glenn, as you Just mentioned, we heard from Dr. Elizabeth La Posada. She is the former chief medical director for the state of Rhode Island. She served in that position for 12 years. She's now a professor at Brown University. Then, as you mentioned, they heard testimony from an engineer with arca. That's the crash reconstruction firm that was hired initially by the federal government. These two fields very different, but their two conclusions very much the same. Take a look. The overlying theme of today's two defense witnesses was clear from the start.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Well, it didn't hit him. It did not hit him. Those injuries are patterned injuries from an animal bite.

[Melody Mendez]

Dr. Elizabeth La Posada, forensic pathologist and former medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Rentschler with engineering firm Arca.

[Scott Aukerman]

It likely did not occur as a of contact specifically with that the tail light cover.

[Michael Coyne]

The injuries that Mr. O' Keefe sustained.

[Scott Aukerman]

On his right arm and didn't sustain would be inconsistent with actual interaction with the tail light.

[Melody Mendez]

La Posada going injury by injury through the prosecution's theory that John O' Keefe was hit by Reed's SUV.

[Glenn Jones]

Is the laceration to Mr. O' Keefe's upper eyelid that we just looked at, is that consistent in your opinion with a strike from that area of the vehicle, if that vehicle were traveling in reverse at say, 20 plus miles per hour?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

No, that project, that rounded thick area would not cause that skin defect multiple times.

[Melody Mendez]

Dr. Lapasada telling the jury John O' Keefe died from brain injuries and blunt force trauma to the head, but said those injuries were not caused by falling on grassy or dirt ground, even if frozen, as the prosecution is contending, but.

[Glenn Jones]

Falling backward onto that dirt, hard or not, would that cause the patterned injury that you see that we just saw in Exhibit 160?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

No.

[Melody Mendez]

She cited hemorrhaging in okeeffes organs as being signs of hypothermia, but also said it could have instead been caused by a machine used for chest compressions. And that's exactly what La Posada said today.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

It's around over 30,000 compressions.

[Melody Mendez]

Finally, the most debated part of her testimony.

[Glenn Jones]

You have an opinion as to whether or not the wounds that you see, the pattern injury that you see on Mr. O' Keefe's right arm is consistent with an animal bite or claw marks?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Yes, it is. Very much.

[Melody Mendez]

La Posada stating the injuries to o' Keefe's arm were clearly from an animal's bite while he was still alive.

[Glenn Jones]

Do Mr. O' Keefe's pattern injuries on his right arm, do they correspond to injuries that could have been produced by irregular fractured plastic pieces impacting his arm?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

No, not at all.

[Glenn Jones]

Why do you say that?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

And first of all, those injuries are patterned injuries from an animal bite. We have the canines, we have the incisors. All right, so I'm going to strike that. And let's see you at sidebar.

[Melody Mendez]

And new information to this trial. Her testimony revealed a special dissection of John o' Keefe's leg was done to look for injuries from a bumper. None were found. And X rays to his arm revealed.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

The bones were 100% intact.

[Melody Mendez]

Under cross examination by Hank Brennan, the doctor stood firm in her findings. Asked whether she ever considered data in the case like the speed Reed's SUV could have been moving.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

It did not hit him, so it was not relevant to my opinion. By looking at the body, I could tell that there was no evidence of impact with the vehicle.

[Melody Mendez]

The defense's final witness is Dr. Andrew Rentschler. Ultimately, his results in line with what the jury heard from Dr. La Posada as well.

[Scott Aukerman]

It really was impossible to get a.

[Michael Coyne]

Skull fracture by hitting the tail light.

[Scott Aukerman]

And not sustain any other significant fractures.

[Melody Mendez]

Dr. Rentsler will be back on the stand first thing tomorrow Morning. Glenn and J.C. back to you.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, back with us tonight is our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne and former prosecutor Margaret McLean. Let's start with what happened before the jury entered the room and Dr. Lapizada took the stand. The defense made their argument that she does have the credentials to determine what injuries are from dog bites. Take a listen.

