Legally Brunette: “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge Episode: Legally Brunette: “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Reed”
Release Date: April 16, 2025
Host/Authors: Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge
Produced By: iHeartPodcasts

---

Introduction

In this episode of Two Ts In A Pod, hosts Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge delve deep into the complexities of high-profile legal cases, focusing primarily on the ongoing trial of Karen Reed. The conversation navigates through updates on the Menendez case, recent developments in the Ruby Frankie case, and an extensive analysis of Karen Reed’s trial, highlighting crucial evidence and courtroom dynamics.

---

Updates on the Menendez Case

The episode begins with an update on the Menendez family case, providing listeners with the latest developments.

Key Points:

• Resentencing Hearing: The District Attorney (DA) Bachman attempted to withdraw the original motion for resentencing, previously filed by a more progressive DA who believed the Menendez brothers deserved release after serving 35 years. However, Judge Jessic has ruled that the resentencing will proceed on April 17th and 18th, despite the DA's change in stance.

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Simpson [01:34]: “The resentencing will go forward. So now it is scheduled for, for April 17th and 18th.”
• Shane [02:22]: “So on that day, what’s going to take place?”

Discussion:

• The DA's attempt to retract the motion reflects a shift towards a tougher stance, emphasizing that rehabilitation, rather than the original punishment’s severity, should determine the outcome.
• During the hearing, the prosecution introduced graphic crime scene images, which defense attorney Mark Garagos criticized for potentially re-traumatizing the Menendez family for political motives.

Impact:

• The inclusion of distressing visuals by the prosecution underscores the tension between showcasing the gravity of the crime and maintaining a fair, unbiased trial process.
• Family testimonies, such as that of Terry Baralt—Jose Menendez's sister battling cancer—highlight the personal toll the case has taken on those involved.

---

Ruby Frankie Case Update

Shifting focus, the hosts provide an update on the Ruby Frankie case, where Jody Hildebrandt challenges her child abuse convictions.

Key Points:

• Plea Deal and Conviction: In 2023, Jody Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse alongside Ruby Frankie. She and Frankie received sentences of up to 30 years in prison.
• Appeal Arguments: Hildebrandt claims her guilty plea was not fully informed, asserting that she did not understand her rights and that her legal counsel was ineffective.

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Simpson [08:00]: “She clearly was a part of what was going on. And then all of a sudden, she's sensitive. She's sensitive to their needs, and she doesn't want to abuse them any further.”
• Shane [08:25]: “Well, do they ask them a handful of questions.”

Discussion:

• The defense contends that Hildebrandt’s plea was coerced, lacking her full comprehension of the legal consequences.
• The prosecution maintains confidence in the validity of the plea, emphasizing that court procedures ensure defendants are aware of their rights.

Outcome Expectations:

• The court must determine whether Hildebrandt’s rights were infringed upon, which could potentially lead to a retrial or uphold her original conviction. However, the hosts express skepticism about the likelihood of overturning the conviction based on the current evidence.

---

In-Depth Analysis of Karen Reed Case

The bulk of the episode is dedicated to dissecting the trial of Karen Reed, the central focus of the episode.

Case Overview:

• Incident Description: Karen Reed is accused of striking John O'Keefe with her SUV in the early hours of January 29, 2022, resulting in his death. The prosecution alleges that Reed, while intoxicated, backed over O'Keefe, who was exiting her vehicle after an evening of drinking.
• Defense Argument: Reed’s defense team suggests that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house by other occupants, possibly involving an altercation with a dog, before his body was placed outside to simulate a hit-and-run accident.

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Simpson [16:39]: “She was very emphatic that she'd be allowed to change her clothes because she kept talking about how this is going to be on TV.”
• Shane [28:03]: “Are you doubting that? I said there's doubt.”
• Emily Simpson [62:21]: “What do I really think happened? The most plausible thing that could have happened that night is that she's drunk. He's drunk.”

Evidence and Testimonies:

1. Tail Light Damage:

   • Prosecution’s Claim: The broken tail light of Reed’s SUV corresponds to the damage observed when backing into O'Keefe’s vehicle.
   • Defense’s Argument: Suggests tampering with evidence post-incident, as 40+ fragments of the tail light were only found during a secondary search, raising suspicions about the integrity of the investigation.

2. Injuries to John O'Keefe:

   • Prosecution: Blunt force trauma from the vehicle collision.
   • Defense: Scratches and lacerations indicative of a dog attack, supported by an expert's testimony suggesting canine teeth marks.

3. Timeline Discrepancies:

   • Reed’s Actions: Dropped off O'Keefe at 12:24 PM, returned by 12:36 PM, and shortly after sent aggressive voicemails accusing him of infidelity.
   • Google Search for Hypothermia: Defense claims the search was conducted at 2:27 AM, post-incident, which could imply tampering, while Reed asserts it was done earlier to understand purported hypothermia.

4. Household Behavior:

   • Brian Albert’s Conduct: As a police sergeant, Albert’s inaction during the search and investigation raises questions about potential conflicts of interest or negligence.
   • Butt Dialing Evidence: Multiple unintended calls between household members at odd hours suggest chaotic communication during the incident, further complicating the timeline and intentions.

Courtroom Dynamics:

• Expert Testimonies:
  • Prosecution’s crash data expert’s analysis conflicted with Reed’s timeline.
  • Defense presented a forensic pathologist specializing in dog bites to support alternative injury claims.
• Jury Deliberation: The first trial ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury, with 8 jurors favoring vehicular manslaughter charges and 4 opposing.

Summary of Current Trial:

• The second trial is approaching completion, with pending final testimonies and evidence evaluations.

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Simpson [62:21]: “I don't have a verdict. If I were sitting on the jury and I was presented with all this evidence from the first trial, I would say not guilty.”
• Shane [55:01]: “More questions, more questions, and more questions.”

Host Perspectives:

• Both hosts express significant doubt regarding the prosecution’s case, highlighting inconsistencies and unanswered questions that create reasonable doubt.
• Emily Simpson: Advocates for considering all evidence, even if Reed appears unlikable, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.

---

Conclusions

The Two Ts In A Pod episode meticulously examines the multifaceted aspects of the Karen Reed trial, underscoring the intricacies of legal proceedings where evidence can be interpreted in conflicting ways. Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge navigate through procedural updates, expert testimonies, and behavioral analyses to present a comprehensive overview that encourages listeners to ponder the fine line between guilt and innocence.

Final Thoughts:

• The Karen Reed case exemplifies how complex legal cases can lead to polarized opinions, especially when key evidence is circumstantial or contradictory.
• The hosts advocate for a judicial system that meticulously evaluates all evidence, ensuring that justice is served without bias or premature conclusions.

---

Additional Remarks

Listeners are encouraged to engage with the hosts via direct messages for further discussions, comments, or questions regarding the cases covered. Teddi and Tamra emphasize the importance of informed discourse in understanding and interpreting high-profile legal battles.

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Simpson [63:12]: “And you're going to tell me if cops are on scene and first responders are on scene and she's saying, I hit him, I hit him, then nobody writes that down.”
• Shane [55:01]: “Results in more questions, more questions and more questions.”

---

Two Ts In A Pod continues to provide insightful and balanced discussions on legal matters, aiming to inform and engage its audience with thorough analysis and thoughtful commentary.

Transcript

[T Mobile Ad]

Like your must watch list, our network is all over the place because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network. Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepnswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service support in 90 plus days device ineligible carrier and timely redemption required. Card has no cash access and expires in six months.

