Will Karen Read's defense call Michael Proctor when they take the case?

Summary

Summary of "The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
• Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
• Episode: Will Karen Read's defense call Michael Proctor when they take the case?
• Release Date: May 23, 2025

---

Introduction

In this detailed episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston provides comprehensive coverage of the ongoing murder trial of Karen Reed. Hosted by J.C. Monahan and Eli Rosenberg, the episode delves into the latest developments, focusing on the defense's potential strategies, the prosecution's case closure, and the qualifications of key witnesses.

---

Trial Progress and Defense Strategy

As the trial approaches a critical juncture, the prosecution is anticipated to call one final witness next week before resting its case. This development signals the imminent commencement of the defense's next phase. Eli Rosenberg remarks, “We are expecting the prosecution to call one more witness next week before resting its case. And that means the defense will soon be stepping up for the next phase in this trial” (00:38).

Karen Reed, accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in January 2022, is preparing to present a more robust defense compared to her first trial, which concluded with a hung jury on July 1. Defense attorney Morjeta Derisier emphasizes the depth and breadth of the defense's upcoming case: “This time around, witnesses broader and deeper. They have a lot of tools in their pocket this time that they didn't have around for the first trial” (01:35).

---

The Role of Michael Proctor

A focal point of speculation is whether the defense will call Michael Proctor, the former Massachusetts state trooper who led the initial investigation into Officer O'Keefe's death. Proctor, who was terminated by the Massachusetts State Police, has been a central figure since his text messages and behavior during the first trial raised significant concerns. J.C. Monahan poses the critical question: “Does your team plan to call Michael Proctor? TBD” (01:05).

Morjeta Derisier adds, “We look forward to seeing what the defense knows and how they plan to use Michael Proctor” (02:38), indicating Proctor’s potential impact on the defense's strategy.

---

Expert Testimony and Qualifications

A contentious issue arising in the trial is the credibility of prosecution witness Dr. Isaac Wolf, a brain surgeon who testified about Officer O'Keefe's injuries. The defense challenged his qualifications, highlighting that he is not a forensic pathologist. Monahan questions Dr. Wolf’s expertise: “I'm a brain surgeon… I'm not a forensic pathologist” (00:19).

During cross-examination, defense attorney Bob Alessi underscores the importance of relevant expertise: “Forensic pathologists are trained to perform autopsies, and cardiac surgeons are trained to perform cardiac surgery” (14:56). This line of questioning aims to discredit Dr. Wolf's testimony by questioning his suitability to interpret autopsy findings related to the case.

Defense attorney Derisier further elaborates, “The real question is, was his testimony relevant to the charges that Karen Reed is facing?” (16:07), suggesting that Dr. Wolf’s specialized knowledge may not directly pertain to the case at hand.

---

Viewer Questions and Discussions

The episode features an interactive segment addressing viewer questions:

1. Hostility of Witnesses: Viewer Mabel from Scotland inquires about the implications of calling Michael Proctor as a hostile witness. Derisier explains the concept of a hostile witness: “A hostile witness is a witness that you ask only leading questions, yes or no” (05:21), highlighting the strategic nature of such testimonies.

2. Prosecutor Selection: Tom from Winchester questions why Hank Brennan, a former defense attorney, is prosecuting the case. Derisier responds, “The district attorney made a decision to hire a special prosecutor” (06:45), noting the DA’s intent to bring an outsider’s perspective to the high-profile case.

3. Civil Case Implications: Stacy from Plymouth asks if a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial would affect the family's ability to pursue a civil case. Derisier clarifies, “The civil case could move forward whether she gets a guilty or not guilty in the criminal case” (09:58), emphasizing the different standards of proof between criminal and civil proceedings.

4. Legal Process for Accessing Texts: Sharon from Seconk inquires about the legal process required to access witnesses' texts. Derisier outlines the necessity of a subpoena: “You have to have a legal reason to do so” (11:16), explaining the protections in place for personal privacy.

---

Courtroom Dynamics and Procedures

The episode delves into courtroom operations, addressing aspects such as sidebars and jury management. Ronnie Estanisloh, a former juror, shares his insights: “Every time they asked to stand off to the side… it was more of making sure they were following the law” (08:33). This underscores the procedural rigor aimed at maintaining the trial's integrity.

