Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / BONUS EPISODE | The Prosecutors: Karen Read and the Death of John O'Keefe

Transcript

BONUS EPISODE | The Prosecutors: Karen Read and the Death of John O'Keefe · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Hi guys, let me share something new with you from
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: The Prosecutors podcast. In this episode, Brett and Alice take
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: us deep, deep, deep into the case of Boston copp
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: John O'Keefe. His death in the middle of a blizzard
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: leads to shocking accusations against his girlfriend Karen Reid. Was
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: it a frame job or a deadly romance? Listen to
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: part one of The Prosecutors nine part series. If you
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: like it, listen and follow The Prosecutors. They're on all
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: major audio platforms. Don't miss a single episode. It's awesome
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: The Prosecutors.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: I'm Brett and I'm Alice, and.
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: We are the Prosecutors. Today on The Prosecutors, When a
• 1:12
  Speaker 3: Boston police officer is found dead in the snow, an
• 1:14
  Speaker 3: apparent victim of a hit and run, suspicion fell on
• 1:17
  Speaker 3: his girlfriend, Karen Reid.
• 1:20
  Speaker 4: But did she do it? Or was she framed?
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: Hello everybody, and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors.
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my divisive
• 1:56
  Speaker 3: co host Alice.
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: Wow, Well there you go. At least it wasn't homely.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: That's all I have to say. That would be divisive,
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: That would be divisive. But maybe I'm not the divisive one.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: But boy, oh boy, is this case divisive? I will
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: confess Sprett. When this case started going to trial very recently,
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: everyone was asking us our opinions, and I was like,
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: you know, we cover a lot of cases we prosecuted.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: I did, you'd do a lot of cases. I read
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: about a lot of cases, and upon first glance, I
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: was like, why is everyone focusing on this particular case.
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: It did not strike my fancy to begin with, which
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: is why we didn't cover it in real time. But
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: because we listen to you guys, and because it has
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: become so divisive, and are we about to uncover some
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: massive conspiracy or are we going to be cold water prosecutors?
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: This is going to be divisive. I think whichever way
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: we come out on this, there will be people who
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: will have lots of opinions on it. And I'm here
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: for it.
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: And I'll say this, I'm actually kind of glad we
• 3:02
  Speaker 3: didn't cover it before because going into the trial, I
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: didn't really know a whole lot about it. I need
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: sort of the basic storyline. I knew that Karen Reid
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: was accused of murdering her boyfriend, wasn't even really sure
• 3:14
  Speaker 3: how she was accused of doing that. I knew that
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: there was a lot of craziness in the media and online.
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: I knew that at least one blogger had been charged
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: with a bunch of felonies for possibly committing witness intimidation
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: and all sorts of other stuff, But we sort of
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: dodged I think the drama that maybe you've seen with Delpha.
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: One problem with being with Delphi this whole time is
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: this whole run up to the trial in Delphi has
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: just been It has been wild, and I think people
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: who followed this case from the beginning have experienced a
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: very similar roller coaster with a Karen Reid case. But
• 3:49
  Speaker 3: we're coming into it without a whole lot of that baggage.
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: I'm going to say, and we're going to look at
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: this case through the lens of the trial. We're going
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: to do this the way we did the murder case,
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: which was another one that I didn't know a whole
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: lot about until he did the trial, the Derek Chauvin case.
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think those are the two cases that
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: we sort of covered in real time. As we record
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: this episode. The trial is still ongoing. It is an
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: incredibly long trial. We could do illegal briefs on the
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: trial because it's very weird the way they're doing it. Though,
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: I will just say, guys, staycases. Sometimes you see this.
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: There's the young Thug case I think that's his name. Sorry,
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: I'm not very hip in Atlanta. That's been going on
• 4:27
  Speaker 3: for forever and has like all these weird breaks. In
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: this case, most days they're do in half days and
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: only doing trial through like noon, and then they break
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: for the day, and sometimes they have trial like one
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: or two days a week, and then we'll have trial.
