John O’Keefe /// Part 2 /// 763

Summary

---

True Crime Garage – John O’Keefe /// Part 2 /// 763 (May 29, 2024)

Episode Overview

In this compelling Part 2 episode, hosts Nic and the Captain take listeners deep into the tangled investigation surrounding the death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. The case, set in Canton, Massachusetts, brims with intrigue, conflicting witness accounts, close-knit community ties, and accusations of law enforcement mishandling, potential conspiracy, and cover-up. With the trial ongoing, Nic and the Captain critically examine the key players, defense and prosecution strategies, digital evidence, and what these complexities reveal about the justice system. Listeners are guided through the swirling facts, rumors, and courtroom clashes in a distinctly True Crime Garage style—sharp, approachable, and always beer-in-hand.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “Who’s Who” of the Case (03:17–12:37)

• Occupational Connections: Many involved parties are Boston police officers or have strong law enforcement ties, raising concerns about bias and conflicts of interest.
• Key Individuals:
  • Brian Albert (04:58): Boston police officer, homeowner where O’Keefe was found. Named as a possible “third-party culprit” by the defense.
  • Albert Family Members:
    • Brian Albert Jr. (son, birthday at party)
    • Chris Albert (brother, on Canton Select Board, neighbor to O’Keefe)
    • Colin Albert (Chris’s son, rumored history of “bullying” and aggression; cuts on knuckles discussed—possible evidence)
    • Julie Albert (Chris’s wife, present at gathering)
    • Kevin Albert (another brother, Canton PD detective)
  • Brian Higgins: Federal ATF agent, at gathering, named as another alternative suspect by Reed's defense.
  • Jennifer McCabe: Sister-in-law to the Alberts, becomes focal to the defense for alleged cover-up.
• Quote:
  “The breaking point for me is, did he go in the house? Because if he went in the house, she [Karen Reed] cannot be responsible… otherwise somebody else is.” – Nick (04:19)

2. Defense vs. Prosecution Narratives (07:33–15:08)

• Defense Theory: Karen Reed (O’Keefe’s girlfriend) dropped him off, he went inside, and was attacked by people already present.
• Prosecution Rebuttal: Asserts there’s “no evidence” for these defense claims. Prosecution maintains Reed never entered, and the competing theories are “fertile imagination.”
• Nature of Testimony: Multiple witnesses’ stories are inconsistent, with allegations some have lied and collaborated to “get their stories straight.”
• Quote:
  “You have to look at that with some wide-open eyeballs… By definition, that’s a conspiracy.” – Captain (16:43)

3. Issues of Investigation & Potential Misconduct (15:08–24:01)

• Critique of Police Work: Both hosts agree initial investigation appears lax, mishandled, and possibly influenced by the closeness of those involved.
• Improper Evidence Handling:
  “Can we get something other than borrowing the neighbor's red Solo cups to put evidence in?” – Nick (22:16)
• Conflict of Interest Allegation: Trooper Michael Proctor, lead investigator, under internal investigation for undisclosed potential violation—a possible personal connection to the Albert family.

4. Cell Phone & Digital Evidence (35:26–49:50)

• Central Role of Digital Forensics: Cell phone data, texts, and activity trackers (like Apple Watch) are core to both sides’ arguments.
• The Jennifer McCabe “Google Search” Controversy:
  • Defense Claim: McCabe Googled “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 am (hours before O’Keefe’s body was found), suggesting guilty knowledge.
  • Prosecution Rebuttal: Asserts the search happened after O’Keefe was found (~6:23 am) at Reed’s request.
  • Debate: Over timestamps, deletion of digital history, and whether data manipulation or simple confusion is at play.
  • Quote:
    “Somebody searched that at 2:27. That’s what I believe. That’s what the computer is telling us. Computers don’t lie.” – Captain (40:34)
• Additional Digital Oddities:
  Butt-dials and deleted texts/calls from McCabe’s phone; hosts question plausibility and motives.
• Skepticism about Digital Evidence:
  Nic expresses frustration over digital records being selectively trusted by prosecution and defense.

5. Cross-Examinations & Witness Credibility (50:33–58:55)

• Defense’s Strategy: Highlight evolving, inconsistent stories from key witnesses (especially McCabe).
• Quote:
  “If you’re telling the truth, it’s so much easier to remember. When you’re telling lies… you’re going to ask to see what you said before. This is pathetic… they let down John O’Keefe, they let down Karen, they let down every officer and every person.” – Captain (52:46)
• Jury’s Burden: With 100 witnesses to be called, ongoing shifts in testimony, and expert disputes, it’s an “incredibly difficult” case to judge.

6. The Impact on the Victim’s Legacy (58:55–End)

• Overshadowed Grief: The uproar and attention risk erasing the memory and legacy of John O’Keefe.
• Official Family Statement: Reminds listeners that O’Keefe was a devoted officer, guardian, and community member, now the center of a painful and unresolved mystery.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Cell Phone Evidence Disputes:
  “You can’t have it work for your side all the time… let’s allow [digital evidence] to solve the crimes.” – Nick (45:54)
• On Law Enforcement Failing All Parties:
  “You didn’t serve or protect anybody in that house the day of the murders.” – Captain (52:46)
• Reflecting on Coverage:
  “Shout out to CBS and NBC… I’ve never—probably since O.J. or Casey Anthony—seen a case covered like this.” – Nick (26:48)

---

Important Timestamps

• 03:17: Case context, key players, and party dynamics
• 08:54: “Cuts on knuckles” photo and rumors about Colin Albert
• 12:37: Defense theories; party’s possible motives and conflicts
• 15:08: Witness inconsistencies and early police mishandling
• 21:00–22:31: Law enforcement collecting evidence in red Solo cups
• 24:01–25:52: Conflict of interest allegations for lead investigator
• 35:45–41:41: The Jennifer McCabe “Google search” controversy
• 42:18–44:23: Butt dials, text deletions
• 45:19–47:58: Critique of selective trust in digital forensics
• 50:33: Captain’s assessment of witness testimony and cross-exams
• 58:55: Defense focus on shifting witness statements
• 59:10–end: O’Keefe family statement, reframing the tragedy

---

Tone & Style Highlights

• Approachable & Wry: The hosts fold in banter and personal perspective but always maintain respect for the case’s gravity.
• Critical, Not Sensationalist: Willing to voice frustration with both law enforcement failures and media-driven conspiracy thinking.
• Balanced Skepticism: Despite personal opinions, Nic and the Captain refuse to offer easy answers, highlighting ongoing uncertainty and the case’s complexity.