[Emily Simpson]

Hi guys. Welcome to another episode of Legally Burnett. I'll be your host today, Emily Simpson with my co host Shane Just Shane. We're going to first start off with a little update of Menendez because there's been a lot going on in the press with that. We also have a little update on Ruby Frankie, just because we like to all the cases that we've talked about, we definitely like to go back if there's been any changes in anything and discuss that. And all of you, not all of you, but a lot of you have been asking, can you please do a breakdown of Karen Reed? So we will get into that. And I assume that's going to be a lengthy conversation. So anyway, let's start with Menendez. First of all, there was a hearing on Friday and this was not the actual resentencing hearing. This was the DA Bachman actually trying to withdraw the DA's original bid for them to be resent. So does that make sense to you? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[Shane]

Yeah. He's trying to take back the motion for request for resentencing.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. So the original motion was filed with the former da, who was more progressive and he felt like they should be resentenced and that they had served enough time. So now Hockman is saying, wait a minute, we don't support it anymore. We have a new da. We have a new view on the whole thing. We don't want them to be allowed to go before the judge and have a possible resentencing. So this hearing on Friday was basically the judge determining whether the resentencing hearing will go forward. And Judge Jessic, after hearing both sides, decided that the resentencing will go forward. So now it is scheduled for, for April 17th and 18th.

[Shane]

So on that day.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah.

[Shane]

Should we learn, should we learn anything? Or is it, is it going to just be another continued date?

[Emily Simpson]

Okay, that is a great question.

[Shane]

What's going to take place on that day.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. So basically, both sides are going to argue, and Hockman is going to argue that they're liars, that they lied about the abuse that they're in, they should stay in prison. And then obviously, the defense is going to argue that they've been in prison long enough, it's been 35 years, they're supported by their family, and that they've been rehabilitated. And that's the big thing with the resentencing. It's about rehabilitation.

[Shane]

So it's not about. It's not about whether the punishment fit the crime. It's where are they now and have they kind of been rehabilitated, as you just said, to be able to go back out into society. So it's not a matter of was it too harsh of a punishment.

[Emily Simpson]

Right, right, right.

[Shane]

Okay.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah. And so as far as the decision, I asked Alex, who is one of the Menendez's defense attorneys. She's been on the podcast before. And I said, is it possible that Judge Jessic makes a decision that day during the hearings, or would he go back and take it under, advise, think about it, and then issue a decision later? And she said that he's one of those judges that does make decisions from the bench, so it is possible that he could decide the resentencing fate on those days.

[Shane]

Oh, wow. So wait, when's it? What's the date?

[Emily Simpson]

April 17th and 18th.

[Shane]

Are you gonna go?

[Emily Simpson]

If I could get an invite, I would go. Maybe I can make that happen. During the hearing, the prosecution presented graphic crime scene images, which sparked outrage from defense attorney Mark Garagos. He accused the district Attorney's office of re traumatizing the Menendez family for political purposes. So apparently this presentation lasted nearly three hours, and prosecutors argued that the brothers still hunkered down in their bunker of lies and deception, showing. No, let's see. This is where.

[Shane]

Well, okay, but why are they showing graphic images and stuff? Are they just going for shock value to try to turn away people that think they should be released?

[Emily Simpson]

I think that the prosecution is focusing on the horrendousness and the violence of the crime so that they can take away from whether they've been rehabilitated or not. We need to focus on how long they've been in prison, what they've done in prison, their prison record, and if they've been rehabilitated. But among among the family that was at this hearing was Terry Baralt, who is the sister of Jose Menendez. She was speaking out for the first time in decades. She usually doesn't speak. She's battling cancer. She says that they. That the Menendez brothers, they are like the boys that I didn't have. She's battling colon cancer currently and said she's worried that she won't live long enough to see her nephews freed. She tries to go and see them as much as she can, but it's hard because she lives in New Jers and she's also 85.

[Shane]

Okay, but those aren't reasons to let him out either, right? Well, that's an unfortunate scenario, but that's not a reason to let someone out because a relative of some sort may not live long enough to see them.

[Emily Simpson]

No, I don't think that's. I don't think her age is. Is something that should be taken into consideration. I think what they take into consideration is that all the remaining family members, I think there's like 14 or something, all think that they should be released. Right.

[Shane]

You were just talking about how they were sharing the story of her having, you know, fighting cancer and her age and not being able to see them.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, basically, I was talking about her because there was a TMZ article that just came out recently that she had to be hospitalized after this hearing because of the shock of them showing graphic photos of the crime scene. And under Marcy's law, apparently, you're supposed to be warned if there's going to be graphic crime scene images shown. There was no warning.

[Shane]

Okay, so again, her having colon cancer and her age has nothing to do with what the judge should take into consideration for resentencing?

[Emily Simpson]

No, it's not. But I'm just telling you about her because she claims that the reason, or the family claims that the reason that she ended up hospitalized was because the prosecution did not forewarn them that they were going to show shocking crime scene, very graphic images of Jose and Kitty. According to the justice for Eric and Lyle Coalition, this aunt, Terry Barault, was found unresponsive in her hotel room after attending the recent court hearing where graphic crime scene images were shown without prior warning. So that's where we're at with Menendez. So obviously, we will keep you updated on Menendez. They are going to have the actual resentencing hearing. So we will have to actually. We will follow that and see.

[Shane]

You should go to the hearing. You could do a live podcast from the actual courthouse.

[Emily Simpson]

Okay. I don't know if they would let.

[Shane]

It get on that. All right, let me know how it.

[Emily Simpson]

Goes, because I don't have anything else to do. All right, let's do a little update on the Ruby Frankie case. Jody Hildebrandt challenges the high profile child abuse conviction. This was an ABC article. In 2023, Jody Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse alongside Ruby Frankie. She and Frankie both accepted plea deals and were sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. At that time, Jody Hildebrandt said one of the reasons she didn't want to go to trial was to protect the children from having to emotionally relive the trauma. I like how this woman was involved in using these children within her own home. So she clearly was a part of what was going on. And then all of a sudden, she's sensitive. She's sensitive to their needs, and she doesn't want to abuse them any further.

[Shane]

She didn't want it to be public, and she didn't want to be outed any more than she was. Little did she know they were going to make a documentary on her and it was gonna. All this raw footage was gonna be shown.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

So jokes on her.

[Emily Simpson]

In the petition, which was filed on March 24, Hildebrandt claims her guilty plea was unlawfully induced and that she did not fully understand what she was agreeing to. She writes, quote, I did not know my rights, and my attorney did not inform me of them.

[Shane]

Yeah. Okay.

[Emily Simpson]

So on one side, she's saying, look, I just agreed to the plea deal because I didn't want to have the children testify. We didn't want to go to trial. But now I don't understand my rights, and I didn't know that I was taking a plea deal.

[Shane]

Yeah. Oh, I forgot. My defense is I'm an idiot, and I wasn't paying attention. No, because the judge asks the defendant directly those questions about the white. The rights that they're waiving, and if they know what they're entering and they ask him, and that's the time that the defense or the defendant answers directly, not the attorney. The defendant answers directly to the judge, which is, you know, it's not often that the defendant is speaking directly to the judge, and in this case, they are, because they want to know there's no one in between us, between the judge and the defendant in making this decision.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

So don't they ask them, like, several things, like, do you know your rights? Do you know the penalty involved? Do you know that it can't be retracted? Or whatever? I mean, they ask him a handful of questions. Make sure, like, you know, if you agree to this, you are doomed and your fate lies in my hands and I decide what you will serve.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

Maybe her kids didn't know what they were in for. Did you ever think about that? They didn't know their rights.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, it wasn't her kids. She.

[Shane]

Jody's the. Whatever.

[Emily Simpson]

The kids.

[Shane]

The kids.

[Emily Simpson]

The kids. She's the.

[Shane]

She's the other piece of trash. Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

She's not the mom piece of trash. She's the. The other piece of trash.

