Dr. Isaac Wolfe (2:22)

His injuries were very substantial, and it's more probable than not that at some point he quickly became unconscious.

Sue O'Connell (2:30)

He says o' Keefe would not have died immediately, but says he likely couldn't have gotten up and couldn't have called for help. Under cross examination, Bob Alessi trying to show the doctor's expertise isn't applicable to this case.

Melody Mendez (2:42)

None of your typical Days.

Martin Radner (2:43)

None of the past typical months.

Melody Mendez (2:48)

Have involved forensic pathology, have they?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (2:52)

You haven't acted as a forensic pathologist.

Melody Mendez (2:55)

I am. I am. If you're.

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (2:56)

You could have asked that question. Very straightforward. I am not a forensic pathologist. I'm a brain surgeon.

Sue O'Connell (3:02)

Alessi also pointed out the cut above John o' Keefe's eye.

Martin Radner (3:05)

Ecchymosis. Raccoon eyes does not cause a laceration.

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (3:10)

To form on an eyelid, does it? No.

Sue O'Connell (3:13)

Trying to show this injury is unrelated to the fall backwards and more consistent with a fight. The defense's version of what happened. Forensic scientist Christina Hanley from the Mass Crime Lab was then back on the stand to continue her testimony, which began Tuesday. Tested pieces of taillight and several pieces of a broken cocktail glass.

Melody Mendez (3:32)

It's a physical match.

Sue O'Connell (3:33)

The defense exacting in on one piece of glass found on the rear bumper of Reed's SUV that did not match the cocktail glass.

Melody Mendez (3:41)

Not a single piece of glass on.

J.C. Monahan (3:43)

That bumper could be connected to that cup.

Melody Mendez (3:47)

Correct. There was no physical match to the glass cup. The one piece of glass that did match something came from the same source. It was consistent with. Coming from the same source. Drew from Michael. Correct. It was consistent.

Sue O'Connell (4:03)

Read outside of court on why the defense says that piece of glass is so important.

Melody Mendez (4:07)

Nothing on the bumper matched the cup. One piece on the bumper matched a piece found the second week in February by the former trooper Michael Proctor. So he found a piece at 34 Fairview, allegedly that matched a piece on the glass on the bumper. Nothing else on the bumper matched the cup.

Sue O'Connell (4:29)

So on her way out of court, Karen Reid did say that the defense is ready to start presenting their case next week. When she was asked how she feels about that, she said she feels good, she's anxious, but they're ready.

Melody Mendez (4:40)

J.C. well, with the gag order, we can only hear from Karen outside of court. And what else did you say?

Sue O'Connell (4:48)

You know, somebody asked her, will your case be any different this time around? And she said, yes, it will be. She said there will be more witnesses. And the testimony itself, she said, would be broader and deeper in scope. So we'll have to wait and see. JC I should mention, by the way, court is off for the next two days. They are off on Monday as well with the holiday. So they will now have three days plus the weekend to take a break. And then testimony will resume on Tuesday.

Melody Mendez (5:15)

Mellow. Thank you, Judge Kanone saying that we are ahead of schedule. So instead of tomorrow, they get it off, as you just heard. Let's dive into some legal analysis with Michigan based attorney Martin Radner. You may know him from his brother counsel YouTube page. We thank you for joining us, Martin. There you are. We want to start with the testimony from neurosurgeon Dr. Isaac Wolf, the brain specialist focused, you heard on John Okeefe's head injury, saying he formed an opinion based on autopsy photos and the medical examiner's report. He went on saying the only way John could get a blunt force trauma injury was to fall backwards and hit his head. But what really stood out to a lot of people, Martin, was the belief that John did not die immediately. That is what Dr. Wolf said. We haven't heard that in court before. He also testified that John's injuries are not consistent with an attack, like somebody hitting you on the back of the head. What did you think overall of the testimony?