---

In Summary

This True Crime Garage episode dissects the labyrinthine case of John O’Keefe’s death—exposing community and law enforcement entanglements, breaking down digital forensic disputes, and scrutinizing inconsistent witness accounts. With no definitive answers, Nic and the Captain stress the importance of truth-telling, proper investigation, and respect for the real human loss at the center of the media storm. For listeners seeking a nuanced, critical armchair-detective experience on a still-unfolding saga, this episode hits all the right notes.

---

Transcript

[Oregon Lottery Announcer]

Oregon parks make an Oregon summer, but what makes an Oregon park well, Oregon Lottery gameplay helps no matter the game Megabucks, video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible, and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Nick]

Picture this. It's the end of a long week. You're unwinding in the tub, listening to your favorite true crime podcast and then chronic hives come back again in the middle of the episode. What a wet blanket looks like another spell of itchy, swollen, red or skin colored hives. If you have chronic spontaneous urticaria or csu, there may be a different treatment option. Worried about your chronic hives interrupting our next episode? Learn [e-mail] Garage. Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host, Nick and with me, as always, is a man who finally told me after 700 episodes. I don't know what to say because you talk too much. Here is the cap.

[Captain]

Shut your yipper hole. It's good to be seen and good to see you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for telling Big Papi.

[Nick]

Today we are drinking Perception is spoon fed by Vitamin C Brewing. This is a 4.7% ABV fruited sour. Some say they can taste some marshmallow and maybe a hint of graham cracker crust. Garage Grade three and a half bottle caps out of five. And let's give some thanks and praise to our good friends for helping us out this week here Captain. First up, a shout out to Susan Davies Brown and Julianne, North Carolina.

[Captain]

And a big we like your jib goes out to Tuck from Fairfield, Connecticut.

[Nick]

And here's a double fisted cheers to Pat and Judy and West Richland, Washington. Thank you to everyone who helped us with this week's beer fun.

[Captain]

Yeah B W E Double R U N Buron. Did you know you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Tick Tock or like I like to call it tic Tac or YouTube. Tons of content. It's all free. Follow us at True Crime Garage and colonel that's enough of the business.

[Nick]

All right everybody gather round. Grab a chair, grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime. You heard it at the end of part one where the defense attorneys are claiming that there's a conflict of interest here as far as the investigation goes and the persons that would be involved in giving statements as to what took place that night. And a lot of that's going to be based around the occupations of the persons that were gathering that night at the bar, that were hanging out at the after party, if you will, that night, the night that John o' Keefe passed away, that he was killed. And let's go through some of the who's who because we've mentioned a lot of names along the way and during our timeline. But to fill this out and give a complete picture here, we have to go through the who's who of this case as well as the persons that are giving statements as to what took place. Because like we said in part one, you have Karen Reed, who's saying he got out of the car, John got out of the car, and he was fine when I left him. He went into that house and something terrible happened to him in there.

[Captain]

The question becomes who was in that house?

[Nick]

Yes, you have everybody else at the house. And according to the affidavit states that 11 people are inside that home and none of them say that John ever made it into the house that night. Again, that for me, Captain, is when you tear this thing down to the studs, as complicated and as confusing and convoluted as this whole mess is when you tear this thing down to the studs, to its simplest of forms, the breaking point for me is, did he go in the house? Because if he went in the house, she cannot be responsible. And if he did go in the house, then somebody else is responsible. Because again, the state and the defense is in agreeance. The one thing that they can agree on is that somebody is responsible for the death of this man, of this good man. Let's start with Brian Albert. So who is Brian Albert? Brian Albert is a Boston police officer. He was among the group drinking on the night of January 28, 2022. He is also the owner of the home where O' Keefe was found outside, found to be dead. Karen Reed's defense team has voiced its intent to use this third party culprit. Defense. Right. Meaning our client is not guilty. It wasn't an accident. Somebody else who's not on trial is responsible for the death and murder of this man. Her attorney said that Brian Albert and two other people had, quote, a motive, the opportunity and means to attack John o'. Keefe. The prosecutor's rebuttal to such a statement will be that this is there's nothing here. There's no evidence to suggest this. This is just the defense team's claims. And the only thing that's fueling this is their fertile imagination. So Brian Albert is one of the persons that were there that night. He's also the owner of the home. He is, or was at the time, a Boston police officer. We also have Brian Albert Jr. Which you can tell by the name is Brian Albert's son. He was at the gathering at Albert's home the night of January 28th as well. And from it's been reported that that was his birthday. Then we also have another Albert. We have Chris Albert, who is Brian Albert's brother. So Brian Albert Sr's brother. He also serves on the Canton Select Board. So this is a government office. This is a. This is an official. A city official. He has testified that he was at the restaurant and bar with a group. With the group in the hours before John o' Keefe's death. Chris Albert was neighbors with John o'.

[Captain]

Keefe.

[Nick]

This reported by Boston Magazine. This is where things get a little bit complicated. Right, the Chris Albert link here, because that's going to link A1, Colin Albert. Colin Albert is the son of Chris and Chris's wife, Julie Albert. Karen Reed's defense team says that Colin was at the Canton home the night before o' Keefe was found dead. He is one of three that Reed's lawyers said had, quote, a motive, the opportunity and the means to attack John o'.