[Shane]

Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

She argues that her plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. And it includes claims that her legal counsel was ineffective and that prosecutors failed to properly notify her of the charges and that she did not comprehend the consequences. So Eric Clark, an attorney for Ruby Frankie, responded in a statement to ABC News saying that they were not shocked but weren't exactly expecting it either. He added, I'm super confident that the entry of her plea will hold up and that she won't be able to show that she knowingly and involuntarily did not enter it. I mean, they have that. I mean, I'm sure they have. I mean, they record the trials and they have the trial transcript. I'm sure the judge went through like you said and asked her all the questions. So we will see what happens with that. The court will now, the court will have to determine whether Hildebrandt's rights were actually violated in the process. And if this could justify a do over of her case, I'm going to go with no. They're going to deny her motion and she's going to spend a lot of time in prison. All right, let's move on to Karen Reid. I have done a lot of research on Karen Reed lately and thank you, so many of you. I get so many DMS on Karen Reed. It is a very controversial case. And as we discussed earlier, we did a very brief episode on Karen Reed. If you want to go back and listen to it, I would say it's more comedic because Shane knew nothing about the case. So all he does is tell me that she's guilty. I know enough that she's guilty through the entire time. We did a very brief overview of just allegedly what happened that night. But now I'm excited that we're going to take a deep dive into Karen Reed, into her first trial and into a lot of the controversial evidence. And I will tell you, I think this is such a hot button case because there really isn't a smoking gun. There isn't anything. There's not an aha moment where you say, yes, it was Definitely a cover up or yes, she definitely did it. I think you can look at all the evidence and you can weigh it and you can see both sides and that's where it's. This is where this case has become so heated because you have a very, very tight line drawn in the sand or in the snow with this case. You've got people that are hardcore supporters that it is a cover up and Karen Reed is innocent. And you have hardcore supporters that say she backed her SUV into him and killed him that night. And so we're going to get into it. Let's just go into a little summary of what happened. So if you want to watch, it's on Max. It's also on the Animal Planet, but it's called A Body in the the Trial of Karen Reed. And it explores the case through interviews with Karen Reed as well as her legal team. It also shows a lot of scenes of the war room. This is where they rented some conference room or a hotel room or something. And it's really interesting because it shows the attorneys and Karen Reed actually discussing the case and witnesses and what they're going to ask. And you know, there was a lot of times when I was wondering to myself, is this docu series helpful to Karen or is it detrimental? It shows a lot of her, her thoughts, it shows her conversations with her attorneys. It just makes me wonder, is this helpful to her or is this detrimental to her?

[Shane]

Well, it's not. Is it? Generally speaking, it's never helpful for the defendant to speak. Right? I mean, I don't think so.

[Emily Simpson]

I mean, I. Here's my.

[Shane]

I mean if you do a good job hearing like, oh, they're a good liar. If you do a bad job, it's like, yeah, we knew she was lying. I was tough.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah. I was just interested thinking that her legal team and her really allowed them to put themselves out there and be judged by the public. After this first trial, I will tell you my thoughts. I don't find Karen Reed very likable, but that doesn't mean that she's guilty. It just means that I don't find her very likable.

[T Mobile Ad]

Like your must watch list, our network is all over the place because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are On America's largest 5G network Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card allow 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service report in 90 plus days device and eligible carrier and timely redemption. Required card has no cash access and expires in six months.

[Emily Simpson]

So the trial of Karen Reid explores the case through interview Karen Reed as well as her legal team, including her attorneys, David Yanetti and Alan Jackson and Elizabeth Little. So those are the three key attorneys for Karen Reed. The docu series progresses chronologically, starting with her arrest and district court arraignment, following by her indictment on second degree murder charges. And this was in June of 2022. It also covers her trial, which began in April of 2024. The series features previously unseen footage, including video of Reed's arrests related to the murder charge. I will say I did think it was interesting that she was very. She was very emphatic that she'd be allowed to change her clothes because she kept talking about how this is going to be on tv. And I was like, I can understand that you want to change your clothes.

[Shane]

You would do that if you killed me. You would be. You'd still be getting glam and everything.

[Emily Simpson]

I'd be like, wait, you can't arrest me. I have to call my glam team first. So apparently when she was arrested, in.

[Shane]

Fact, if you were getting arrested in any situation, that would probably be the team you'd call first. You'd use your one foot phone call. It's a call to call RIRI to come over and do your hair so you look good for your mug shot.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, if it's. Well, I know if I had a mug shot.

[Shane]

You have not denied it once. You have agreed with everything I've said so far. Well, it's fine.

[Emily Simpson]

It is what it is. All right, let's talk about the prosecution and the defense. So according to prosecutors, Karen reed struck John O'Keefe with her SUV while dropping him off at a fellow officer's home in the early hours of January 29th of 2022. Now, the officer is a sergeant and his name is Brian Albert. He is a key player in this case, so you need to remember his name. According to prosecutors, Karen reed struck John O'Keefe with her SUV while dropping him off at a fellow officer's home. This is 34 Fairview. Reid's defense team has presented an alternative version of events. Basically, what the prosecution is saying is that O'Keefe and Karen Reed and some friends went out drinking. They had a lot of drinks. I think she thought she talks about the docu series, how many drinks she.

[Shane]

Has so she volunteered that information?

[Emily Simpson]

Yes. Then after they go to two bars, they get invited to a house party at Brian Albert's home. And again, he's a sergeant and a police department. According to Karen in this docu series, she doesn't really know him and she doesn't know a lot of people there, so she doesn't know if they're welcome. So when they drive to the home, she stops outside the home and she tells John, go into the house and see if we're welcome there. And she waits in the car and she's like, call me or text me, like, let me know if I should come in.

[Shane]

That's weird.

[Emily Simpson]

This is where everything goes blurry and dark. And I don't understand why no one knows what happens within this, like five or six.

[Shane]

Well, no, people do know what happened. Well, why isn't it known to.

[Emily Simpson]

Why is it exactly. Why is it not known that when allegedly she pulls up to the house and he gets out of the car to go inside the house, no one knows if he actually went into the house or if he got hit by her? And then we just know later that his body is found in the front yard laying in the snow and he's dead. Why does. There's no.

[Shane]

Was a house full of cops.

[Emily Simpson]

There was. Brian Higgins was there, who is an ATF agent, and there was Brian Albert, who's a cop who owned the house. And I think those were the only two cops. And then there were some other. There were some other women there, like Jen McCabe, who is another player in this. And then there were some other people, and I think there were some teenagers, but there was a party.

[Shane]

Did they look at fingerprints in the house or DNA in the house?

[Emily Simpson]

We will get to that, but I am just. My mind is reeling that no one really knows what happened within that time frame. Karen Reed claims that she saw John enter the breezeway door. I think it's suspicious whether she actually saw him enter the house or not, because I don't believe that that was initially something that she said. I think that was something that she said later that she did see him enter the.

[Shane]

Oh, like, you mean initially she just said, I dropped him off?

[Emily Simpson]

I believe so.

[Shane]

As if she dropped off and drove away. And now she's saying, no, I saw him going.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. And now everyone within the house claims that he never entered the house. So here we are with these conflicting stories. So Reed's defense team has presented an alternative version of events. They suggest that O'Keefe entered the residence at 34 Fairview Road, where a gathering was taking place, and that he may have been assaulted inside the home, possibly even attacked by a dog, before ultimately being found unresponsive outside in the snow. So the defense is claiming that this is a cover up, that John did enter the home and that there was some type of altercation maybe between Brian Higgins, who is an ATF agent, and John O'Keefe. Because previously there was some flirty, sexy text going on between Brian Higgins's ATF agent and Karen Reed while she was dating John O'Keefe.

[Shane]

What did the text say?

[Emily Simpson]

Oh, my gosh. First of all, I had to watch the scene. Like the testimony of him reading all the text between the two of them. And I was so uncomfortable.

[Shane]

Why was he reading them?

[Emily Simpson]

Because when he was on the stand, the defense attorney, when he was cross examining him, had him pull up the.

[Shane]

Had had this on the screen to come from him.

[Emily Simpson]

They wanted him to be uncomfortable. And it was so uncomfortable. It was like, do you like me? I like you. I think you're hot. I thought you were hot. From Joan. I mean, it was. First of all, it sounded so juvenile that these are like 40 year olds.

[Shane]

Like Annabelle's text. Yeah. Reading hers, it'd probably be the same content.

[Emily Simpson]

It's like, you're hot. Do you think I'm hot?

[Shane]

I think you're hot. Wasn't there anything juicy in it?

[Emily Simpson]

No, but that was.

[Shane]

That was it. Yeah. That was just like, you look good.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah. But it was really uncomfortable. It just sounded weird.

[Shane]

I thought there'd be something more.

[Emily Simpson]

Oh, you wanted like.

[Shane]

Like what? Are you juicy?

[Emily Simpson]

Juicy? I mean, I guess they weren't that juicy. They were just embarrassing.