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: So it's been going on for a long time. At
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: this point, we're far enough along that we hope that
• 4:47
  Speaker 3: we can finish sort of either as the trial is
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: finishing or after it's finishing and not sort of catch
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: up and not be able to do this. But given
• 4:59
  Speaker 3: that we released the weekly, I think we'll be fine
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: at this point. But it's been going on for a while.
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: In the commonwealth's case, because this is in Massachusetts, has
• 5:08
  Speaker 3: a lot of witnesses and there are a lot of
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: people involved in this story, and that's part of what
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: makes it so interesting because a lot of these people
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: are accused of being part of a cover up or
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: a conspiracy to frame Karen Reid for the murder of
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: John O'Keefe. And that is not an exaggeration. I'm not
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: using hyperbole here as you're going to see probably today
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: because we'll almost certainly maybe get to the opening statements,
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: the defense's opening statement, the very first words out of
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: their mouths, the very first thing the jury hears from
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: the defense is that Karen Reid was framed. And that
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: is such a strong claim. It's not just we're going
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: to put forward evidence that maybe she was framed. Maybe
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: that's one possibility, but they are going all in on
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: this idea of as we've said before, the best story
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: wins in creating a story and selling out to try
• 6:02
  Speaker 3: and convince the jury that not only is there a
• 6:04
  Speaker 3: reasonable doubt, but that she was framed for this crime.
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, those are some bold words, you know. When we
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: started researching this case to cover it, the first thing
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: I did was to actually just pull up the opening
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: statements and the defense one I listened to first because
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: I want to hear what their defense was. And when
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: the first words out of the Defense Council's mouth was
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: Karen Reid was framed, I kind of gasped a little
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: bit because I didn't know anything about this case. Because
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: we've talked a lot about the best story wins, we've
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: also talked about how the defense doesn't have the burden
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: to tell you another story. They just have to show
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: that there's reasonable doubt not to convict their client. To
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: say that Karen Reid was framed and not just framed
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: by anybody framed by the police is a very tall
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: order to fulfill, especially in your opening statement. Those of
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: you who followed us for a while know that the
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: difference between opening statement and closing statements is that in
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: opening you're not supposed to argue. You're supposed to tell
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: them what they will expect to hear. In evidence, it's
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: not supposed to be our youmentative. Closing arguments are where
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: you get to take your spin on the evidence that's
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: been presented and make your best argument. I'm from those
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: pieces of evidence and to state affirmatively from the beginning
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: she was framed is a bold move, not one that
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: you see often.
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: So let's go ahead and dive into the story here.
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: For those of you who like me, have been living
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: under a rock and didn't really know what this case
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: was about, or maybe you're blessed to live in a
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: different country where this case has not been all on
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: the headlines. I mean, if you live in Boston right now.
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: My favorite part about this case, by the way, is
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: we're going to Boston. I'm very excited to go back
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: to Boston, to go home to Boston, my second home,
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: my first home in my heart.
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: Are you going to say all the names right?
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: You know, actually I probably can say all the names right, but.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: I'm not gonna lie.
• 7:51
  Speaker 3: I looked up a lot.
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: There's like a Boston Pedia where you get to it's
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: a YouTube page where you get to put in all
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: the different towns and things and they tell you how
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: to say it. I was starting not anyways, over got Worcester.
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: Not Worcester. Okay. So there was nothing particularly interesting about
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: Karen Rey's life, it seems like to me. Up until
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. She was a forty
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: one year old financial analyst and a lecturer at Bentley University,
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: and she had met a man named John O'Keefe in
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: her younger years. They lost touch, you know, they dated
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: for a little while, they lost touch, but then in
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: the middle of the pandemic. Like so many of us,
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: they reconnected. Sort of interesting how the distance and the
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: break in your life could bring back old relationships and
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: they hit it off. John was a Boston police officer,
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: a sixteen year veteran of the force. Although he didn't
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: have any children of his own, the forty six year
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: old became the guardian of his niece and nephew, whose
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: fourteen year old niece and eleven year old nephew when
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: he died when his sister died in twenty thirteen and
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: her husband died shortly thereafter, which let me just go
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: ahead and say, the tragedy that those kids have gone through,
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: like I can't even imagine. And a lot of things
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: get lost in the shuffle in this case, but man,
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: and take a moment and say a prayer for those kids,
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: because to lose their parents the way they did, and
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: then they have John who steps in and fills that role,
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: and I think that says a lot about him and
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: who he was. But then to lose him, and to
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: lose him like this, and now to be subjected to
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: this and eventually to be witnesses for the commonwealth in
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: this case, I can't imagine.