[Glenn Jones]

Those injuries on John o' Keefe's arm are from a dog.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Period.

[Glenn Jones]

Full stop. Anything less than presenting that to the jury at this point would be to perpetrate an intentional fraud on this jury. She did not provide qualifications that she.

[Scott Aukerman]

Has a history of education or training on patent wound recognition analysis as it pertains to dog bites. Her opinions regarding dog bites should not.

[Michael Coyne]

Be permitted in this trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

So Judge Ganoni ultimately ruled that Dr. Lapassada would not be allowed to testify about dog bites. But as you heard earlier, she can say those abrasions are consistent with animal bites. Here's part of the decision.

[Glenn Jones]

I'll leave it at animal. If that's what I can get, I'll take what I can get.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

In her experience, Mr. Jackson, you have to lay a foundation. In her experience, seeing animal bites, bites. This is consistent with what she has seen in an animal bite.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, Michael. Margaret, who won on that round?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Well, in my opinion, at first, Jackson lost and Brennan won, but then it was reversed and Brennan lost and Jackson won. Brennan. Jackson was brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, as a lawyer, being real pushy with Judge Kanoni because he stood back up and he said, hey, we can't talk about a dog bite, but can we talk about an animal bite? And that came across actually just as good. I didn't see any real difference between dog versus animal. So he was lucky to get that animal evidence in, Michael.

[Michael Coyne]

And I think at the end of the day, the judge got it right. Right. We have a coroner pathologist who has multiple years experience having determined cause of death in various cases in Rhode Island. She's been able to see these injuries firsthand at other times. She should be allowed to testify in her opinion, what caused those injuries on the arm and ultimately what caused John O' Keefe's death.

[Scott Aukerman]

As Margaret mentioned, allowing Dr. La Posada to testify about animal bites, not specifically dog bites, is a change from yesterday. You may remember Judge Kanoni ruled the pathologist was not qualified to testify about dog bite wounds. Here's her reason why I find that.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

She is not qualified. I'm not satisfied that the Daubert requirements have been made based on that. She cannot testify to the dog wounds. And I want to take a minute to differentiate this testimony with Dr. Russell's. I found that Dr. Russell was an expert qualified to testify as to dog bite wounds, mainly from her experience in the ER coupled with her being an ME. Dr. Lapisada does not have that experience.

[Scott Aukerman]

So, Michael, if I heard you right a moment ago, you think maybe the judge got it slightly wrong the first time around she cited Daubert requirements. What should we know about that that led her to what you're saying might have been the wrong decision initially.

[Michael Coyne]

Daubert says that if you're going to offer scientific evidence, it has to be scientifically based. So that means that what you're testifying about has to be based on principles of science that other scientists have had a chance to review, material related to that principle, and that it's been published and peer reviewed, and that's the foundation that you have to offer and then show that all of this, what you're testifying about has been subject to some form of testing. So it's a little bit technical, but the point here that it really was is that the judge wanted to know, how are you differentiating dog bites between other animal bites? I mean, I'm not sure how you differentiate a dog bite from a coyote or some other animal that has teeth of that Sort. And I think she didn't hear the foundation initially and didn't believe that the judge. That the witness had enough experience. Ultimately, I think the testimony indicated she had seen these types of injuries.

[Scott Aukerman]

100%, yes.

[J.C. Monahan]

So, Margaret, is this a case of, like, a judge is the one who can decide what is considered an expert? Yes.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Ultimately, they have to hear from both sides, but it ultimately goes to. It's the judge's decision as to whether to allow certain testimony in or not.

[J.C. Monahan]

Because a lot of people will claim they're experts.

[Michael Coyne]

Sure. But that's the whole point about Daubert as well as the point about the judge looking at whether the proposed expert has sufficient background, education, experience and training, some combination of those skills, such that their testimony will aid the jury's understanding of the event. And I think ultimately the court determined. And sometimes we do have second thoughts about our decisions, and a good judge will correct it. And that may be. Well, what. What's at work here as well?