[Shane]

I like you. I like you. I like you.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, I liked you from jump. I don't even know what that means. What does that mean? And she goes from jump. Wins.

[Shane]

Jump.

[Emily Simpson]

And I don't know.

[Shane]

Totally Sigma. Is that one of the. I think so.

[Emily Simpson]

I don't know. Is jump.

[Shane]

I don't know.

[Emily Simpson]

Anyway, all right.

[Shane]

When I was a kid, it was just cool, awesome and like rad. Like, those were the slang words.

[Emily Simpson]

You didn't say that you liked a girl from jump?

[Shane]

No. Okay. So anyway, I want to jumper.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, I can imagine that you said that. So here we have two competing theories of what actually happened that evening. So we have the prosecution claiming that Karen Reed was drunk, that she and John were fighting. Because they did have some texts earlier in the day where they were like, not getting along. They were arguing with each other that she pulls.

[Shane]

Were their text saying Just that she's.

[Emily Simpson]

She's always like accusing him of, like, having affairs with other women. And I think they just had a tumultuous relationship.

[Shane]

Was there anything, like, relevant, like, like, I'm gonna rear end you and run you over and there was no smoking gun, leave you in front of someone's house?

[Emily Simpson]

No, there was nothing like that. So basically the prosecution is claiming that Karen Reed pulls up to 34 Fairview, this is around 12:30, that John gets out of the car and that there was some argument or something going on between the two of them, and that Karen Reed does a three point turn and within her doing that, she backs over him and that he ends up laying on the lawn dead. She claims.

[Shane]

Wait, she's drunk too, right?

[Emily Simpson]

She's drunk, he's drunk, she's drunk. He actually is carrying a cocktail glass with a drink in his hand as he's leaving the car. Like he brought it.

[Shane]

Like a roadie.

[Emily Simpson]

He had a roadie. Yeah.

[Shane]

With him.

[Emily Simpson]

And that glass is found at the scene, around him, around the body. There's a cocktail glass broken at the scene.

[Shane]

Can I just say this is why drinking's stupid? Sorry, it is.

[Emily Simpson]

No, I. I mean, now you have.

[Shane]

All these professionals that have no idea what's going on or covering it up or whatever, and someone's dead stupid.

[Emily Simpson]

Okay, but let's talk about it. Let's just talk about the cocktail glass for a second. Because I never actually put this together until I just said it. But if. If what the defense claims is that he was killed inside the house and then he was like drug out onto the lawn to make it look like.

[Shane]

He also brought his glass and threw it next to him. They also take your cocktail glass too, right? Right.

[Emily Simpson]

Then how is the cocktail glass that he was carrying now broken and around his body? Unless he carried the cocktail glass into the house, got in an altercation.

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

Apparently the dog attacked him. Then they take him out onto the lawn and they're like, be sure to get the pieces of that coffee cocktail glass and put those around the body so that it. When we lie and say that Karen.

[Shane]

Reed, very sophisticated killers.

[Emily Simpson]

I mean, if there's just a lot.

[Shane]

Maybe, maybe he went in with the cocktail. They said, you can't bring your own drinks or you're too drunk. And he said, not unless you're gonna pry it for my cold, dead hands. And there was a fight that ensued, and it resulted in him being dead outside with the cocktail.

[Emily Simpson]

I like all. I'm sure we are barely touching the surface of this case and you have already come up with alternative theory, so.

[Shane]

I'm trying to solve it.

[Emily Simpson]

All right, so anyway, here we go. Let's get back to his injuries. And his injuries are very suspect as well. Now he has blunt force trauma to his head. He also has.

[Shane]

And that could not have been from the car. Is that determined?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, I know that there was testimony from medical examiners saying, yes, it could be consistent. And then there's other people that were like, not really consistent.

[Shane]

Okay, so it's not one way or another.

[Emily Simpson]

No, but here's my question. If he has blunt force trauma to his head and he's a tall guy, 200 pounds, 62, something like that.

[Shane]

So similar to me.

[Emily Simpson]

Yes. Exact same build as Shane.

[Shane]

Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

So how does he get blunt force trauma to his head from an suv? If she backed.

[Shane]

And I don't know this, but he could have. If. If she ran into him, he could have hit his head on the trunk, he could have hit his head on the ground or on this or on.

[Emily Simpson]

The curve or something, I guess. So you're saying she could have backed into him and the force could have been so forceful that he flies backwards and he hits his head and then he gets blown away.

[Shane]

But then it's like, well, does he have any other damage to other parts of his body?

[Emily Simpson]

Yes. So his arm.

[Shane]

And this is.

[Emily Simpson]

This is where the defense really comes in. His arm has a lot of like, it looks like scratches and lacerations and puncture wounds. And now there was another person, an expert witness that testified that those injuries.

[Shane]

Were consistent with a dog with one arm or one arm just on his arm.

[Emily Simpson]

Just one arm. I believe it was his right arm.

[Shane]

Which is kind of. If he's right handed, you'd be using as defense.

[Emily Simpson]

And you know, I looked at. Here's a picture of it if you want to look. And I'll tell you, I have three dogs and I've seen a dog bite and they do the teeth do puncture like.

[Shane]

It looks like scratches from a dog. Who said there were bites?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, they said it was. It was consistent. The expert witness that apparently was an expert in dog bites said that it looked like scratches and puncture wounds from like canine teeth. So.

[Shane]

So what was your point?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, my point is, is that Brian Albert, who lives at 34 Fairview, where apparently Karen Reed, saw John O'Keefe go into the house, owned a German shepherd named Chloe, who apparently had a propensity to bite and was aggressive. And now we have John O'Keefe in his front yard with a Cocktail glass with wounds that look similar to a dog attack on one arm. The dog was also rehomed after this.

[Shane]

Happened, so I don't know. But Chloe does not live with Brian's protection program.

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, Chloe is in the witness. No, the dog. Witness protection program.

[Shane]

Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

So there's that. So keep that in the back of your mind as we go through the evidence. Apparently. Let's just do a little more detailed into his actual injuries. He had traumatic brain injury. O'Keefe had a skull fracture and brain bleed. He had facial injuries, cuts, bruises, and abrasions on his face. And he had rib fractures, multiple ribs.

[Shane]

Sounds like more. That sounds like he got hit by a car. It's not like a dog attacked him.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, I think with the dog theory, it's that.

[Shane]

I mean, it is questionable why there's scratches like that.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, but here's the thing with the dog theory, and I understand this. They're saying that if he did, the defense is claiming he entered the house and he got an altercation with the men.

[Shane]

Right.

[Emily Simpson]

And that there was a fight and the dog got involved. Because, you know, Togo, we have a German shepherd. If I got in a fistfight with someone, my dog's gonna jump in.

[Shane]

There's no doubt about that. I don't know.

[Emily Simpson]

I know. And so I.

[Shane]

Our dog is scared of trash cans. What else is he scared of? Something else. Like, all burglar has to do and come in our house is bring a trash can.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, it would have to be.

[Shane]

And he'll run.

[Emily Simpson]

He doesn't like the big trash cans, the street trash cans. He's not scared of, like, waste baskets.

[Shane]

Yeah, he's tough. He can handle the waste basket.

[Emily Simpson]

He is. Anyway, O'Keefe had bite marks and scratches on his arm, and there were lacerations on his head and body.

[Shane]

Well, this all sounds like reasonable doubt.

[Emily Simpson]

Really?

[Shane]

Yeah. Are you doubting that? I said there's doubt.

[Emily Simpson]

No, I agree with you. I mean, at the end, by the time we get.

[Shane]

I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. I'm saying it's all circumstantial. It seems to walk a very fine line. It's like, on the fence. It could go either way.

[Emily Simpson]

That's why this case.

[Shane]

And so that's reasonable doubt. And if it's reasonable doubt, it's a legal standard. It's not a moral standard or a hunch or whether she did or didn't do it. It's whether legally there's enough, and there isn't enough so far. Okay.

[Emily Simpson]

So, crash reconstruction specialists previously testified in her first trial that O'Keeffe's head injuries did not align with trauma typically seen in pedestrian vehicle collisions, and that the condition of Reed's vehicle did not match the damage more than what expected seen.