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: And yeah, that's I mean, there are a lot of
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: heartbreaking things about this case, but he's really raised his
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: niece and nephew since they were babies, since his sister
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: and her husband passed away, and he was really their
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: father for all intents and purposes, and they are still
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: young here. They'll come into play throughout this trial. You'll
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: see they are privy to the relationship and they'll have
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: things to say about it. But I think he has
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: another brother who is also the guardian now really the
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: soul guardian. But the amount of loss this family has
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: gone through, especially these young children who are still miners,
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: is not to be lost in all of this, especially
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: because remember when we talk about conspiracies, we talk about
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: wild theories. Whether they're rooted in truth or not, we're
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: not getting into that yet. They have real effects on
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: real people, and in this case, they have real effects
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: on miners as well.
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: So depending on who you asked, the relationship between Read
• 10:27
  Speaker 3: and O'Keefe was at times loving and at times rocky,
• 10:30
  Speaker 3: probably not unlike most relationships. Frankly, there were some accusations
• 10:35
  Speaker 3: of infidelity at various points in time. The two were
• 10:38
  Speaker 3: known to fight with some frequency, though some of Reed's friends,
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: and frankly even some of John's friends would dispute the
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: allegations that the two weren't generally happy together. Like every
• 10:51
  Speaker 3: case where you have a relationship that ends with someone dead,
• 10:55
  Speaker 3: a lot of times things can get blown out of proportion.
• 10:58
  Speaker 3: You'll have one person saying either way, one person saying
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: they were the most loving couple ever, and somebody else
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: is like, no, they fought all the time, they hated
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: each other, and then other people here are more in
• 11:09
  Speaker 3: the middle with now they were kind of normal, They
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: loved each other most of the time, and they fault
• 11:14
  Speaker 3: other times. Obviously, all this will be important as we're
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: trying to figure out exactly what happened to John o'keef,
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: and all of this would come to ahead on January
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: Now, before we dive into the timeline as we typically do,
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: we're going to do something we don't do in all
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: our cases, but I think this case calls for it,
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: and that's to introduce kind of the cast of characters
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: that you're going to learn about hear from here about
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: in this trial, and there's a lot of them. Keep
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: this in mind because the kind of allegation of Karen
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Reid being framed involves a lot of people. So if
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: you can remember to come back to this episode, if
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: you ever get lost to the characters are, we hope
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: to give you kind of a contents of who the
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: players are. First, you've heard of John O'Keeffe. He is
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: the victim and he's Karen Reid's longtime boyfriend. He's been
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: described as a good and decent man who is a
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: dedicated cop and generally well loved by the people in
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: his community. Not really someone that people had beef with
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: or he himself wasn't really a divisive person. He was
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: well liked by the people he worked with and also
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: his family and his community.
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: One of the things about this case it's interesting is
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: pretty much everyone agrees that John's a good guy. Like
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: the DEFENSI often call him this good man, say things
• 12:38
  Speaker 3: like that. But you have to build some sort of
• 12:41
  Speaker 3: story about what happened here. Remember, I think this is
• 12:44
  Speaker 3: important to remember. We're going to come back to this.
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: You're gonna get sick of me saying this. The theory
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: here in this trial is either that Karen Reid hit
• 12:55
  Speaker 3: John with her car and left him to die in
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: the snow or John one was involved in some sort
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: of altercation with basically everyone we're going to tell you
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: about here, and anyone he wasn't involved in an altercation
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: with is involved in the cover up of that fact.