[Scott Aukerman]

All right, we have this viewer question we want to go to, although I think for the most part we've answered this question. But we'll just put up the viewer question so that this viewer knows it's been addressed. How is the judge qualified to assess or deny a physician's qualification as an expert? And I think we've kind of covered that.

[J.C. Monahan]

And today we saw the defense present x rays to Dr. Lapizada. One was of John O' Keefe's arm, which Dr. Lapizada said showed no broken bones. We didn't see X rays in Reid's first trial. Can you opine as to why they're just coming out in the second trial?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

I was. I couldn't believe it. I mean, I followed this, both trials, everything, and then all of a sudden I'm thinking, wait a minute, X rays? Am I losing my mind? You didn't hear about X rays?

[Michael Coyne]

No. It's going to be a little more problematic than just how come they're coming in. Now, Weschler testified that he didn't see any X rays informing his opinion. And so now we sure are going to hear about that on both direct and cross examination. And it would have been important to understand that the X rays indicated no bones were broken as a result of the alleged collision with the vehicle or his impact with the ground, as the government indicates. So it is surprising that at this late date, again, we're seeing new evidence that we haven't seen before when we're. What this is between the two trials. How many weeks have we been listening to testimony.

[J.C. Monahan]

Eight weeks, but.

[Scott Aukerman]

Two times over.

[J.C. Monahan]

Can he bring on. Can Prosecutor Brennan bring on a rebuttal witness then to say his arm didn't have to be broken to be hit by a car?

[Michael Coyne]

I think that's just what you're likely to see. And remember, that's. I think that's been their premise all along, and that's been difficult for them to overcome. It was one of my problems with the case until. Saw Dr. Wolf's recreations there, where the vehicle hits him, but sideswipes him, knocks him to the ground, and then causes the ultimately, as the government sees it, these deadly injuries at the end of the day.

[Scott Aukerman]

Judge Kanoni said the case could be in the hands of the jury by Friday, Monday at the latest, after the defense called their final witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler.

[J.C. Monahan]

Yeah. Remember, he's a crash reconstruction expert, a biochemical engineer from arca. He is the second ARCA witness to take the standard. The other was Dr. Daniel Wolf. Clearly, the defense has been using the science in this case, or I say it seems clear. You. Do you think it's clear that they've relied on the science in this second trial?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

The defense, the defense, you know, I don't know. I think that's where they lack a little bit. I feel like the prosecution has relied on more science and data when it comes to the text stream and, you know, the phone evidence. For example, today, I thought that Dr. Lapasada wasn't as good as some people thought she was, because I felt that in cross examination, she came across real snarky right out of the gate. And I've worked with experts in trial, I've hired experts before, and I felt she came across as bias even during direct examination when she was so certain of her answers.

[Michael Coyne]

How'd you see that? I could see that. I could see that. And I do wonder. That's why, at the end of the day, how is the jury receiving all of these experts? Do they find them credible? And ultimately, that's going to be the question. I did find her a little bit almost because I said so at times in response to the answers when he was looking for data. What data did you have to support it? And in essence, she just held firm. It's why you see great defense attorneys like Hank Brennan and Kevin Reddington hire her for the cases because she was pretty unshakable on cross.

[J.C. Monahan]

Well, they. I mean, to the point that when Brennan was asking about the data. Exactly. She said there was no need. No car ever hit. Ever hit her and, you know, stop that was it.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

That's a little too much. That's a little over the top, I think.

[Michael Coyne]

But the other witnesses that defense has brought are using science to combat the government science because, you know, that's what juries look for now. We call it the CSI effect. They want to see that science that supports either exoneration or conviction.

[J.C. Monahan]

But csi, it ends in an hour.

[Michael Coyne]

This one won't make weeks.

[Scott Aukerman]

Michael, Margaret, thanks very much for joining us. Stay with us. We're talking more about dog bites and how the Alberts family dog Chloe may or may not come into play during this trial. The conversation continues after a break, but.