J.C. Monahan (6:10)

Yeah, so absolutely, I think that this is probably the most credible witness that's testified so far for the commonwealth. After all, he is a brain surgeon. You know, we say you don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand this. Well, he is a brain surgeon. So he testified and he said very clearly that this could not have come from a bat or a blunt object. It only could have come if he fell backwards. Now, of course, it doesn't completely destroy the defense's suggestion that maybe he fell backwards in the house, but that suggestion that he was hit in the back of the head with a bat or a crowbar or any blunt object that I think is out of the jury's brains for right now. Now, also, the second part is that he substantiated Dr. Scordi Bellows testimony in which she said that a secondary cause was hypothermia, although the primary cause was the blunt force trauma suffered to the back of his head. But also she testified, and if you recall from cross examination, they were fighting about this a little bit, about whether a secondary cause could have been hypothermia. So with Dr. Wolf's testimony, we definitely saw that he substantiated Dr. Scordibella's suggestion that the secondary cause could be hypothermia, despite the fact that that there was only 10 to 15%. 10%. 10 to 15%. Which new ski scars in John O' Keeffe's stomach.

Melody Mendez (7:25)

Martin, some witnesses have been on the stand for days. They're getting grilled during cross, then there's redirect. But today, the defense did not ask them any questions at all. It even seemed to surprise prosecutor Brennan. Did it surprise you?

J.C. Monahan (7:39)

It didn't surprise me, actually. I think they were a little bit surprised in court because they thought it was going to be a lengthy cross examination, just like we saw with Shannon Burgess and some of the other witnesses like Ian Whiffin. But I wasn't surprised because when you have an expert of this caliber who's literally doing brain surgery every single day, you're not going to really score that many points. So what you have to do when you're dealing with an expert like this, you just get up there, you make a few strong points that will still help your case, exactly what Robert Alessi did, and then you just sit down because you're not going to beat him up like you did with Shannon Burgess. You're just not going to be able to do that and therefore just make your points. Talk about the laceration to the eyelid, talk about the fact that he's not a forensic pathologist and he doesn't perform autopsies, and then sit down. And that's exactly what he did. And that's kind of what I was expecting, to be honest.

Melody Mendez (8:25)

But Martin, I do want to point out, he said he's seen more brains than any forensic pathologist, just based on his experience.

J.C. Monahan (8:33)

And I would believe him because he does brain surgery every single day. We heard he's got four surgeries lined up for tomorrow.

Melody Mendez (8:39)

Right.

J.C. Monahan (8:39)

So I would think that he's actually saying the truth there, and I would believe him, if I was a jury, that he probably does see more brains. The question here is, jc, does it make a difference whether you see a brain in a live patient or if you see a brain after a person's already passed? That's going to be a question because that's kind of what was left open a little bit. If the fence can get a forensic pathologist to explain why it would be different to examine a brain after somebody died as opposed to alive, then maybe they have some sort of argument there. But at this point, I would say, yeah, he's probably seen more brains than anybody else in the country.

Melody Mendez (9:13)

Yeah, that's a great point. We want to just quickly talk about the three charges that Karen Reid is facing. They include second degree murder charge. We also have vehicular manslaughter while operating under the influence and collision resulting in death. With your legal experience, how does today's testimony help the prosecution get a conviction? Or does it?

J.C. Monahan (9:34)

Well, it definitely helps. I mean, first of all, let's just go to Christina Hanley for a second, because Christina Hanley testified about the debris that was found in General Keefe's T shirt and Sweatshirt or both? One or the other. Not exactly sure because they were packaged together. But the point was that there was this debris, very, very minute, tiny pieces of debris, which she was able to say is consistent with the taillight. So therefore, it's consistent with the Commonwealth theory in this case that she backed up and killed him one way or the other. Whether it's second degree murder or the involuntary manslaughter, either way, it definitely helps support their case. And then you have Dr. Wolf, who's taken away other possibilities that the defense could have argued up until this point. They're not going to look good if they try to argue to the jury that he was hit with a bat or some sort of crowbar to the back of his head. So the more that you can take away other possibilities, the stronger your case is going to be. So this definitely helped them to secure convictions on those charges.

Melody Mendez (10:28)

Martin Renner, thanks for joining us, guys. Check out his YouTube page. He's got more on there. Thank you. All right. We are joined now by our courtroom insider, Sue O' Connell. Sue, there are only two people who testified today. So we heard about Dr. Wolf. We also had our Christina Hanley, who she's from the Mass. State Police Crime Lab. She was briefly on the stand yesterday to go over the glass and the plastic evidence and how she analyzed it. She talked about that broken glass cup, bits of plastic found among the debris you were just hearing about on John o' Keeffe's clothes. You have said all along the jury has been very attentive. And piecing this together is a really critical part of the prosecutor's theory in this case. But it was also filled with a lot of numbers, analytics and, you know, procedures of how we look at these teeny, tiny little pieces of glass. Were they able to stay focused? And I don't mean that as a judgment. I'm saying like this was. This was a long, hard, focused amount of time.