Additionally, the hosts discuss the limited seating arrangements for families, attributing it to the courtroom's size and the high-profile nature of the case: “Norfolk county doesn't have a lot of murder cases… they don't want a circus inside the courtroom” (07:34).

---

Potential Civil Cases

The conversation shifts to the possibility of civil litigation regardless of the criminal trial's outcome. J.C. Monahan notes, “The standards are different, right. The state. It's easier to prove liability in a civil case than it is in a criminal case” (10:50). This distinction highlights that even if Karen Reed is acquitted criminally, the family may still pursue financial damages based on a lower burden of proof.

---

Conclusion and Insights

The episode concludes with reflections on the trial's complexities and the roles of various courtroom participants. The defense's focus on undermining the prosecution's expert witnesses and the meticulous examination of witness qualifications are pivotal in shaping the trial's outcome. As the trial progresses, the interplay between criminal and civil proceedings, along with strategic defense maneuvers, remains a critical area of focus.

NBC10 Boston's Canton Confidential continues to provide in-depth analysis and real-time updates, ensuring listeners are well-informed about the intricate developments of the Karen Reed murder trial.

Notable Quotes:

• “I'm anxious for everyone to learn what we know.” – Eli Rosenberg (00:05)
• “This time around, witnesses broader and deeper.” – Morjeta Derisier (01:35)
• “A hostile witness is a witness that you ask only leading questions, yes or no.” – Morjeta Derisier (05:21)
• “The civil case could move forward whether she gets a guilty or not guilty in the criminal case.” – Morjeta Derisier (09:58)
• “You have to have a legal reason to [access texts].” – Morjeta Derisier (11:16)

---

For ongoing coverage and updates, tune in to Canton Confidential every weeknight at 7 on NBC10 Boston or stream the latest episodes on Peacock.

Transcript

[J.C. Monahan]

NBC10 Boston news worthy of you tonight.

[Eli Rosenberg]

What could the defense be bringing to the table? Ready to put on our case, which will be more robust than it was last year. So I'm anxious for everyone to learn what we know. We look ahead to when the team presents its evidence.

[J.C. Monahan]

Plus, I am not a forensic pathologist.

[Morjeta Derisier]

I'm a brain surgeon.

[J.C. Monahan]

Questions about qualifications after a neurosurgeon takes the stand. Why?

[Eli Rosenberg]

Prior testimony from another medical expert is raising concerns.

[J.C. Monahan]

And our panel answers your questions. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial starts now.

[Eli Rosenberg]

We are expecting the prosecution to call one more witness next week before resting its case. And that means the defense will soon be stepping up for the next phase in this trial. Good Evening, everyone. I'm J.C. monahan. Glenn is off tonight. Our Eli Rosenberg walks us through what we could expect from Reid's legal team. I believe that to be the last one. That is my. That is my understanding.

[J.C. Monahan]

Karen Reed headed into the holiday weekend.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Does your team plan to call Michael Proctor? Tbg.

[J.C. Monahan]

Still tbd.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Still tbd.

[J.C. Monahan]

Just days away from starting to lay out her defense strategy and this her second trial.

[Eli Rosenberg]

I'm anxious. I'm ready to put on our case, which will be more robust than it was last year. So I'm anxious for everyone to learn what. What we know. Could I see counsel at Tybar, please?

[J.C. Monahan]

This second trial has already proven to be quite different than the first. A trial that ended last July 1 with a hung jury. During that first trial, Reed's legal team spent two days on her defense.

[Eli Rosenberg]

This time around, witnesses broader and deeper. They have a lot of tools in.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Their pocket this time that they didn't have around for the first trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

Reid is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O' Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in January 2022. Reid has pleaded not guilty to three charges, including second degree murder.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Experts on, you know, the reconstruction is the timing that everyone keeps talking, the autopsy report, all those experts are going to be fair game. And the defense's case in chief just be interesting to see what order and who they call.

[J.C. Monahan]

And then there is the lead investigator, former state trooper Michael Proctor, who is terminated by Mass State Police. No news so far after his text and behavior came out during Reid's first trial. So the question remains right now, if prosecutors don't call him next week, will the defense experts say other witnesses that the prosecution called during that first trial could also be fair game this second time around?

[Morjeta Derisier]

Very interesting day to day, even with the long weekend coming up. We'll be interested to see how the prosecution closes its case in teeth, but definitely will be interesting nonetheless.