[Captain]

Keefe.

[Nick]

Prosecutors rebuttal to that is that Colin had left his uncle's home before John o' Keefe and Karen Reed even arrived. Now, this is really a. There's a lot hinging on what time Colin Albert would have left this house.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Because they don't just make a suggestion that Colin Albert and other persons there may have been involved. There's even a bit of a narrative floating out there, correct. That. That Colin Albert was a bit of a nuisance, a bully. Yeah. A bit of a hothead. And that he. He regularly got into fights. There's a reporter out there that goes by the title of Turtle Boy who has. Yeah, I was hoping to avoid that,

[Captain]

but not Turtle Boy, I guess.

[Nick]

Guess we can't. Turtle Boy has reported and shown pictures on YouTube and tick tock and everywhere else that he can picture that he says was taken shortly after the night that John o' Keefe was killed. And in that picture, again, I. I would love to. For somebody to prove it to me. I'm not saying that it didn't this picture wasn't taken when Turtle Boy says it was. I just don't know what he's basing that off of. There's no description given when I saw the picture, but what I can see in the picture, even before Mr. Turtle Boy pointed it out, is there were clearly cuts, open wound, like scabbed up cuts on the knuckles on the right knuckles of this Colin Albert. The free Karen Reed. People are saying this could be an indicator that he was involved in a fight or an attack on o' Keefe before he was. That means we also have Julie Albert, who is Chris Albert's wife and Colin Albert's mother. She has testified that she was at the restaurant and bar with the group in the hours before John o' Keefe's death. We also have Kevin Albert, who is Brian's brother. He serves on the Canton Police Department as a detective. We have a one Brian Higgins, who is an agent with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He was reportedly at the Fairview Road Home the night before o' Keefe was found dead. He is one of three who Reed's defense team says had a motive, the opportunity and means to attack John o'. Keefe. Higgins was reportedly a friend of Brian Albert. And the Commonwealth stated that the defense's statements about Higgins lacked evidence and made for a fanciful story. Now, the way that some of the story would go, right, the way that it would play out as the defense team pushes it forward, is that at some point in the evening after John o' Keefe goes inside to the home and after Karen Reed had dropped him off and left the residence, right, a fight breaks out. Some have suggested that there might have been some prior engagements or beef between. I believe it's Colin Albert and John o'. Keefe. The way that I believe this to go is that Chris Albert is somewhat of a neighbor of John o' Keefe and that Colin Albert, as you pointed out earlier, Captain, bit of a bully at times, or at least has been reported. Right. We don't know the guy, but it's been reported that he's a bit of a bully. I've also seen it reported that he's a hothead and that he engages people in altercations and fights and that maybe Colin Albert had done something to upset Jon o' Keefe at some point, being his neighbor. And I sometimes it's reported that they live next door. I actually believe that he lives a few doors down. Yeah, like I. Because I. The better outlets are reporting that the Alberts live about Three, three or four houses away from John o' Keefe and that they had some kind of neighborhood disagreement. Now the problem with that is I don't have a great timeline if that, if that were something to have occurred. I'm yet to see somebody present a great timeline on when that all started. Right. Because there's a. There, there comes a point where you let bygones be bygones. Right. The. If something happened a long time ago and you happen to show up to the same house and everybody's having a good time that night, that it could all just be water under the bridge.

[Captain]

Yeah. Look, the defense could have their idea correctly but maybe the motive is incorrect because we know when people get drunk people say stupid things. I'm raising my hand. And sometimes when people are drinking they get aggressive. They might have the right idea of who's involved but they don't know what the motivation was.

[Nick]

Jennifer McCabe is somebody that we've talked about a little bit throughout. She is Brian's sister in law, she is married and she has really become a focal point of this trial and really become a focal point of the defense where it's being suggested that she had awareness of what happened, what truly happened to John o' Keefe that night. Right. And that she may have orchestrated some of the COVID up. I, I'm hesitant to dive into the details of that just yet. But let's talk about some of the, the theories like if it were not to have been Karen Reed because I'm sure there's no shortage of theories that you have heard.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

Or read somewhere because I've heard everything from. Well, Colin and, and John didn't get along and they must have got into it at some point and then others jumped in and it became this. What started off as maybe a fight then turned into several men attacking and beating John o'. Keefe. I've also heard that the, that the dog, Chloe, the house dog that lived at the house there was somehow involved either. You know, one version of the story says that John was drunk and he stepped on the dog's tail and the dog bit him or attacked him and then the owner stepped in and it turned into a two or three or four against one situation. And then the other version is that a fight broke out between Colin in John and the dog then came to the defense of the homeowner who got involved. You know, it's a. I feel like there's no shortage of scenarios, of possible scenarios. And, and the truth is that if John did make it into that house, 1, 2, 3, 4 of these people have to know what happened to him. Maybe not all of them. Maybe not all of them.

[Captain]

Well, the problem is the inconsistencies of their story. And even on trial, there's inconsistencies and then there's, I think in multiple cases, there's actual proof that some of these people are lying. Like, the records tell us one thing, and you're telling us something else, but then you're telling us that the records at this time of the cell phone data is correct, but at this time you're saying it's not correct. And here's where the police should be ashamed because you have an officer dead at an officer's house after a bunch of people were drinking and driving. And I don't think they did a proper investigation. They should have cornered who was in that house that night, who was at the party. You question them right away so you can get a better timeline. And they didn't do that. And that's not just to. That's not just to protect the victim, but that's to protect your other fellow officers that are in the house. And that's why we have all these questions. And then, look, if you can think it's a conspiracy, I don't fault you at all. I think you have to look at that with some wide open eyeballs. So much time passes before their question, and I think that's where the conspiracy kind of starts. These individuals are trying to get their story straight. They're trying to remember what happened. And. Oh, what do you remember? Okay, you remember that and I remember this. Okay, let's try to get our story straight. And by definition, that's a conspiracy. Now, you could make an argument that he never made it into the house, but they're still conspiring to try to get a collective story to give to law enforcement, to give to the media, to give to the public.