[Shane]

Okay, well, maybe this is a different situation.

[Emily Simpson]

Additionally, a retired ER doctor and forensic pathologist, who. This is a person that was an expert in dog bites, testified for the defense, suggesting that some of O'Keefe's injuries, particularly those to his arm, were more consistent with a possible dog attack. Now, I will tell you in the. In the trial, they tested. They did DNA testing for dog DNA, and there was no dog DNA found, but they found pig DNA. Now, when they said that, and I was watching and they said pig DNA, the first thing I thought of was, well, dog treats are a lot of times pig ears and made of pig. So maybe the pig DNA came from the dog's mouth, but the dog, I don't know, had a dog treat or something. I don't know. It's just. There's no dog DNA found. There's pig DNA.

[Shane]

That's unusual. There's. And there's no pigs in the vicinity.

[Emily Simpson]

Not that I know of.

[Shane]

Well, I don't know. Maybe there's a pig farm near Fairview Lane or whatever.

[Emily Simpson]

It's 34 Fairview.

[Shane]

I keep doxing these people. You keep. You want someone to go out there and.

[Emily Simpson]

No, I just love the address because they say it over and over. It's all like, what went down at 34 Fairview? Well, Brian Albert has sold the house since then, and apparently.

[Shane]

Yeah. And he rehomed his dog.

[Emily Simpson]

He re home the dog, sold the house, and apparently he redid the base. The basement floors. Right. Right after this incident occurred as well. But apparently he had already redone the basement floors in 2018, and then he redid them.

[Shane]

Well, they should. Look, in 2018. Were there any suspicious deaths in 2018 on this Fairview Lane? No.

[Emily Simpson]

There are no suspicions.

[Shane]

You don't know that there might be. He redid the basement?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, no, I think he originally redid the basement because the basement needed to be redone. And then he said.

[Shane]

You're saying he already. He just did it. Why is he doing it again? I was thinking he probably does it every time he kills someone at his house.

[Emily Simpson]

No. No. Okay, I think.

[Shane]

Did he also re home a dog in 2018?

[Emily Simpson]

Maybe. But he did redo the basement flooring in 2018, and then someone, like, a contractor came forward and said that he redid the basement flooring. Again in 2022 after this incident occurred. And also one more thing. There was never any investigation done inside of this house. They did not do any fingerprinting. They did not look for any blood. They did not look for DNA.

[Shane]

That would have answered a lot of questions one way or another.

[Emily Simpson]

Right? I mean, really the main.

[Shane]

If they found no DNA of his in the house, that would have said something. If they found some DNA, depending on where it was or fingerprints, that would say something.

[Emily Simpson]

Exactly. But I'm telling you.

[Shane]

Did they have ring footage?

[Emily Simpson]

No, there's no ring footage outside. Did they have ring cameras on the 34 Fairview? Yeah, that I don't know about. But there is no footage that I have seen anywhere. There is a lot of footage of Karen Reed pulling into John O'Keeffe's house. There's ring footage of her SUV at his home.

[Shane]

Whose footage is that?

[Emily Simpson]

His. It's at. She goes, after she drops him off, she goes to his house. The biggest question in this case, if you had to boil this case down to one question, it would be whether or not John O'Keefe actually entered the house that night.

[Shane]

You're saying one question to the. Yeah, you're right. That's a question that would then answer a lot of other questions.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

Because it would refute their claim that he never came in the house.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

It would support her claim that he did enter the house.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

And then now it's kind of like the burden lightly speaking the burdens on them to explain what happened. He went in the house. Now tell us. Right.

[Emily Simpson]

And as far as I know, I don't believe he had ever visited that home before. That was his first time being there. So I'm saying why was that inside of this home not investigated? Why were fingerprints? Why did they not look for blood? Why did they not exactly.

[Shane]

And that's the Fed agent too.

[Emily Simpson]

Exactly. And that's the argument as to why this is a cover up and not just a basic hit and run.

[T Mobile Ad]

Like your must watch list. Our network is all over the place because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network. Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualify unlock device credit service port in 90 plus days device ineligible carrier and timely redemption required card has no cash access and expires in six months.

[Emily Simpson]

Let's get to the broken tail light. The broken tail light is another thing that just like.

[Shane]

Okay. The broken tail lights on her car.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, there's a lot with this bourbon tail light.

[Shane]

I got to.

[Emily Simpson]

I got to break this down. Reid's defense team has offered an explanation for the damage to her SUV's tail light, suggesting it may have occurred when she accidentally backed into O'Keeffe's vehicle while leaving to search for him on January 29th. So after she leaves the scene, she goes to John O'Keeffe's house and goes to sleep at his house. She also calls him, like, 50 times or something and leaves voicemail, screaming at him, calling him a pervert, which is a little.

[Shane]

What? Well, I was gonna say, why'd you leave voicemails? Said, taxes, people don't do voicemails. So much more, but I guess she was so angry, she wanted to scream at him.

[Emily Simpson]

But here's the thing. If she hit him and ran over him, and then she goes to his house. Was she. And she's drunk. Did she. Was she really, like, a. A criminal mastermind that she's like, now I'm going to call him 50 times and scream at him and call him a pervert?

[Shane]

Does she have any other phone calls.

[Emily Simpson]

Or text during this time?

[Shane]

Like, not guy like, do you still like me? You know?

[Emily Simpson]

No. To Brian Higgins? No, not that I know of. But it's basically her leaving lots of voicemail.

[Shane]

I'm single now. Do you still like me? Like, you shouldn't say anything like that.

[Emily Simpson]

No. She didn't claim to be single yet. No. All right, Pro there. Okay. So there is ring camera footage that shows Reed hitting his vehicle in the same spot her headlight or her tail light is broken. So there is ring footage that shows her backing her SUV out and she backs her SUV into John O'Keefe's SUV. His SUV is parked like this. She backs out and hits it like this. And you can see his car rocking.

[Shane]

You don't necessarily see contacts.

[Emily Simpson]

It looks like there's contact made. You can see the car tilt a little bit. His car, so it looks like.

[Shane]

Is his car rocking?

[Emily Simpson]

His car's rocking. So apparently she backs out of his garage. This is to go look for him because he hasn't come home because he's.

[Shane]

Yeah. So she calls him 50 times and yells and screams at him, and she's worried that he's not home.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, she. She calls and screams at him because she thinks she. This is where her phone calls and her voicemails to him, I think, are good evidence for the defense, even though the prosecutors like to use it to show that they have a volatile relationship. But if you look at the timing, she's calling him and leaving these crazy voicemails after he's already dead and he's in the yard. Apparently, this is after she's driven away from. From Brian Albert's home. So if she's calling him and screaming at him and accusing him of having an affair with some woman inside the house, and that's why he never came back out to me, that shows her mens. Rea. That she thinks that he's inside the house having an affair with the. With a woman. And that's why he's not answering or calling.

[Shane]

Alibi.

[Emily Simpson]

I. You know, I understand.

[Shane]

Refute some motive.

[Emily Simpson]

I understand that. But her voicemails, I mean, if she's actually.

[Shane]

Usually those calls are more like, hey, baby, where are you?

[Emily Simpson]

Right. I haven't heard from you. I saw you walk into Brian O'Keeffe's house right now. You're not coming out. Yeah, you went to the side porch area. What's that call?

[Shane]

Where are you?

[Emily Simpson]

Right, but she's not. She's saying, I effing hate you, John. I hate you. You're a pervert, John. Are you effing that girl, John? So, to me, it's just. It's her mental state that she thinks he's inside the house having an affair with some woman, and that's why he's not responding to her.

[Shane]

Why would she drop him off at a house where she thinks he's gonna have an affair?

[Emily Simpson]

Because he was supposed to come back out and tell her if she was welcome to come in or not.

[Shane]

She.

[Emily Simpson]

Wait. I think she only waited, like, five minutes. It wasn't very long. The timeline is very short from when she pulled up.

[Shane]

Well, the timeline that she.