[J.C. Monahan]

And after a couple of days off, Karen Reid's trial set to resume on Tuesday. Reid did say prosecutors could call as little as one more witness. Judge Kanone, for her part, says this trial is moving ahead of schedule. Reporting for Canton confidential, Eli Rosenberg, NBC10 Boston.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And joining us tonight is defense attorney Morjeta Derisier, courtroom insider Sue O' Connell, and of course, Ronnie Estanisloh, who served on the jury during Karen Reid's first trial. Welcome to all of you. Morjeta, we just saw you with Eli. Does that timeline seem right? Prosecution Only one more seems about right.

[Morjeta Derisier]

One more witness, but it still could be a few days. Just because it's one person. I think that one person will take the entirety of next week, especially with it being a short week. Maybe one other witness, but I really don't see who else they could call at this point. So I think just the one you do.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Okay. Once again, we're hearing the name Michael Proctor dropped a lot. He's a former Massachusetts state trooper, as you heard, fired in part for his conduct while leading the investigation in the case. Here's an example of the name dropping in this second trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

And Michael Proctor, as the lead investigator, was the one to write the report, correct? Michael Proctor wrote that report. Whose case is it or who has that case?

[Eli Rosenberg]

Your answer would have been Michael Proctor, correct?

[Morjeta Derisier]

Yes.

[J.C. Monahan]

Do you think this case was handled with honor and integrity by Michael Proctor? Sergeant, the investigation was handled with integrity by Michael Proctor.

[Eli Rosenberg]

That was Yuri Buchanak, who actually answered a lot of the questions that Proctor had answered in the first trial. We don't know if he's going to be called to testify. However, there's plenty of speculation about whether or not he will. And with that, we go to our first viewer question. It comes from Mabel in Scotland. She asks if Michael Proctor were to be called to testify as a hostile witness for the defense, would that open the door for the prosecution to ask questions about the victim harassment? And in terms of that, we want to play a little sound. Well, what was said recently about harassment in court?

[J.C. Monahan]

The conversation with or conversations with Mr. Morrissey, the elected district attorney, what were the circumstances under which you contacted Mr. Morrissey? Well, during the course of this trial.

[Eli Rosenberg]

The witnesses had been harassed. That's not my question.

[J.C. Monahan]

Objection.

[Eli Rosenberg]

But I'm answering your question. Hold on. What's the. I'm going to sustain the objection. Next question. All right, Morgieta, can you tell us a little bit about what A hostile witness is what that means.

[Morjeta Derisier]

So a hostile witness is a witness that you ask only leading questions, yes or no. Meaning that it's different than a direct examination where you ask open ended questions like who, what, where, why, when you let the witness go on and on and tell the story. But a hostile witness, you know you're going in with them, not being your friend, right. So you only want them to ask answer a direct answer to your question, yes or no. Now, as you can see in the clip, sometimes they'll try to sneak in an answer or two and the judge may sustain or strike that portion of the answer. But it's somebody that you know you're going in with fire.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Ronnie, as a former juror, you've we just played how Proctor's name just keeps getting dropped. Dropped, dropped here and there. What would you make of it if Michael Proctor, that name, that person never materialized and never took the stand? I think it's suspicious not to have him take the stand since his name has been name dropped everywhere. And it would resonate to me as a juror that he's not being called back. Yeah, I think that lines up. Let's get to our next viewer question. We're going to keep these going. This is about the prosecution. Tom from Winchester wants to know why is Hank Brennan prosecuting this case when there are numerous lawyers working for the Norfolk District attorney? We're going to try to get everyone's take on this because Morgieta why? And Sue, I know you follow the numbers, so let's talk about that.

[Morjeta Derisier]

So here's the thing. I think there's no secret that the first trial did not resonate well, not only with the o' Keeffe family, but with the district attorney's office in general. And so the district attorney made a decision to hire a special prosecutor. It just so happens to be that Hank Brennan is a former defense attorney or is a defense attorney. And so that sheds a different light on the overall case. I think in general, yes, they have plenty of people in their office that could have done it. But with the stakes so high in such a high profile case, I think it was the right call to get an outside person who has some defense experience to try to do this case in a different light than the first trial was.

[Eli Rosenberg]

I think it makes sense when we're seeing it in court. But like I said, you follow the numbers, AKA the dollars taxpayers are paying for this extra attorney.