Martin Radner (11:28)

Yeah, I mean, I think they do. I think I'm going to make a complete opinion here. I think they're a very smart jury. I think some people who I was looking at, who I didn't think were paying that much of attention to some technical. I mean, still paying attention, just not heightened attention, as I say on the X, you know, suddenly perk up when something comes up and I realize they're making a connection that's way above what I'm thinking or I have to catch up. So, yes, they are paying attention. Look, the benefit for this trial is there are seven. Seven lawyers. Right. So they're not seeing the same person every single day, so they're seeing a different lawyer present this. And today it was broken up with the judge's instructions, which we'll talk about in a little bit. So I think that there's enough variety here that they're able to pay attention. And again, they're all taking notes, except for one. But I wouldn't take notes either, as you know, working with me, JC because if 17 other people were taking notes, I'd be like, I think I'm good. I'll just copy off.

Melody Mendez (12:21)

You bring up a good. We haven't heard Yeti in a while, so you're right. There are different voices that are coming around. We want to talk about what happened first thing this morning. Judge Beverly Kanoni cleared everyone out of the courtroom, brought in jurors one by one to talk, take a listen to a few of her messages before and then after everything was resolved. So an issue has come to my attention that is going to make it necessary that I talk to each one of you individually over at sidebar with counsel. So that process will take a little while. So I'm going to add, don't speculate as to what I'm going to talk to you about, please, when you go back to the deliberation room, talk about anything but this case. And I'll see each of you individually in the process of making. I do need to stress for you that it's very, very important that no one discuss this case. Don't let anyone talk to you about the case. No comments about the case. We've seen how hard the lawyers have worked to pull this case together for you, and everybody's given it so much time. So please, let's make sure that we follow that that means each other. Did you ever get any idea of what the issue was?

Martin Radner (13:33)

No. And we won't know until a juror tells us at the end. But it's likely that somebody was talking about the case and somebody knew about it and somebody told the judge about it. There are 18 jurors, so we're in good shape. But we did have the Irish curse this morning when we said to colleague, wow, we haven't lost a juror yet. And it's like, where's the judge? Uh, oh, you know, this is coming. But, you know, it's a lot of pressure on these jurors to not talk about it, not watch our wonderful show, or follow what's happening. So it's a lot of pressure, but I know that they're going to try and keep every juror they can so that they don't have a mistrial because they don't want to do this.

Melody Mendez (14:08)

Look, I held my breath this morning when I heard they were being cleared out. I said, you've got to be kidding. We need to move it forward. So all 18 are still there. Sue, thank you. Stay with us. When we come back, a retired Massachusetts state trooper joins us to talk about his perceptions of the case.

J.C. Monahan (14:23)

We were close.

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (14:24)

We did a lot of stuff together.

Melody Mendez (14:26)

Pick up the kids, drop the kids off.

Martin Radner (14:28)

Him and my husband would always do the games. The kids used to call them my two dads. It was like they had a lot of fun together.

Melody Mendez (14:38)

Memories of John o' Keefe. Before we go to break, just a reminder about the victim in this case. The Braintree native was a Boston police officer, officer who became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after the kids lost both of their parents to illness. He was only 46 years old.

J.C. Monahan (14:59)

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, 7 on NBC 10 Boston.

Melody Mendez (15:19)

Last week you testified.

Martin Radner (15:22)

That in your view, Michael Proctor handled himself in this investigation with integrity.

Melody Mendez (15:28)

That's what you said, correct?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (15:30)

That's correct.

Melody Mendez (15:31)

Do you stand by that testimony? The investigation was handled with integrity and honor. Do you stand by by your testimony.

Martin Radner (15:38)

That Michael Proctor conducted himself during the course of this investigation with integrity?