[Nick]

Well, I'll offer up a little opinion here. No, and that is, remember, she is initially charged with vehicular manslaughter, a much less severe punishment for a much less severe charge. Part of me believes, before we get into some of the other very crazy parts that are, that you have to look at and go, what, what, what's going on here? Before we get to the what's going on here? Parts. Part of me believes that the officers, the persons that responded to the scene, they get to the scene, they believe what they're looking at is just a terrible accident, that she accidentally hit him without any malice or without any intention, accidentally Hit him, killed him. It's a horrible tragedy and accident. And that's the call we're responding to, therefore, that's the charges that came with it. And because this was just an accident, and, and I, I'm not saying me, the colonel, I'm saying I, the responding officer or the investigator makes the assumption too quickly that this was just a horrible accident, then I tailor my investigation as such where we don't need to press the envelope, press the issue or push the envelope here with interviewing everybody in a strict, disciplined manner. Because you're right, like, and there's varying degrees of reporting on this too, and I hate to keep saying that, but it's true, unfortunately, it's the truth where you, you hear some say that, oh, they were never questioned at all. Well, that, no, that doesn't seem to be right because we are at trial now and the prosecutor and the defense are constantly referencing statements that were given years ago. And so you can't say they were never questioned at all. But it's how were they questioned? And like the captain said, one thing that seems to be ringing true again, I'm going to lean on what's being said in the courtroom rather than what's being said on a podcast. What seems to be ringing true is that yes, they were spoken to, yes, they were interviewed, if you want to call it that, but it would not be in the manner of, hey, come down to the police department and let's take a written sign, sworn statement. It's a more casual interview where you are interviewing people together, husband and wife together, husband, wife and maybe son together. And like the captain said, it, it seems agreed upon even by the, the persons who are only being accused by the defense or in the media, that being maybe The Alberts and McCabe and a few other people that it sounds agreed upon by them that they, that they've openly stated. Yeah, we had kind of a, let's call it a family meeting. Right. We had a, we had a sit down where. And I'm not, I'm not saying every person that we just named on the who's who, but it sounds like a lot of them participated in this. You know, let's talk about what happened. And maybe that's just as simple as, hey, here's this person that we loosely knew that was supposed to come to our house. We would have welcomed both of them in with open arms. And this is this tragic event. Maybe this is a way of grieving or coping with such a shocking tragedy and maybe there's no ill will There. Maybe they're not trying to get their story straight, but it's. It's. We have nothing to go on. We don't know what was said during that family meeting. What we do know is that that family meeting should not have taken place before sworn statements were given to law enforcement.

[Captain]

And what we do know about the eyewitnesses, because many of them have said at trial, oh, well, during this conversation that I had. Law enforcement didn't even have a notepad out. They didn't have a tape recorder going.

[Nick]

They decided to collect evidence. Did you. Did you see this where they put evidence into red solo cups?

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

So you are again, and you're responding to. And once you're on scene and you've. You've. You understand what's going on? I understand the. The difficulty of the job. Okay. Never having done it myself. I know a lot of police officers and detectives and, as we said earlier, come from a family of law enforcement. So we have some understanding on how difficult and how unfair the public can be to law enforcement on occasion because they are regularly showing up to a scene where they have no clue what the hell happened before they got there.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

So we understand that part of it. But guess what? Now you're on scene and you got a fallen officer in front of you at your damn feet. Can we get. Can we get something other than borrowing, knocking on the neighbor's door and getting red solo cups in a paper bag to put the evidence in?

[Captain]

Yeah. It makes their profession look like clowns. And that's. That's embarrassing. And for all of the good law enforcement officers we know out there, they should be appalled. They should be embarrassed as well.

[Nick]

Well, and this.

[Captain]

And I think if they would have done a thorough investigation, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

[Nick]

And here's the thing. You do have the state police that are going to be involved. You have the Canton police that are going to be involved, but at the very center of this is a Boston police officer who has tragically been killed and died. And you also have a Boston police officer that's the homeowner of the property where he was supposed to be going that night. And Boston PD is a good outfit. That's. That's a pretty good large police department. And it's just sad. I understand that, you know, it was the Massachusetts State Police. That's a fairly good outfit, too. It's. But I was a little. I was very surprised to see how this was handled. And I know we. We probably hanging on this issue too. Long, but. So this is where the conflict of interest be really plays and ties into it, as the defense claims. Michael Proctor is a Massachusetts State Police trooper. He led the investigation into what they refer to as the Karen Reed case. Karen Reed's attorneys allege that Michael Proctor never fully disclosed that he had a personal relationship with multiple people involved in this case.

[Captain]

Yeah. Pathetic.

[Nick]

And they claim that this includes the Albert family, who lived at the home on the property where John's body was found. Now, what we do know, and this is very interesting here, to me, we do know. This seems to be a confirmation of this information, right. Michael Proctor is under internal investigation for an undisclosed, disclosed potential violation of department policy. Michael Proctor is under internal investigation for an undisclosed potential violation of department policy. Now, to be perfectly clear here, we do not know what that means. Right? Undisclosed is why we do not know what it means. However, NBC 10 out of Boston has been on the record more than once saying that sources have told them to. Now, again, this doesn't mean that it's fact. They're just reporting that sources have told us, NBC 10 Boston, that that investigation, that internal investigation is connected to the Karen Reed case. Proctor remains on full duty while the internal investigation unfolds. And obviously we're at trial now, so they're not. There's not a whole lot of actual investigating of this particular case at this time. But if they are looking at him in relation to this specific investigation, you have to wonder if they will uncover anything. Internal affairs will uncover anything in their investigation that directly impacted the case, the case and Proctor's assessment of what he believed happened or what he says, the evidence that they chose to put in red solo cups and paper bags that they borrowed from a house next door, what that evidence told them.