[Emily Simpson]

No, I'll tell you there's a timeline because they. They have a cell phone data of his phone being at 34 Fairview. When they pull up, I. I remember there's two.

[Shane]

So that time's not really disputed then, right?

[Emily Simpson]

No, I'll tell you. I actually, I. Okay, here's the timeline.

[Shane]

It's.

[Emily Simpson]

This is very short. 12:24. She arrives at 34 Fairview. 12:36. Karen reads her phone, connects to John O'Keefe's Wi Fi. John O'Keefe is. That's his house. So she drops him off at 12:24, and she's back at his house by 12:36. I can't do math, but that's not a very long time. What is that, 12 minutes? So there's only a 12 minute time period between the time she drops him off and that she arrives back at his house. She arrives at his house at 12:36. At 12:37 she sends her first crazy voicemail saying, john, I effing hate you. So this time frame of her dropping him off, thinking he goes in the house and then allegedly running over him and then driving back to his house is 12 minutes. So it's a really short time period. Anyway, let's get back to the tail light. So the defense claims that she backed into his car. That's where her tail light was damaged. The thing is there were 40 something pieces of tail light found around his body. But the tail light pieces were found during a second search, not the initial search.

[Shane]

Yeah, after the first search when they sprinkled some tail light. Okay, so let's debris. So let's listen. Then they're like come back and search.

[Emily Simpson]

So they find his body on the lawn at 6 o'clock in the morning and the police come and they use a snowblower to clear away the snow because there was a blizzard that night. This is another problem is the weather that night. So as they're blowing away the snow and they were covering the body, there's no tail light pieces found? None. Then a search team goes back hours later after her car has been confiscated by police and taken into police custody. Then when a second search team goes back to search the law, the yard and the, the crime area, they find 40 something pieces of tail light. So basically you have to think, okay, when they found his body originally in the snow at 6 o'clock in the.

[Shane]

Morning, well, what's their explanation? Provided in the first time because of the snow.

[Emily Simpson]

But they had a snowblower and they were blowing. They didn't.

[Shane]

There's 40 pieces and they didn't find one. Not one? Yeah, not one.

[Emily Simpson]

But when they go back and search later, they find 40 something pieces.

[Shane]

I'd say air on the side of caution. And put them all in jail.

[Emily Simpson]

Everybody, just everyone involved.

[Shane]

Yes. You're all crooked one way or another.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah. But let me ask you because you're.

[Shane]

I mean, I'm saying that lightly of course. I don't mean that sort of.

[Emily Simpson]

You've been in a lot of car.

[Shane]

Crashes, namely with you as the driver. Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

Here's my question. If she backed into him and hit him with the, the tail light Would it break into 40 something pieces? I feel like that's like an explosion.

[Shane]

That you've backed into my car. There were no tail light pieces, just a lot of damage to my car.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

But I followed by Emily running in the house screaming at me that it was my fault that I parked a car. Yeah, excuse me for parking in the driveway, Emily. Anyway, back she says, then you say.

[Emily Simpson]

I didn't see your car. Really?

[Shane]

Because you have beepers and cameras and mirrors and the sun shining on my car and you didn't see it.

[Emily Simpson]

Okay, back to Karen Reed.

[Shane]

You're lucky I didn't die that day. If I died that day would have been very questionable. Did she back into him? What was the motive?

[Emily Simpson]

Okay, again, I'm just asking. Do you think if you backed into someone and you hit them, would your tail light have 40 piece different broken pieces? To me that seems like over, like I just, I don't feel like a tail light breaks into that many pieces with just like.

[Shane]

No, I know when you said 40 that didn't sound realistic.

[Emily Simpson]

It doesn't sound realistic at all. If she.

[Shane]

How big was this freaking table?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, and, and how. That's like a tail light explodes.

[Shane]

No, you know what, it sounds that many pieces and I certainly don't know this, but just as a layperson, this is what it sounds like. They took a tail light, smashed it with a hammer.

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, that's what it's.

[Shane]

And then carried it over and sprinkled it around. They didn't snap the tail light or, or bust it. They smashed it with a hammer and then used all the pieces and threw it there.

[Emily Simpson]

That's what it feels like.

[Shane]

How many days apart was the first not finding of tail light to the time they found?

[Emily Simpson]

No, it was, it was the same day. So basically they found his body at 6am so the police come, they. They mark off a crime scene, they use a snowblower, they, they found blood at the scene. They put the blood in solo cups. You know those red solo cups. That's what they put the blood ev. And they put that inside a grocery bag.

[Shane]

It's funny that the house of drunks had a bunch of solo cups. Candy.

[Emily Simpson]

No, it was the cops. I don't know where they got the solo cups. I mean maybe they got them from the neighbors. I don't know.

[Shane]

Police issued solo cups. Yeah, Tupperware solo cups.

[Emily Simpson]

So during that initial finding him and taking him in the ambulance and using the snowblower on the scene, there are no tail light pieces found. The.

[Shane]

No body cams on these cops that arrived the scene? I'm guessing not but.

[Emily Simpson]

No, but there is. There's car camp. There's a car cam where you can see Karen Reed running around screaming John, John. John.

[Shane]

Police dash cam?

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, the police dash cam. There's, there's. Because she's the one who actually finds the body. So apparently she wakes up at like 4:30 or 5 or something in the morning and he still hasn't come home. So she's freaking out. She calls Jen McCabe.

[Shane]

Why is she freaking out though? She knew he, she thought he was sleeping with.

[Emily Simpson]

With someone because he still. I don't know. If you don't come home I'm gonna freak out. I'm gonna be.

[Shane]

Yeah, but if you're accusing me of sleeping with someone and. And you're sending me 50 messages that I'm sleeping with someone then I don't come home. It's like yeah, cuz I'm sleeping with someone. Like that would be your mindset. You wouldn't be like you still have to come home.

[Emily Simpson]

Well he, but he has kids at home. I mean he didn't come home.

[Shane]

Oh the whole thing's weird.

[Emily Simpson]

I don't know. He did so he doesn't come home and she wakes up and she's at his house and she realizes that he hasn't come home. She calls Jen McCabe who was in the house that night and then she calls another woman, I don't remember her name. And the three of them get into a car early in the morning and they drive around looking for John and then Karen spots his body in the yard and that's when they call an ambulance.

[Shane]

They call okay, where was the body relative to the house and where she supposedly dropped him off?

[Emily Simpson]

If you face the house, it's a big front yard and there's a driveway to the right. His body was found all the way to the very left of the yard in front of a flagpole. So like as far left on the boundary as you could go. All right.

[Shane]

Terrible investigations.

[Emily Simpson]

Well yeah, I mean that's part of the. That's part of the. The defense is that that not only was the investigation terrible but it does look like a cover up. There's a lot of like really? Yeah.

[Shane]

Well there is not. I don't know but it sure does look like one.

[Emily Simpson]

Right? Initial searches by the camp police department did not yield any tail light pieces around the Alberts front lawn. This is when they first found the body. However, a subsequent investigation led by the Massachusetts State Police under uncovered approximately six to Seven fragments of red and clear plastic in the snow near the scene. Later reports and defense arguments have suggested that up to 47 pieces were eventually recovered in the snow. So again, I just. The tail light just bothers me.

[Shane]

It bothers me. Did they say whether the taillight matched the vehicle? Yeah, they did say it was the correct tail light. Okay. And then her tail light did it. If they puzzle pieced it back together, did it match up? Did they do anything like that?

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, they did. They also claimed.

[Shane]

Wait, so it did match her tail light?

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, it's her tail light. The question is, is her tail light found in the yard because she hit John O'Keefe at such a high velocity that her tail light exploded into 47 different pieces, or is her tail light found in the snow because the police confiscated her vehicle, saw that there was a little bit of damage to her tail light.

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

And then use that as a cover up, busted the tail light, and then when they went back to search, dropped it into the scene and then said, oh, look what I found over here. I found pieces of tail light. The problem, though, is that pieces of the tail light were also found in his clothing.

[Shane]

Like small fragments, like in his pockets.

[Emily Simpson]

Not in his pockets, like in his. Like his shirt. Like he got hit. So I don't know if they were smart. So here's the thing.