[J.C. Monahan]

So far, $250,000. I'm sure that it will be more. And you know, the Other issue is Norfolk county doesn't have a lot of murder cases. Right. So there's an issue of expertise. That doesn't mean the lawyers aren't great and they don't know what they're doing. But there is a different issue, and this isn't the only time that this has happened. In the past, there have been counties that have hired special prosecutors to do different things, like go through cold cases and see if they can wrap them up. So we'll have to evaluate. When all is said and done and we see what the verdict is, the taxpayers and the voters of Norfolk county will make a decision about whether or not they thought this was a good idea.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Ronnie, this next question is for you. It's about the many sidebars. We've talked about this a lot. Michelle from Methuen wonders, with there being so many sidebars, what is the jury thinking when they see all of these? So going back to when you were on the first trial and as juror, what did you think? Every time they asked to stand off to the side and have their little quiet moments, it was more of making.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Sure that the they're following the law.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And more of making sure they were presenting us with the appropriate information and not being kind of distracted by anything else. So. But did it sort of. It interrupts the momentum, though. And so when you get those as a juror, you have to sort of don't you have to then focus because you get that start. Stop. That happens. I appreciated it because it gave me a moment to kind of say, okay, I can stand up, relax.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Right.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Other than just focusing on so many different things. And it's a barrage of information that you're taking in every day. That's so true.

[J.C. Monahan]

Judge Canoni is telling them, you know, this is what we're doing. We're trying. We're late starting because we've been doing business, so you don't have to sit in that box. And I hear from other judges, Judge Canoni is very, very caring about the feed and care for her jurors. So she's always communicating to them what they're doing and has their time and their patience in mind.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And it's nice to hear her explain it. I'm sure as a juror, it's nice to hear what's going on. All right, Orgietta, stand by. Here we go. Next, two viewer questions are for you. We want to start with Stacy from Plymouth. She asks, if Karen Reed is found not guilty, will the o' Keeffes still be able to Pursue the civil case against her. And stemming off that question, we have another viewer, Karen, who asks who represents Reed in the civil case, Will it be her current team of lawyers? Morgieta.

[Morjeta Derisier]

So civil obviously is different than criminal. The civil case could move forward whether she gets a guilty or not guilty in the criminal case. Now, the criminal case will definitely bolster the civil case, but I think some of the counts in the civil case are completely irrelevant to the criminal case. You know, what's happening here, a lot of it is emotional affliction of distress and, you know, just certain things surrounding what their feelings are overall about the case. So absolutely, the civil case can still move forward independent of this, the criminal case. It just helps if, you know, unfortunately not in her favor, but it really doesn't make a difference.

[Eli Rosenberg]

But for both of you who are in the courtroom every day, if you're filing a civil suit, and as you said, a lot of it is emotional distress and what they've been through, are you feeling that. That the civil suit would have a chance regardless of what the jury comes to in this?

[J.C. Monahan]

Well, the standards are different, right. The state. It's easier to prove liability in a civil case than it is in a criminal case. So that's going to be the issue. And there are other civil suits moving through here, so that might impact that as well.

[Eli Rosenberg]

All right, let's get to one more question, and this one comes from Sharon in Seconk. She wonders what's the legal process for accessing texts specifically from witnesses or phones.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Morgiotta Definitely a subpoena. Everybody has their First Amendment right to privacy. You can't just want to take someone's phone and go through it. You have to have a legal reason to do so. And someone can refuse their cell phone, but you would need a subpoena. The subpoena goes out and the person can actually object to that subpoena if they have the legal grounds to do so. So it's not just the subpoena goes out and you have to respond. There's a whole hearing that's behind it where you can object to reasons why you don't believe your phone should be investigated unless it's in part of a criminal case in which the police can just seize it, you know, under constitutional rights.

[J.C. Monahan]

And you shouldn't give your phone up voluntarily. I know that Jen McCabe gave her phone up, said she did. Yes, that was great. Except it also had data on there that in the last trial they used to try and catch her daughter in what they thought was some evasiveness on the stand. So if the police or law enforcement ask you to volunteer your phone and say, great, let me call my lawyer first so I can have some things excluded. So you're just not going through my phone looking for anything that then the defense or somebody else may use against you.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And nowadays the phone is everything. Right. I'm sure if we asked you to all have it on you right now or Jetta, Ronnie, sue, don't go anywhere because we'll be answering more viewer questions right after the break. Plus, what seems like a battle of the experts brewing in the courthouse after a doctor was called to testify, why there have been concerns about his qualifications. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial. Don't miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

Get the full recap of what happened in court, expert analysis and what we could see next.