[Captain]

Pathetic. It's. It's all around pathetic. I think what we're also seeing at trial is. Look, this is just my assessment, but a lot of these individuals that were in that house that day, they come off as arrogant, they come off as entitled, they come off as privileged. And the disrespect, the way they're not answering questions. And frankly to me, I think a lot of them have been caught in lies. The problem becomes, if John o' Keefe didn't make it into that house, then they're not responsible for his death. You can also be a shitbag liar and trying to save your ass, but not be the one responsible for somebody's death. If that makes any damn sense.

[Nick]

Well. And I'll give a big shout out and kudos to CBS and NBC, they are covering this incredibly thoroughly. Right. That I've never, It's probably since O.J. o.J.

[Captain]

Or, or Casey Anthony.

[Nick]

Yeah. The case has been analyzed and, and covered so much. And, and I, I'm telling you, there's all kinds of podcasts out there that are just dedicating their whole platform. And if you go to a few different websites and news outlets, their whole websites are just dedicated to their coverage of this story and especially the trial. So I want to give a shout out to CBS and NBC who, that's where I went to for most of my research in this case because there was a lot of choices and options and with the big name broadcasters, that's where I chose to go. Now, some quick details here, Captain, that will have to sort through after the break is a lot of the cell phone information. So we have court documents that would later reveal that in the weeks before and even the hours leading up to the night out, that there were text messages between Karen, Karen Reed and John o' Keefe as well as voicemails that that is a record of a strained relationship, a record of a relationship in shambles. And in fact, investigators are saying that around 1am on January 9, this is the night in question that Karen Reed allegedly left John o' Keefe a voicemail that said, you are a effing loser. F yourself and John, I effing hate you. Groons survives every chaotic stretch because it's literally one daily pack of gummies. No bottles to track, no powders to mix, just done. Backed by over 35,000 research publications, Groons are a convenient, comprehensive formula in one delicious daily pack of gummy bears. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. Groons have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients which include nutrient dense and whole foods. Plus, their daily pack of Gummies has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. They're vegan, nut free, gluten free and dairy free with no artificial colors or flavors. And bonus, they taste great. Save up to 52% off with code GARAGEROONS CO. That's code GARAGE at G R U N S DOT CO. So many people are focused on where their money is today. Acorns is the financial wellness app that cares about where your money is going tomorrow. And with the Acorns potential screen you can find out what your money is capable of. Acorns is easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money even if all you've got is spare change. Sign up now and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus. Investment join the over 14 million all time customers who have already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com garage or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote acorns. Tier 2 compensation provided potential subject to various factors such as customers accounts, age and investment settings does not include Acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor View Important [e-mail] Garage One thing about summer is that everything just feels easy. It's the season for comfortable go anywhere pieces that make getting dressed simple. That's what makes Quince such a great fit for the season. They focus on well made essentials that you'll actually live in all summer long. Quince's 100% European linen pants and shirts are breathable, easy to throw on and the summer upgrade your rotation needs and their tees are soft enough to live in all day and the lightweight cotton sweaters are exactly what you want when summer nights cool down. I love Quinte. I love [e-mail] for all of my clothing needs. It's how I fill my wardrobe and my closet And I didn't make up the statement that their tees are soft enough to live in all day. They absolutely are. I love their tees. I love their socks. Especially for summertime. Tees from Quints can live in all day long. What does that mean? I wear them to the pool. I wear them when I go out to the restaurants and I have several that I've reserved as pajama tops because they are that comfortable, they are that breathable and they are super soft. They make you want to relax. The clothing on quints.com is super high quality with great looks, great fashion and very affordable. Plus the checkout and shipping experience is always a good one. Make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quints.com garage for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-N-C-E.com garage for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com garage picture this, it's the end of a long week. You're unwinding in the tub, listening to your favorite true crime podcast and then chronic hives come back again in the middle of the episode. What a wet blanket. Looks like another spell of itchy, swollen, red or skin colored hives. If you have chronic spontaneous urticaria or csu, there may be a different treatment option. Worried about your chronic hives interrupting our next episode? Learn [e-mail] Garage.

[Captain]

All right, tall cans in the air. Cheers to the people in the back. Cheers to you, Colonel.

[Nick]

Yeah, good luck sorting this one out. I'll tell you what I'm we are regularly asked to give an opinion after we review a case. I struggle with this one. What I don't struggle with, Captain, is counting my blessings that I wasn't picked for jury duty for this one.

[Captain]

Well, just to be clear, like you were saying before, there's so many outlets that are covering every little detail of this case. So many emails of people saying, hey, when are you going to cover this case? I think if we waited till the end of the trial, I think at that point there's a, there's a judgment whether you agree or not. But this case has so many moving pieces, it's very difficult to cover. And that's not a cop out. But this case is fascinating and I've been almost every night tuning into law and Crime or other YouTube channels that are replaying some of the that day's cross examinations and it's very fascinating. And if you're interested in this case, just dive in. Just dive in deep because the water

[Nick]

is warm and shout out to the law and crime people. We go way back with them. They are a fantastic outfit themselves. So cell phone information, right? It seems to be really at the center and the centerpiece, I believe, for why persons have chose what side that they are on.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

And a lot of people are pointing to, hey, look, Karen Reed. Yes. Guilty as hell. Did you see, did you hear about that voicemail that she left John where she drops the F bomb, you know, a dozen times or three or four times or whatever it is, calling him a loser. He, she hates him. And then the flip side of that coin is people saying, well, did you see the Internet search that Jennifer McCabe, Brian's sister in law, did?

[Captain]

This to me is very fishy.

[Nick]

Okay, so here's the way. For those of you that are not familiar with this story, I was going to, you know, put on your seatbelt because it's going to get bumpy but you, I hope you brought your raincoat because there's going to be some shit.

[Captain]

Yeah, some shit. Some real shit.