[Shane]

So every time there's more evidence, it's just more confusing?

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, exactly.

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

So it's like, okay, let's say they did break up his taillight because there is. There is police footage of her car within the Sally Port at the police department. And you can see people walking around her car. So there's opportunity, right? There's opportunity for someone to mess with her tail light. They have it on video. It shows the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, behind the car. They also, when they. When they handed over the videos of her car at the carport at the police station, they inverted the video.

[Shane]

She's guilty of something. I mean, she was a drunk driving and then dropped him off drunk and then called and screamed him beards angry.

[Emily Simpson]

Because she screams at him. So you want her to be killed?

[Shane]

Well, yeah, it's a trigger for me. I don't know where it comes from.

[T Mobile Ad]

Like your must watch list, our network is all over the place because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network switch. Now, keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your Local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualified unlock device, credit service report in 90 plus days device knowledgeable carrier and timely redemption Required card is no cash access and expires in six months.

[Emily Simpson]

During the trial testimony, so they had a crash data expert from the Massachusetts State Police. He described information retrieved from Karen Reed's suv. According to his analysis, the vehicle had been shifted into reverse and reached a speed of just over 24 miles per hour before slowing down abruptly with noticeable movement of the steering wheel. This expert suggested that this information that they retrieved from her car could be consistent with a pedestrian being struck and place the event around 12:45am however, if you remember the timeline that I gave you, it would not have happened around 1245 because she was already back to John O'Keeffe's house by that time and had already left.

[Shane]

More evidence leads to more questions, right? Nothing gets answered.

[Emily Simpson]

No. Reed's defense team challenged his conclusions, questioning his qualifications and highlighting that he does not hold an advanced certificate in crash reconstruction. He also was terrible on the sand. It's hard to take someone seriously when they're so nervous that they can't answer the questions very well. So the defense argues that if O'Keeffe had been hit by a vehicle moving in reverse at approximately 24 miles per hour, which. That's fast, right? 24 miles per hour backwards.

[Shane]

Yeah, that's fast. His body, like in a residential area, you punch the gas pedal in reverse to get to 24 miles an hour. That in that short period of time, there's not like a lot of roadway.

[Emily Simpson]

But there. But. But again, I don't feel like if she pulled up to the house and she's sitting on the side of the house and he goes into the house and then she drives off.

[Shane]

You know what it does? None of this matters. You know why? Because this all leads to doubt. You're never going to figure it out with this man. This much crap and this all. We're sitting here. Every piece of evidence that you brought up just leads to more questions. No conclusions. No even viable conclusions. So it's really just every piece of evidence has a reasonable doubt.

[Emily Simpson]

Yes. That's why I think this trial. She's almost done. They're almost done.

[Shane]

This is her second trial.

[Emily Simpson]

This is her second trial. It should start any day now because I think they have 16 jurors seated right now.

[Shane]

What happened on the first trial?

[Emily Simpson]

It was a mistrial.

[Shane]

Yeah. But do we know how many people voted or anything like that?

[Emily Simpson]

So when the jury came back, they basically said, we cannot reach a decision. And we're. It's deadlocked. There's. There's no way. We're both sides. I guess it was eight thought that she should be charged with vehicular manslaughter and four didn't think so. But I guess they said that they were so deadlocked in their positions that there was no way that anybody was going to, you know, move one way or the other. So that's why it was a hung jury. The three charges against her were. Now, I don't even remember. Vehicular. Are you listening? Stop.

[Shane]

Second degree murder. Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving without. With a broken tail light.

[Emily Simpson]

No, that was not the third one. The third one is leaving the scene.

[Shane]

Leaving the scene with a broken tail light.

[Emily Simpson]

With a broken tail light.

[Shane]

Yes.

[Emily Simpson]

Okay, let's get into a little more evidence that's going to annoy you as well. So Jed McCabe was one of the women that was inside the house that evening. So apparently they, they confiscated Jen McCabe's phone. They did the whole data extraction. And the defense claims that at 2:20, I think it was 2:27am that Jen McCabe did a search, a Google search. How long to die in cold? This is at 2:27.

[Shane]

I'd like to find out what your Google searches are. I need to get some data extracted from your phone. Life expectancy of 50 year old, half Persian, half none. It drinks big goals every day. That's what your search is gonna say.

[Emily Simpson]

I never Googled that before, ever. So Jen McCabe told the assistant.

[Shane]

Well, let the experts tell me what you searched.

[Emily Simpson]

Okay. So Jen McCabe told the assistant district attorney, Adam Lawley, that she left an Internet tab open after finishing her basketball related Google searches earlier on the 29th. I used to always leave my tab open and my kids would yell at me, she added. She further testified that she used the same tab later that morning when Reed frantically asked her to look up hypothermia. So here's the thing.

[Shane]

So what time was this search?

[Emily Simpson]

This is where again, more questions.

[Shane]

You're gonna say there's more questions?

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, because she did. She doesn't dispute that she did Google how long to die in the cold. But the problem is the defense claims.

[Shane]

It was clear as day. So of course she didn't dispute it.

[Emily Simpson]

Right, but there's a dispute as to when she did it. The defense claims that According to what they extracted from her phone that she made this Google search at 2:27 in the morning which would be apparently like after he was not.

[Shane]

Not as a normal time that someone would normally search for when how long it takes for someone to die the snow.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

Usually that's done after breakfast.

[Emily Simpson]

She. Right. She claims that she made the search at six something in the morning after his body was found.

[Shane]

Like as a result of the scene. She's like oh my gosh.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. How long does it take to die in the cold?

[Shane]

Because that's what I would do if I find someone dead and be like oh let me, let me determine.

[Emily Simpson]

Right.

[Shane]

That's the stupidest thing. That still doesn't make sense. So someone's dead. Well it makes probably nerve wracking and worrisome and there's cops everywhere and then she's going to all sudden start to investigate I or whatever it is.

[Emily Simpson]

She claims that she was looking it up because I guess Karen Reed was because it was chaotic and she was saying that he died of hypothermia and so she was googling how long did not.

[Shane]

That's not normal behavior to search something that sophisticated or that detailed when there's a crime scene going on.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. And I don't understand the.

[Shane]

She has searched it. She did that search as part of their cover up. That would be my guess. Like yeah, but let's say he died in the cold. Okay, let me hold on, let me Google and see how long it takes to die in the cold.

[Emily Simpson]

So you think she did it at 2:27am in the morning after something nefarious happened in the house and he got in a fight and someone hit him over the head and then he died and the dog attacked him.

[Shane]

I'm saying that's a possibility.

[Emily Simpson]

And you're saying she was like they all had some cover up where they were like let's drag his body out into the yard and make it look like he died of hypothermia. And she googled how to how long to die in the cold. Yeah, that's a possibility because the defense claims that according to the data that was extracted from her phone she Googled this at 2:27 in the morning. I don't understand how there's a discrepancy in the time. Why is it just not clear what time she googled it? If we have such.

[Shane]

Yeah, if it's so. So digital right there. Right.

[Emily Simpson]

If there's such a digital footprint on everything we do, they probably even know.

[Shane]

Where she her phone was at the time that she made this.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. So why is that? Why is that up for debate? Whether she Googled it at 2:27 or whether she Googled it at 6:30 in the morning after the fact? Because clearly, if she Googled it, Googled it after he was dead.

[Shane]

Even though it's weird, one expert says at one time and another expert says another time.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, it's.

[Shane]

Are they in the same time zone? Maybe that's what it is. Maybe one meant to say Pacific Standard Time. The other one's like, no, it's Easter.

[Emily Simpson]

Well, I feel like you should reach out to Alan Jackson and ask if you can be on the defense team. I could, yeah, I think you should. All right, so there we go. That's another piece of evidence that it's like. Again, it's like the same with the tail light. It's like. It's like the tail light but the tail light is at the same time.

[Shane]

Results in more questions, more questions and more questions.

[Emily Simpson]

Google search. And it's like, oh, well, if it was at 2:27, that's pretty shady. But if it's at 6am after the body's found, then okay, that kind of makes sense.

[Shane]

Kind of.