[J.C. Monahan]

Once again, we want to take a moment to remember the victim in this case, John o' Keefe. He was a Boston police officer and Braintree native. Much has been said about what a good friend and brother he was and how he became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after they lost both of their parents to illness. He was just 46 years old. You're watching Canton, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Jess Pardew]

Hello, friends old and new. Do you like video games? Do you like interviews with industry insiders? Do you like stupidity? I'm Jess Pardue, host of the brand new podcast Stupid Little Games. Every other week I sit down with various members of the gaming industry, from CEOs of AAA studios to indie devs shipping their very first title. We chat about our current gaming obsessions. We tell stories from projects past or present. And then we play a series Stupid Little Game that I've written specifically for each guest. So search for Stupid Little games wherever you get your podcast. See you next Tuesday.

[Scott Aukerman]

Hey, this is Will Arnett, host of Smartless. Smartless is a podcast with myself and Sean Hayes and Jason Bateman, where each week one of us reveals a mystery guest to the other two. We dive deep with guests that you love, like Bill Hader, Selena Gomez, Jennifer Aniston, David Beckham, Kristen Stewart and tons more. So join us for a genuinely improvised and authentic conversation filled with laughter and newfound knowledge to feed the smartless mind. Listen to Smartless now on the SiriusXM app. Download it today. 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.

[J.C. Monahan]

We are back now with Michael and our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. We want to talk about a moment that not everyone watching may have noticed. One of the jurors passed the court clerk A note. And then Judge Canoni said this.

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Jurors, when I strike something, that means disregard it. And what I've struck through this witness, the video that you just saw and some of the testimony means that if it's in evidence, it's in evidence, but it is not part of your consideration with this witness.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay? So just to point out, the camera happened to be on Alan Jackson while Judge Canoni was talking. But the point is, a juror wanted to know what that means when she says, strike that from the record. We've heard that so many times in this trial. Was it surprising to you or anyone around you, sue, that that question is being posed?

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah. I mean, in the press box, we all sort of laughed because we talk a lot about how the jurors don't get any training. Right. They're told what they can and cannot do. Right. And then they're put in there. And then this. Objection. Sustained. Overruled. Strike that. What does that mean?

[J.C. Monahan]

Right.

[Sue O'Connell]

Who knows what it means? And then this, what Judge Kanoni said was, I think, strike that bit. Well, what does that mean? I mean, I was sitting there wondering.

[Michael Coyne]

Portion of it, right?

[Sue O'Connell]

What portion of the testimony? From the beginning to the end. The last words. The last two words. So when the court officer kind of came rushing through the courtroom, we're like, oh, gosh, what's happening now? Because he's the court officer with the jurors, and he, you know, whispers something or passes a note to the judge, and we're just like, oh, my gosh. You know, these are very smart people. They're paying attention. I think one of the jurors who's taking all the notes was just like, hey, wait a minute. What part am I not supposed to write down to consider? But to our point, once it's said, it's said. So are they going to go back and say, what did they. What were we supposed to strike?

[J.C. Monahan]

Right.

[Sue O'Connell]

Or did it all get lodged in here and now?

[Scott Aukerman]

Whoa. To me, it's refreshing that they would ask.

[Sue O'Connell]

I'm thankful they did.

[Scott Aukerman]

So let's talk about how the jury was reacting to testimony today. A lot of science and data. What did you observe about their reaction?

[Sue O'Connell]

So there's two groups of juries at this moment when there's testimony happening, they're paying attention. They're taking notes. They're engaged, they're reacting. When these sidebars are happening, they are like, they're waiting at a bus terminal for a bus that's never going to come. They are bored. You can read it in their body language. One of our friendly face jurors who's always got a friendly face on, not so friendly today for the very first time, just like kind of beaten down and with his. With his head down. And another note, and I mean this to be completely generous and charitable. This is a young jury. Many of them have not had to sit without their phones or without their watches for a period of time. And I can only imagine how these extended sidebars that are going for a long time, this over lawyering, for the most part, is really getting on their nerves. You know, at one point, Judge Kanoni said after, you know, we're going to move it along. This will be a quick sidebar. And they laughed out loud. This has been a stoic jury, right? This is not what they've been doing. They laughed out loud like, it's not going to be a quick sidebar. Just tell us the truth.