[Nick]

It's a real shit storm, this case. Now on your foot, apparently. And again, two different sides of the story. The defense team, Karen Reed's defense team is alleging that there's record that Jennifer McCabe used her phone, her personal phone, to search Internet search. Hos. Hos long to die in cold. Around 2:30 approximately, let's say 2:30am yeah, it was 227. Okay. So to put this into clear perspective here, what this means is they believe that she was attempting to search how long to die in cold at 2. Roughly 2:30am this would mean this would be hours before John O' Keefe's body would be found out in the cold, having passed away, having been killed and hypothermia being a contributing factor to his death.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

So if this is in fact true, if this is like Christopher Walken would say, the real deal, if this were the real deal, then she is searching this hours before he is found. Hours before Karen Reed would be aware that he's been killed. She must have some knowledge as to why, you know, there has to be some. Some information that she's privy to or have witnessed why she would be searching that at that time.

[Captain]

I think they call this guilty information.

[Nick]

Yes, but then what is the prosecution's

[Captain]

response to this claim that she never made the search?

[Nick]

Yes, but also, doesn't it get a lot more complicated than that? Like this is. This is where.

[Captain]

Well, her claim is that she never made the search. She's saying, I only searched that because Karen asked me to. Yes, she searched for John, but. So that happened at like 6:20 in the morning. But your cell phone doesn't just make shit up. Your cell phone's not going to just make up the fact that you did a search at 2:27.

[Nick]

This is what's clear here. Prosecutors and the defense team all agree, all these attorneys agree that at some point the morning o' Keefe was killed, someone Googled Haas long to die in cold. The sides disagree on when the search was made. Again, this was made on Jennifer McCobb's phone. And I apologize, I keep saying her name in two different ways. McCabe, McCobb. Prosecutors say that the search happened at 6:23am and 6:24am after finding John O' Keefe's body.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

With Jennifer stating, I only searched that because Karen asked me to and that she. Her testimony on stand is that I'm I typed it in incorrectly because it was cold out. My hands were shaking. I was in shock because we found him. She has Ms. As well. And she, she attributes all those factors as to why she missed misspelled and typed it in this way. She's saying that occurred after finding the body at the request of Karen Reed. The defense is saying so. The defense says a federal forensic expert determined the search was made at 2:27am before the police were alerted that O' Keefe's body had been found. There are, there's so many arguments about this. There are some that say, well, she searched it at 2:27am and then searched it. Did the same exact search later at 6:23 to override, hoping that it would confuse the data that she did the search after the body was found.

[Captain]

But here's where it gets a little more.

[Nick]

But there's, but isn't there other debate about. Well, there was a tab that was opened up on her phone.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

And that, that might have triggered the 227 timestamp even though she may not have searched for it until 6:23am but

[Captain]

there's all this weird shit. Okay, let's just stay on this search real quick. Somebody searched that at 227. That's what I believe. That's what the computer is telling us. Computers don't lie. But then somebody has the, the gall, the balls to delete that search that's more incriminating. And then on top of that.

[Nick]

But let me jump in real quick because it may not be there. There are people that, that naturally swipe away or, or clear their history, clear their browser, delete information from their phone or computer. There are those types and they do it for reasons that they're. That are not nefarious. I'm not saying that, I'm not saying, I'm not saying that that's what occurred here. I'm just presenting this as something that, that does occur on a regular basis by people that are not trying to hide their misdeeds.

[Captain]

But. Well, let's, but let's go a little deeper. First of all, she says she didn't make the search. Then she said she didn't delete the search. Then she says she did. She won't even know how to do so. Or her husband is like an IT expert. Don't you think he would know? So then I think the question becomes who made the search on her phone? And then I think you have to go a step back, back because there was supposedly six to seven butt dials. That she claims are butt dials. Now, how does a butt dial work? Your butt calls somebody. Ring, ring, ring.

[Nick]

The fingers on your butt.

[Captain]

Yeah, the thing. The fingers on your butt called somebody. But what happens? Normally it goes to somebody's voicemail, and if their voicemail is not full, then the next day you get some weird message from somebody where everybody sounds muffled and you sound like you're in somebody's pocket. But that's not what happened. There was multiple calls to John o'

[Nick]

Keefe's phone, and I believe some text, too, that may have been deleted as well.

[Captain]

And then what they did was they deleted them. They deleted the call. And then when they were asked about the calls, she states, well, those must have been butt dials. And the defense says, well, the problem with that is you would have had to notice that you were calling him and hung up the phone before it hit his voicemail.

[Nick]

And the prosecution doesn't completely deny all of that. Right? The prosecution, I think, on a couple of occasions are pointing out that, well, she didn't speak with anybody. She left the voicemail.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

So this is where. This is where the water gets too murky for me to come to a conclusion. I believe that there is valuable information in John O' Keefe's phone, Karen Reed's phone, Jennifer McCabe's phone, other people's phones and devices. And there's been a lot of talk about Apple watches and smart watches. I believe that there's valuable information in them, in theirs, that could make this a much clearer picture for us. The problem is, I got one side telling me, hey, we got a whole row of experts that say this information is absolute truth. And then you got the other side that says, we got a whole row of people that's saying, well, it's all it's left for. Open to interpretation that this is. This is not concrete evidence. You can't base anything off of. Off of these records or off of this data. I will say this, and I want to preface this by saying, Captain, you know me, longtime listeners of the show know me. I usually side with law enforcement.

[Captain]

Bootlicker.

[Nick]

I would say it's closer to 60, 40. So let's calm down about the licking of the boots.

[Captain]

Licking boots.