[Emily Simpson]

Kind of. All right. There's also testimony that people heard Karen Reed say, I hit him. I hit him, I hit him.

[Shane]

Because that's normal behavior for someone that runs over their boyfriend.

[Emily Simpson]

Jennifer McCabe testified that Karen Reed allegedly repeated the phrase I hit him after a paramedic asked what happened happened to John O'Keefe. This is after the body is found and the. And the paramedics are on scene. There are several first responders who also testified and echoed the same claim that they heard her say, I hit him. Defense attorney Alan Jackson noted that the statement wasn't recorded in official reports or on any scene footage. So again, here we go again. We have people claiming that she screamed, I hit him, I hit him. However, there's no actual footage of her saying it and there's nothing written in any report. So you're going to tell me if cops are on scene and first responders are on scene and she's saying, I hit him, then nobody writes that down. Yeah, but they're going to testify after the fact.

[Shane]

The first responders heard, like, only the. Like the cops didn't hear it or anything.

[Emily Simpson]

But the cop. I mean, if it's a conspiracy, though, the cops should have heard it. But maybe the conspiracy wasn't fully put together yet because this is the early the next morning. Maybe. So far it's Only the cops in the house and the people in the house that I don't know.

[Shane]

Again, there's too much doubt.

[Emily Simpson]

Then there's the snowplow driver. A local snowplow driver, Brian Lawren, told the court he did not notice anything unusual on the lawn outside 34 Fairview Road when he cleared the area in the early hours, hours of January 29, 2022. This is a point that the prosecution later challenged.

[Shane]

Like, you mean like he could have seen a body? He could have seen, like, the cocktail glass somewhere?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, he's saying that I think he went into work to snow, to plow that night because there was a blizzard, like 2:15am I think that's when he clocked in OR Whatever.

[Shane]

At 2:15am Nothing.

[Emily Simpson]

And he's saying after he got his vehicle at 2:15 and he drives down Fairview, it's very well lit, and that he. He said he constantly looks around because he has to observe other cars, people, animals, dogs.

[Shane]

Right, right.

[Emily Simpson]

It's a big snowplow. Yeah, yeah.

[Shane]

He doesn't want.

[Emily Simpson]

He doesn't want to hit anyone. Right.

[Shane]

It's not like a garbage truck where they're just focusing on the bins. Like, he has to make sure he's not plowing over people, dead people.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. And so crime scenes. Right. So he's testifying that he was very aware of that when he plowed the streets and when he went past 34 Fairview, that there was no body at that time. Which means Karen Reed couldn't have hit him, because if she hit him, he would have been there already because she hit him.

[Shane]

Sometimes the argument is she hit him basically when she dropped him off at 12:25 or whatever.

[Emily Simpson]

So if she hit him, his body would have been in the front yard.

[Shane]

Where was his body? It was on the yard, in the yard.

[Emily Simpson]

So here's.

[Shane]

But he doesn't plow a yard.

[Emily Simpson]

Nobody drove by the house, and the body was in the yard by the street. So he's saying, I drove by this.

[Shane]

House, not buried in snow or anything.

[Emily Simpson]

I mean, maybe it. Maybe it was covered in snow, but I still feel like you would have noticed a large man in a yard.

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

So he claims he did not see anything like that. Let's hear some other things that I really took away that I thought was really interesting. There was a lot of butt dialing going on that night between the people in the house.

[Shane]

Alleged.

[Emily Simpson]

Alleged butt dialing. So Brian Albert owns the home, and again, he's a sergeant in the Boston Police Department. Before I get into the butt dialing. There's one other thing I thought was really strange. There was a crime scene in front of Brian Albert's house at 6:00 in the morning. He is a cop and he never left his house. He never went out to see what was going on.

[Shane]

You mean what, during the investigation? Yeah. As if he had no interest in it.

[Emily Simpson]

I. I don't know. I'm just saying at 6:00 in the morning, it's his house. There's a dead body found on his lawn. There's a bevy of police and ambulances and Karen Reed's running around screaming and there's two other women there.

[Shane]

And he's having his cop, he's a police officer inside chilling.

[Emily Simpson]

And he's just inside chilling in his house. He never goes outside and asks what's going on. You're gonna tell me that's not odd behavior?

[Shane]

That's very odd behavior.

[Emily Simpson]

That's a very odd behavior.

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

I mean, I'm not a cop, but if there's a dead body on my front lawn, I'm gonna go outside and see what's going on.

[Shane]

Yeah. I'd be asking what are his Google searches? That's what I wanna know. And what is he texting during this time?

[Emily Simpson]

Well, I don't know. I'll text.

[Shane]

You said butt dial and then.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah, sorry. I wanted to establish that again, that the homeowner is a police officer and that there was a crime scene in his lawn and that he never went outside and asked what was going on or what was happening. I think that's odd behavior.

[Shane]

That is very odd behavior.

[Emily Simpson]

Also, there's some butt dialing going on between him, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins, who is the ATF agent, who's the one that had the text exchanged with Karen Reed about you're hot, I'm hot, we're hot from jump, all that kind of stuff.

[Shane]

So is the story that there's phone calls between the parties and they're saying no, it was just accidental dialing.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. So there's a one second call from Brian Albert to Brian Higgins at 2:22am Also remember that apparently Jen McCabe is googling how long to die in the snow at 2:27.

[Shane]

Possibly at 2:27. So there's a lot of phone activity at 2:27. So they're all awake.

[Emily Simpson]

Right. There's. Then There is a 22 second call from Agent Higgins back to Brian Albert.

[Shane]

I'm guessing there's no text between these parties. It's all butt dialing, Butt Dialing? Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

Then Jed McCabe, the one who did the Google search, placed seven calls to O'Keeffe's phone between 12:29 and 12:50, and seven of those calls are unaccounted for. She claims maybe, like, she put her phone in her back pocket and her phone just kept dialing John O'Keefe over and over and over.

[Shane]

And then. And then it also did a Google search.

[Emily Simpson]

Yes, by itself. But the defense claims, obviously, here's my thought, is if she's calling his phone over and over, is she looking for his phone? Because something happened in the house. They need to get the body into the yard, and maybe they need to locate his phone and put his phone with the body. They can't leave his phone in the house. I don't know. That's just me thinking, what's going on with all this butt dialing? Why is everybody calling each other? Why is she calling John O'Keeffe's phone? All right, so anyway, that is a lot of this crazy evidence in this case.

[Shane]

So what's your verdict?

[Emily Simpson]

I. I'm telling you, I. I don't have a verdict.

[Shane]

Then. Then that. Then not guilty.

[Emily Simpson]

Yeah. I would say if I were sitting on the jury and I was presented with all this evidence from the first trial, I would say not guilty. Because to me, there is enough reasonable doubt that I could not convict this woman and send her to prison.

[Shane]

So. So by a legal standard, we agree. Not guilty. By all the evidence that we've gone over now, what do you really think happened?

[Emily Simpson]

What do I really think happened?

[Shane]

Yeah.

[Emily Simpson]

Here's what I'm going to say. The most plausible thing that could have happened that night is that she's drunk. He's drunk. He gets out of the car, he's got a drink in his hand, they're fighting. Maybe she puts it in reverse and she backs over him and she doesn't mean to.

[Shane]

At 24 miles an hour.

[Emily Simpson]

At 24 miles an hour.

[Shane]

Heart.

[Emily Simpson]

And then she drives away and doesn't know that she is. And he dies in the snow. But anyway, that was a pretty deep dive into Karen Reid. I know there's a lot of other issues that we could discuss. If you guys have comments or questions or other things that you would like us to talk about, please feel free to DM me. And again, thanks for listening. We appreciate you.

[Shane]

Thank you.

[Emily Simpson]

My daughter Sophia and I are loving coffee, mate. Cold foam. It adds a little fun to our cup. You can add the cold foam to literally any drink. I'm waiting to add it to my espresso martinis. It also is the perfect podcast. Pick me up. And right now they're giving y'all a $3 coupon. Visit coffeemate.com coldfoammydrink to grab yours. But act fast. There's only a limited supply. I'm literally doing this right now. Coffee, mate, a little foam, a lot of fun.