[Eli Rosenberg]

This is coverage you won't see anywhere else.

[J.C. Monahan]

Canton confidential, weeknights at 7 on NBC 10 Boston.

[Eli Rosenberg]

This week we heard testimony from prosecution witness Dr. Isaac Wolf, a brain surgeon, about John O' Keefe's injuries. He was described by an attorney on our show as one of the most effective prosecution witnesses so far. But as Melody Mendez reports, his testimony raised the question of whether he was qualified. It was a concern raised by the defense before Dr. Isaac Wolf even took the stand and then echoed by the defense once he was on the stand.

[J.C. Monahan]

None of your typical days, none of the past typical months have involved forensic pathology, have they? You haven't acted as a forensic pathologist.

[Eli Rosenberg]

I am. I am.

[J.C. Monahan]

If you're. You could have asked that question. Very straightforward. I am not a forensic pathologist.

[Morjeta Derisier]

I'm a brain surgeon.

[J.C. Monahan]

Right. And you don't perform autopsies. Correct, sir. You're a brain surgeon. Correct.

[Eli Rosenberg]

But the Yale educated surgeon pushed back.

[J.C. Monahan]

In other words, I see more brains.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Than the forensic pathologist.

[J.C. Monahan]

Right. And is it correct to say that the brains that you see are of living people? Correct.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And that is at the heart of the question. On Wednesday's Canton Confidential, attorney Martin Radner drove home the point. The question here is JC does it make a difference whether you see a.

[J.C. Monahan]

Brain in a live patient or if you see a brain after a person's already passed?

[Eli Rosenberg]

That's going to be a question. But the defense tried to answer that question before it was even asked on day 16 of testimony. So let's go back.

[J.C. Monahan]

You wouldn't want a specialist, for example, in cardiology without anything more to be conducting a death investigation, is that correct?

[Eli Rosenberg]

I would not want them to be conducting an Autopsy.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Correct.

[J.C. Monahan]

Right. Would you want a neurologist to conduct a death investigation.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Personally, or are you asking me that? No. Under cross examination By Bob Alessi, Massachusetts Medical Examiner, Dr. Irene Scordibello, who performed the autopsy on John O' Keefe, explained why every physician has their specialty and their training. And forensic pathologists are trained to perform autopsies, and cardiac surgeons are performed. Are trained to perform cardiac surgery.

[J.C. Monahan]

Would you want a neurosurgeon to be.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Conducting a depth investigation, to be performing an autopsy? No.

[J.C. Monahan]

So you wouldn't want a neurological surgeon to perform an autopsy?

[Eli Rosenberg]

No.

[J.C. Monahan]

Because you don't believe they're qualified to do so? Correct.

[Eli Rosenberg]

I don't believe they've had the appropriate training to perform an autopsy. We asked Karen Reed about it after court Wednesday. The doctor is not a neuropathologist. He doesn't perform autopsies. So I found him not qualified to speak about what a medical examiner should. Okay, we are back now with morgieta sue. Ronnie, let's talk about what was just presented there. I think it's pretty clear what the defense is trying to. Effective.

[Morjeta Derisier]

Effective, because I don't think that we're discrediting his work ethic. He is a brain surgeon. He said that many, many times. Everybody gets it. The real question is, was his testimony relevant to the charges that Karen Reid is facing? That's what the heart of his testimony really points to because he does what he does. He's a brain surgeon. But I didn't see the landing point between what he does and the charges that Karen Reid is facing. I just didn't see it.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Ronnie, did you? Because again, you were in the first trial, so now you have those two conflicting sides. It did not connect the dots. It's two separate kind of testimonies.

[Morjeta Derisier]

And it is very strange why it.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Was being presented by the prosecution.