[Nick]

I usually side with law enforcement. I don't believe that everybody out there is a bad guy, But I do believe that people do bad things. And. And we. Our show is. It is testament to that. Yeah, I usually side with law enforcement. But one thing that I'm getting really effing tired about is that when it comes to the cell phone. And you said this at the start of yesterday's show. And you, you are so right. And I, and I want not. Not only do I believe that you're right, I want this to be right and I want it to be right forever going forward. I believe that these cell phones can be better at solving crimes than even DNA is. However, what I'm getting really tired of is it seems to only work for the state or the prosecution.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

I've seen plenty of cases and this is one where the. All of this information, I believe is at the center of it. This is the divide. You have the state that goes in a lot of cases. Go look, his cell phone put him at the scene of the crime at the time that the person was murdered. And he's the only one this person had contact or information or sent text messages or, or hateful voicemails. Right? They. They bring up all. She called him up and list the voicemail saying she hates him. That's against Karen Reed. Oh, but then we're not supposed to believe any of this other cell phone information from the other people.

[Captain]

Which one is it?

[Nick]

Right. It either works or it doesn't work. You can't have it work for you all the time. And that's like, like I pointed. We point this out when we talk about polygraph examinations and West Memphis three. Adnan Syed. There's so many cases that you can go through and point to a polygraph examination. And one thing that aggravates me to no end is that the persons that believe that somebody is guilty. What, what do they bring up? They go, well, he, he didn't show up for the polygraph exam. He refused to give a polygraph exam. Oh, he failed the polygraph. And then the persons that think and argue that that same person is innocent of that same crime that they're charged with will argue the opposite. They go, oh, he took one and he passed it. Oh, you can't trust those things. That's why they don't use them in court. Well, you can't have it work for your side all the time, regardless of the result.

[Captain]

Right?

[Nick]

So this is a much more exact science than polygraph examinations. These cell phones should be solving more cases than DNA. Let's allow that to happen. What the hell is going on with. Oh, well, the privacy laws put in place do not allow us to share this information with law enforcement. What country, what country do you work for? Where did you build your startup at? You built it in this greatest of nations.

[Captain]

Well, they Use little Chinese kids.

[Nick]

I was going to say, who are you working for, the Chinese or the Russians? Stop this and work with law enforcement. And. And if they. If they. Yes. If they subpoena the records, give them the records, and then give us a person who can. Can make heads or tails of it and explain it to us like we're a group of monkeys living in a garage. Because there's two of us right here that would like to know what the hell to think about this stuff. And. And I'll tell you this. I will. I will say this straight up, Captain. This is why I have a hard time making a determination with this case, because there's. There. We're being told there's data on somebody's device, John o' Keefe's device, that says he went up and down stairs, three flights of stairs.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

That, to me, says he went into that home after Karen dropped him off. Something happened to him inside that house. Or. Or he left the house and somehow got a pack of wolves, or. Or a crowd of people got him outside. I don't know. But he. He left. And when Karen left, he was fine. He was. His device was working. He was alive and well. He was working. He was moving around on his own. But I've had very smart devices, or at least I'm told they're top of the line, where I'm like, you know, you. You check your steps. You check your steps, and it's like, wait a second. I've clearly walked more than 800 steps today. Oh, no. You had that application open while you were at the gym, and none of those steps counted. We didn't count those because you had the app open at the time, or you were holding it in your hand, listening to your favorite True Crime Garage podcast episode. And it didn't. It didn't sway the way that it needs to sway to count the steps. And I've had the opposite. Where I look at it, and it's like, you have walked over two and a half miles today. Guess what Nick has never done in the last 10 years? Walk two and a half miles in one single day. So that I'm like, oh, yeah, that's right. I was on my bike. I was on my bike, and it recorded it as steps. And I've. I've had the same. I've. I will say this, not with my current day device and not with any device that I had in 2022, but prior to that, I did have devices that recorded me going up a certain number of flights of stairs that I did not traverse. And I've had other times where devices did not record me going up and down as many flights of stairs that I did.

[Captain]

Here's what I think I do know, though. I think the people inside that party, they try to get their story straight. You can make an argument that they're innocent or guilty, but I think it's pretty clear that they try to get their story straight. And that's why telling the truth is so freaking important. But that's why initial investigation, where when you're questioning somebody, maybe you try recording it when you're questioning somebody, pull out a goddamn notepad. And then some people go, well, that's easy for you to say. Well, guess what? I show up and do my goddamn job and I got a leg lamp to prove it. It's a, it's a lamp you nin can poop. It's a major award and I want it.

[Nick]

Are there any parts of the trial that you've viewed or listened to so far that you think are worth discussing or, or that stand out to you as either being a, a highlight or a.

[Captain]

My big issue is, again, I think these people at the party, there's some kind of conspiracy going on to try to get their stories to match. I think it's coming out with the cross examinations that their stories don't match. I think they're picking and choosing what, like you said, what data from the phone is telling us. We're picking and choosing what is true and what is false. And I just can't believe that a phone would make up four hours earlier that you did a search. And if somebody in the IT world could prove me different than that. But I also think these are privileged, uppity liars. That's what they are. Does that make them murderers? I don't know. I wish I knew. I think you go back and look the cross examination from the defense. I think you should go back if you're interested in this case. And I think Jennifer's cross examination that was one day was going to go on to the next day. I think that's if you're the jury and you believe that search or you don't believe that she's telling you the truth. And I think she's constantly lying. I mean, she's constantly asking the defense, can I see my previous statements. Well, if you're telling this truth, if you're telling the truth, it's so much easier to remember. But when you're telling lies and you're trying not to get tripped up on those Lies. You're going to ask to see what you said before. And I think this is pathetic and it's a pathetic investigation and they should be ashamed of themselves. They let down John o', Keefe, they let down Karen, they let down every officer or every person. Those are civilians. Your job is to serve and protect. And you didn't serve or protect anybody in that house the day of the murders. And I think there are, I think there's so much. It's sick how privileged, entit and entitled some of these people come across. It's pathetic.

[Nick]

Well, they're likely very much on the defensive because they have been harassed by some of the people that believe that they are guilty of something.

[Captain]

Yeah, but they should be pissed off at law enforcement because if law enforcement does their job and they start clearing people and they get, they get to the bottom of it and actually establish a legitimate case.