[J.C. Monahan]

I think Dr. Lapasada did as well. I think she might have been on the stand when that moment happened.

[Sue O'Connell]

Right, right.

[Scott Aukerman]

There was a lot of talk today about the injuries to John o' Keefe's arms. More specifically, the possibility that an animal or even a dog could be to blame. Early in the trial, the defense asked a couple of witnesses about Chloe, the Albert family dog at the time of John o' Keefe's death.

[Glenn Jones]

Brian Albert and his family had a dog on January 29, 2022, did they not?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Yes, they did.

[Glenn Jones]

What was that dog's name?

[Dr. Elizabeth La Posada]

Chloe.

[Glenn Jones]

What kind of dog was Chloe?

[J.C. Monahan]

German Shepherd.

[Glenn Jones]

During the course of your investigation, did you also become aware that the Alberts got rid of their family dog?

[Michael Coyne]

The new owners renamed the dog. Yes, Cora, that's correct.

[Glenn Jones]

And the new owners did not get that dog from Brian and Nicole Albert, did they?

[Michael Coyne]

No, they did not.

[Glenn Jones]

They got it from a separate person, is that right? That is correct.

[Scott Aukerman]

This brings us to a viewer question from Meg. With all of the talk about dog bites, if Brian Albert isn't called to testify at the jury, doesn't hear much. I added the word much about Chloe. Wouldn't it leave questions about why dog bites were discussed so much? So Michael Bryan Albert did not testify for the defense, didn't testify for the prosecution either. He says in the last trial he rehomed Chloe, but this jury doesn't really know any of that. What's the risk? Is there any risk of not connecting the dots for the jury so that they think, oh, maybe Chloe is responsible for the injuries?

[Michael Coyne]

So let's remember the defense witnesses have acknowledged that those dog bites didn't cause his death. So you haven't even connected that. So I could see the jurors sitting back there when they get back to finally discuss it and say why do we care about the dog bites if they're not consequential, other than the injuries weren't caused by the car? We don't care about dogs or animal bites or anything else.

[Sue O'Connell]

The rebuttals, the prosecution witness is going to talk about the dog because he's going to say he has a mold of Cora or Chloe and the prosecution is going to end up introducing the dog if they choose to to the jury.

[J.C. Monahan]

So. But the question dog's a witness.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah.

[J.C. Monahan]

The question from our viewers, a great reminder though, that so much has happened that we've already forgotten that Jennifer McCabe talked about Chloe, that Sergeant Buchanak talked about Chloe. We had to remind ourselves that Chloe was mentioned.

[Michael Coyne]

But even with all of that, so of what significance is it all if it's not the cause of death? Why do we care about all of these tangential things that we know about from the first trial and what the significance is? This jury's never going to know because we are hearing the defense's last witness today. And so I think a lot of this is still in the air. Are they hoping that all this information in the air creates reasonable doubt? I think so. But I don't see how they end up connecting all these dots to make it clear to the jury why that we wasted a lot of time hearing about dog bites.

[Scott Aukerman]

All right. It's been 30 days of testimony. Not very many left.

[Michael Coyne]

No.

[Scott Aukerman]

Sue and Michael, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And thank you very much for watching and tuning in to Canton Confidential.

[J.C. Monahan]

If you have questions about the case, keep sending them our way. The email is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can. And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from court as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock on Sunday.

[Scott Aukerman]

And if you're on the go, check out our true crime podcast about the 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.

[J.C. Monahan]

Start your day to day right way with NBC 10 Boston Morning News. Worthy of you.

[Jess Pardew]

Hello friends, old and new. Do you like video games? Do you like interviews with industry insiders. Do you like stupidity? I'm Jess Pardue, host of the brand new podcast Stupid Little Games. Every other week, I sit down with various members of the gaming industry, from CEOs of AAA studios to indie devs shipping their very first title. We chat about our current gaming obsessions, we tell stories from projects past or present, and then we play a stupid little game that I've written specifically for each guest. So search for Stupid little games wherever you get your podcast. See you next Tuesday.