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: So it's funny because on the one hand, the States
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: trying to show how rocky this relationship was and how
• 13:19
  Speaker 3: they fought all the time, and you're going to hear
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: testimony through us unless you're watching the trial, actually no,
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: they were kind of fine. And then on the other hand,
• 13:27
  Speaker 3: the defenses going to try and convince you that this
• 13:30
  Speaker 3: group of people decided, either in a rage or maybe
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: planning ahead, to attack John so viciously that he would die,
• 13:39
  Speaker 3: And then you've got to kind of figure out why
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: would they do that, And much like with the relationship
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: between Reed and John, you start hearing the testimony, you're
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: kind of like, not really seem like anybody disliked this guy.
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: So there's motive here is one of those things that
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: is I think both sides are striving to prove motive.
• 13:58
  Speaker 3: That's one thing that's fascinating about this case because it's
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: just not your typical defense case. Both sides are trying
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: to show motive and they're struggling to do so.
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: Karen read the subject that we've been talking about. She's
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: the one in trial she's accused of hitting John with
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: her car. Karen had been, as we said, in a
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: long term relationship with John, and as we will hear
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: more and more about they either had this fantastic relationship
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: or they were on the rocks. And it depends on
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: who you ask and listen to all the different testimony
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: as we start to go through it, because honestly, it
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: sounds like a lot of relationships, right. It probably wasn't
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: completely black or white. It was somewhere on the spectrum
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: as most relationships are. Brian Albert so Brian Albert owned
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: the home where people gathered the night of John's death.
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: John would be found in the yard of his home
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: near the curb in the far corner. Brian is a
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: retired Boston Police officer and he had served on the
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: force with John. Kevin Albert is Brian's brother and he's
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: a Canton police officer and detective Tim Albert he's another
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: one of the Albert brothers, so related to Brian and Kevin,
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: and he lives across the street from the Canton Police department.
• 15:17
  Speaker 3: And if you're already picking up on this, there are
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: a lot of cops involved in this case, and that's
• 15:22
  Speaker 3: one reason the police conspiracy angle has come up. We're
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: going to talk about a lot of police officers, including
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: the victim, but also pretty much everyone else who's involved.
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: Not surprisingly, the victim who's a cop, knows a lot
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: of cops and his friends with a lot of cops,
• 15:37
  Speaker 3: And like most families in the Northeast, being a cop
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: runs in the family. So the Albert family, for instance,
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: has a lot of police officers in it and they
• 15:45
  Speaker 3: know a lot of police officers. So you're going to
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: hear about a lot of police officers through this as
• 15:50
  Speaker 3: we talk about the case. It's Chris Albert, who wasn't
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: a cop, but he was another of the Albert brothers.
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: He actually owns a pizza shop often visited by John
• 16:01
  Speaker 3: and I guess it's pretty popular. He's on there for
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: like twenty something years. He and John, he says, we're friends.
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: And he also is a town selectman in Canton, Massachusetts,
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: which is the city, the town where all of this
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: is going to take place. Canton, by the way, for
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: those of you who don't know, is fifteen miles south
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: of Boston. It's part of the Boston metropolitan area. They
• 16:22
  Speaker 3: gets south, it's sort of in the Boston Greater metropolitan area.
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: If you've lived in Boston, you know, like Braintree, Cambridge,
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: like all those places. Are these little towns that are
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: you know, if Boston is the hub, all these other
• 16:38
  Speaker 3: towns are on the wheel and they all surround Boston
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: and Boston in a way that frankly, you don't see
• 16:45
  Speaker 3: a lot of places. Boston dominates New England like nothing else.
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: I mean, people in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, obviously Massachusetts
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: are all about Boston and Boston is everything. And then
• 16:57
  Speaker 3: as you go south, it starts to transition into New York.
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: Providence Rhode Island has a little bit of a rivalry
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: with Boston, but whatever. Providence beautiful town by the way,
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: love it. But either way, So Canon is close to Boston.