[J.C. Monahan]

The biggest problem for me is I wanted to hear from him. In order to get a head injury like that, he needed to be thrust backwards with such velocity. And he didn't need to say only a vehicle could have hit him. But instead, what I heard was, I see this a lot in people who are drunk and fall backwards. And so therefore, it didn't connect for me what was happening, what the commonwealth was alleging happening versus what the testimony was. Again, I agree, very qualified person. I'd let him operate on me. If I needed any brain surgery. I'd fly down to Miami, he'd make me a cappuccino, it would all work out fine. But it just didn't. It didn't resonate for me.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Okay, let's go to the courtroom setup because that's the of part prompted a lot of questions since the trial got underway. Linnie asks, are the families allowed to have a certain number of supporters in the gallery with them or are those extra seats up for grabs each day?

[J.C. Monahan]

No extra seats. There are 10 seats for each family and they fill them. And if they don't fill them, if there's eight one day or ten the next, nobody from the outside is coming in.

[Eli Rosenberg]

And is that typical?

[Morjeta Derisier]

That's typical because again, this is one of the smallest courtrooms they have in that in America.

[J.C. Monahan]

If you miss it, he's like, yeah.

[Morjeta Derisier]

It'S really small, you know, and I. And to be honest, I think that was kind of strategic. It's a high profile case. You don't want a lot of people walking in and out of the courtroom and sitting down. So. But I agree, you do have to limit each side because you can't just have literally a circus inside the courtroom.

[Eli Rosenberg]

No, we don't need that. Let's go to our next question. Mary says, I have noticed Karen Reed texting during the trial, then looking over her shoulder to someone in the gallery on her side motioning with her phone. Is she allowed to be texting during the trial?

[Morjeta Derisier]

Yes, yes, yes. But normally, no, not in a lot of trials. Like even. It's very frowned upon even for attorneys to have their cell phones at counsel table because it is distracting. I don't know as a juror if it's distracting to you, but we are sort of prepped to keep our table in a particular way because you're really supposed to be focused on the trap. But again, we know this is a unique case, this is a unique set of circumstances, and. And Karen Reid is very much invested in her own defense. So I think she's doing strategic work and diligent work and not just trying to.

[J.C. Monahan]

And she's got the tech person behind. Yeah, but what you see on the camera is not what's happening in the room. Right. So she's talking to the tech person behind her and she has law students who are also on her team who are sitting with her family and friends behind her. So many times she's actually coordinating things. Like I see on her screen there's a piece of photographic evidence that's going to be brought up and then she coordinates it and it comes up and they're all busy and there's eight lawyers in there. Eight people. So tight. Yeah.

[Eli Rosenberg]

All right, we have one more. One of our viewers Interested. And we wanted to talk about this, about the people who work at the courthouse. Maria says there is a court worker with a black thing up to her mouth during trial. What is she doing? What is that black thing? Mordred, I'll start with you because it does seem a little low tech for this day and age.

[Morjeta Derisier]

She is the stenographer, one of the official court recordkeeping personnel. As you can see in the video, there's also a clock that's running that's called the FTR system. It runs as long as the clock is running. But what she's doing is literally repeating verbatim what everyone is saying so that later it can be transcribed word for word.

[J.C. Monahan]

Experts say that's more accurate than typing and shorthand because she's actually saying, Jaycee says, defense says, Ron says. So there is a belief that this is a much more accurate way to do it.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Okay, I don't want to be a complete idiot, but why can't we just hit record?

[Morjeta Derisier]

They're doing both. So like I said, the FTR system is running. If you go into any courtroom, you'll see the black box in front of the judge and the clock is running as long as the numbers are moving. But as sue said, this is the most effective way because she's. And she's also listening.

[J.C. Monahan]

Right?

[Morjeta Derisier]

So she's another person that says if someone said this, she's like, no, that's not how I remembered it. I remembered it the way I said it into the microphone.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Interesting. Morgieta, Ronnie, sue, thank you so much on this Friday. And thank you for all your questions. If you have any, please keep sending them our way. The email is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many 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 and as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock beginning Sunday. And if you're traveling for the Memorial Day holiday, be sure to check out our true crime podcast, all about the Case. It's basically the audio version of our nightly show that will catch you up on all the twists and turns up until this point.

[J.C. Monahan]

To watch full episodes of Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial, tune in to NBC 10 Boston weeknights at 7.

[Eli Rosenberg]

Through the duration of the trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

You can also catch past episodes on the NBC 10 Boston YouTube page. Full episodes are posted one day after after airing NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you.