[Nick]

Well, and what, what I'm saying here is that that's where us as the public, that's why it bothers me when I see people get so up in arms about these different cases about who, who they think is guilty and who, who's not guilty. We have a system in place to sort that out. Like let's, let's all take a step back, let's all take a breath here. And rather than harassing the Alberts or Jennifer Macabre or even Karen Reed, right. Rather than harassing these people, let's let law enforcement do their job. Expect law enforcement to do their job and let, and expect the system to do its job as well. And guess what? When somebody's locked up, you can, you can harass them as much as you want after that. Right? If, but here's, here's the other thing too. And I, I'm sorry to circle back to this, but I, I'm very angry about this. These privacy laws that they, they can't step in and help out to clear up these matters. Instead we're going to have the state and the defense pay air quote experts to come out and give their opinions and say this is my conclusion and this is how I arrived at this conclusion with this data, this information on these devices or information that's been deleted from these devices. Can't we just have, if it were to be Google that was used in that search, can't we just get Google to say here, here's what happened, here's how it happened and this is the information that proves how and when that happened.

[Captain]

It'd be a biased third party because

[Nick]

you get a big name. And I don't know that I want to be clear. I don't know for certain. It's been reported several times that it's been Google. I do not know 100% for myself that it was Google. But what I do know is a lot of these big Silicon Valley companies, we've made them billionaires, we've made our, our public, our masses have made them billions and billions of dollars. And I get that there are privacy laws in place. I get that us as individuals should have our own privacy. But I also get that John o', Keefe, if this information can help lead us to the truth, it should be delivered on a silver platter. And you want to cite privacy laws and protections that you've put in order. But guess what? I'll shout out a couple of our, our lovely, our, our fantastic sponsors. We, we love, we love you guys. We love the listeners, we love the sponsors. Simply Safe. They make great home security systems. Better help. If you need someone to talk to, give them a call. Quince, if you need to, if you need to fill up your closet with some good clothing items, guess what? All those, all those companies that would later cite privacy laws, they just made a recording of me or made, made note of me mentioning all of those brands. And at some point today on the devices that surround me now, as we have speech later today or tomorrow, they will present in an ad form to me one of, if not all three of those companies because they heard me say it. They heard me speak it into existence. Well, don't cite privacy laws when someone's life hangs in the balance. When you choose not to recognize those privacy laws, when you're trying to sell me some Pella windows.

[Captain]

Well, and this is just extra proof that I need to stop talking about party goats.

[Nick]

The trial is ongoing. I will, I will speak to the defense a little bit of, of some of the persons that have made statements. I do think that their statements have evol the word that keeps coming up by the defense when they're questioning absolutely these different individuals. We, we do need to point out again, there's scheduled to be a hundred witnesses called. And again, they're not all people that were there that night, but these could be expert witnesses. Medical examiner has not been called as of this recording. So there's going to be information that changes and gets better. Hopefully better and hopefully more clear as the trial continues.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

But for the persons again that are being questioned on the stand that I've been able to review so far leading up to this recording, the defense Keeps saying, well, has your. Your statement has evolved or your, your opinion of that night or recollection of that night has evolved, your story has changed. And I think that's a fair statement because like the captain's pointed out, and I do agree these statements seem to be slightly different than how they were delivered before in the exact details of what took place and when it took place has changed with, with these different people. But I also point this out. I've noticed the defense attorneys, when they're questioning these people, they. And this is a very tricky little thing that they do. And I think, I think it's a trick that they, they're using, purposely doing this on purpose where they'll ask a question and then change a word or two and ask that question again. And then they'll change a word or two and then ask the question again.

[Captain]

And it.

[Nick]

I, I will Defend. When Jennifer McCabe did point out to Alan Jackson, she said, he, he's like, why is this so difficult for you to answer? And she does point out, well, you keep changing the words to the same question. I'll defend her because that was, that was my take before she even said that in court. I thought, this is a little annoying because we know how important words are. Remember, we talked about in part one, the reporting of the conversation between Karen and I believe it was Jennifer, where it's been reported that Karen said, if John and I break up, I hope we can still be friends. And then the other reports are, she said, when John and I break up, I hope we can still be friends. Those two statements were, while only one word different, have entirely different meanings. Have entirely different meanings. So again, 100 people, 100 witnesses should be called. This trial is ongoing. A growing concern in this case and a very human statement and reminder. This was from CBS News. Overlooked in the uproar, some say, is the loss of Officer o' Keefe and his family's grief. The larger and louder the protest quote, the more it seemed as though John's legacy was falling into obscurity. End quote. So on that note, in closing, we will reference what the Boston Police Department, the statement that they issued on behalf of the o' Keefe family saying, quote, john was not only a dedicated police officer, he was an exemplary guardian, son, brother, uncle and friend. And we were so fortunate to have him as a part of our lives. When John's sister passed away, and then her husband did as well. A short time later, John welcomed the opportunity to raise his beloved niece and nephew and build a home and a life around their needs. People talk about someone who would give you the shirt off of their back, but that was truly who John was and it is heartbreaking for us to suddenly be talking about him in the past tense. We appreciate the outpouring of support we have received, but we ask for your privacy at this time and have nothing further to say as we mourn this unbearable loss. So rest in peace, John o', Keefe, and we await the outcome of this trial.

[Captain]

Want to thank everybody for joining us here in the garage each and every week. We love you. We love you. We love you for everything. True crime check out truecrimegarage.com while you're there. Sign up on the mailing list.

[Nick]

And until next week, safe travels to everyone heading out to CrimeCon. We can't wait to see you there. And while you're there, you better be good, you better be kind. And don't litter.

[Oregon Lottery Announcer]

Oregon Parks make an Oregon Summer. But what makes an Oregon Park? Well, Oregon Lottery Gameplay helps no matter the game, Mega Box, Video Lottery or Kino. And funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery Together, we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.