Melody Mendez (15:45)

Yes, I do. Now, as Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Yuri Buchanak on the stand defending his testimony about Michael Proctor, the former state Police trooper who initially led the Reid investigation. Joining us now is Todd McGee, a retired state police trooper. Thank you so much for being with us. And a security expert expert as well. Let's put this talk about the spotlight that's been put on the Canton Police Department and the state police and the way they've handled this case. Just as a little background, we know in March, Michael Proctor was fired in part for his vulgar and inappropriate texts related to Karen Reed. Yuri Buchanak lost some vacation days for failing to reprimand Proctor for his behavior. Their superior, Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully, also lost some vacation days for failure to supervise them. And and Tully was also reassigned. However, State Police Lt. John Fanning was not disciplined. Canton Detective Kevin Albert was suspended three days related to a night of drinking with Proctor. And as for ATF Agent Brian Higgins, the agency has not commented on any discipline. Todd, I want to start with you, you have decades of experience here. There has been a fair amount of criticism about this. What do you think were the biggest mistakes that you have heard in this investigation?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (17:03)

JC so good to be with you both. So, starting off, obviously, the inadequacies of the investigation stand right out as it relates to former trooper Michael Proctor. We can see a different approach with this trial 2.0. The prosecution is really trying to put him in a back seat, but what keeps happening, and you've heard this firsthand, sue, his name is coming up repeatedly. Who signed this document? Michael Proctor. Who was part of the investigation and dropped off the evidence? Michael Proctor. Right. So as much as the prosecution would like to try and make that name go away, it keeps coming up with their own witnesses. As far as Sergeant Buchanan goes, his response to some of the questions from the defense, extremely evasive. Just ask straightforward questions. And I think what's going to impact the jury is, are they going to wonder, is he trying to hide something?

Melody Mendez (17:57)

Well, doesn't it come across that way? Especially also confusing if you don't know who Proctor is and yet the name keeps getting dropped. Is it one of these things that you would prefer to just rip the band aid, have Proctor get up there rather than this drip of his name throughout the trial?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (18:10)

I would think strategy would be like the first trial, bring him out. We already know what the damage is going to be, face it head on, and then from there, of course, Cross is going to do their job, but you have to rip the band aid and be able to expose what the issues are.

Melody Mendez (18:24)

Can you help with this, though? What do you say to people who, if they, whether you live here in Massachusetts or anywhere, because we do have viewers coming from all over the country and the world, frankly, and they're looking at our police system and they're seeing it in this very specific way. What do you say to them about their trust level or now their issues that they may have either local or state police, law enforcement in general?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (18:49)

Well, the outrage is justified based on the inadequacies of the investigation. I am confident that the Massachusetts State Police, as well as Canton still have a bunch of professionals that know how to do their job and do it well. However, in this particular case, there was some misconduct that was, that was exposed additionally within the proceedings for the trial board from Michael Proctor. That third charge was, of course, biasness. The investigation and part of the trial board that they had assessed in his misconduct showed biasness. So hopefully it's, it's, it's here at the one single investigator, but Again, time will tell. We keep hearing new things coming out in this trial each and every day.

Melody Mendez (19:32)

And they're involved with other trials that are coming up. We talked about that as well. So their names will continue to be in the news cycle. Sue, I just wanted to ask you, when Michael Proctor's name gets dropped, do you see reaction from jurors? You said, you know, sometimes they perk up. You know, in these moments, I would think maybe one of those little Easter eggs might be it.

Martin Radner (19:52)

Oh, absolutely. I mean, at the beginning of the trial, when Michael Proctor's name was mentioned, you could. It didn't mean anything, right? As I said, lots of note takers. There's one woman who is writing down everything verbatim. I think she just does not stop writing. And then after a while, it. It keeps popping up and popping up, and you can see people just, oh, there's Michael Proctor's name again. And the other part of it is with all these different lawyers, you can tell the rhythm of what they're doing and where they're getting there. And when you have some people on some of these scientists who are on that, the defense really doesn't have anything to pick apart about their work or their methods. But again, where do we come to who signed the evidence? Who picked it up? Who was it? You can almost hear them say, Michael Proctor. And they're this trial's red solo cup. The last trial, the solo cups kept coming up because they had Proctor up and they had worked on it. This trial, Michael Proctor is the red solo cups.

Melody Mendez (20:45)

Do we see him on the stand for the defense?

Dr. Isaac Wolfe (20:47)

100%, without a doubt, Absolutely. And that's to your earlier point, JC that's why prosecution should have brought him out. Again, your analogy of rip the band aid off just to get it over with and allow cross there.

Melody Mendez (20:59)

Okay, thank you both so much. Love having you here. Hopefully you'll be back. We know you are. We drag you into it all. If you have any questions about this case, please keep sending them our way. The email is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can on and off air. 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. The new ones launch on Sunday. You're watching Canton, the Karen Reed Murder Trial.

J.C. Monahan (21:43)

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.