• 17:09
  Speaker 3: So you've got some Canton police officers we've been talking
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: about John is a Boston police officer. Just a lot
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: of cops in this area and go Celtics. Okay, So
• 17:18
  Speaker 3: Brian Higgins. Higgins is friends with the Alberts and he
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: is an ATF agent with an office at the Canton
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: Police Department. He was reportedly at the home the night
• 17:28
  Speaker 3: of John's death. This is not unusual, by the way,
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: ATF agents work very closely with local police to prosecute
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: gun crime. Almost always, when you have a firearm, machine gun, whatever,
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: it's almost always going to be discovered initially by local police,
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: who are then going to work with ATF to prosecute
• 17:46
  Speaker 3: that case federally. So it's not unusual that Higgins would
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: have this close relationship with the Canton Police Department. Then
• 17:54
  Speaker 3: you have Brian Albert Junior Junior, so he is not
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: surprisingly Brian Albert's son, and in fact, it was his
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: birthday the day John died, and there were people over
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: at the Albert's house celebrating his birthday, including Colin Albert.
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: Colin Albert is Chris Albert's son. Colin was over at
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: Brian Albert's home earlier in the evening celebrating Brian Junior's birthday.
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: Colin Albert, by the way, is one of the people
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: that the defense has posited as a possible attacker of John,
• 18:34
  Speaker 3: so he is somebody they point to is a possible
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: hot head, a bully that could have gotten into it
• 18:39
  Speaker 3: with John, got into a fight with John fatally injured him,
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: and then the rest of the Albert family has to
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: cover it up. So his presence there and how long
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: he was there will become important in the case.
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: So so far, with this cast of characters, if you're
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: following along, it's a big family gathering, and they're close
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: family friends essentially, and they all live together, work together,
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: eat together, right pizza shop owner, They live near the
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: Canton Police Department, they've served together. They're all different kind
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: of law enforcement officers in these towns you work across,
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: whether it's Canton or Boston or atf they hang out
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: together a lot. But so far we're hearing about nothing
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: unusual in terms of the people who are together.
• 19:25
  Speaker 3: So another important player in this case is Chloe Albert.
• 19:32
  Speaker 3: I guess I'll say. Chloe is a German shepherd and
• 19:36
  Speaker 3: according to the defense, Chloe may have attacked John while
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: he was over at the Alberts home, could be responsible
• 19:45
  Speaker 3: for some of the injuries that John suffered, could have
• 19:48
  Speaker 3: been partially responsible for his death. Chloe will be rehomed
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: by the Alberts a few months after John's death, which
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: obviously has led some people to speculate that the reason
• 19:59
  Speaker 3: for that once that the dog was vicious, couldn't be trusted,
• 20:02
  Speaker 3: had already killed one person, and you know, maybe was
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: gonna kill again. So they sent the dog, I think
• 20:05
  Speaker 3: to Vermont. I think is where the dog ended up.
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: By the way, having been a German Shepherd owner, it's
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: a real cheap shot to always go for the German shepherd, right.
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: The German Shepherds are typically police dogs. They are very smart. Obviously,
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: they're used as canines for police forces. And even if
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: they are the sweetest, most trained dogs, because they are
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: known to be canines and police force dogs and they
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: can be very powerful as canines, this will not be
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: the first time that a German Shepherd will be accused
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: of causing death to someone. We're not talking about a
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: little Yorky.
• 20:42
  Speaker 3: I was three of German shepherd tried to kill me.
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: I still very scars from that attack.
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: Having had a German Shepherd, they're terrifying.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: Mine was like one hundred and twenty pounds and she
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: was lovable as I'll get out, but when she got
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: really excited, she would knock me over. Right, So these
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: are real, real things. But I'm also pointing to the
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: fact that this is a large German shepherd, and German
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: shepherds have been known to attack people in their job
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: as part of their profession and also when they are
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: not properly trained. Moving on, we have someone whose last
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: name is not Albert, but the show related to the
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: Albert family. Jennifer McCabe. McCabe is Brian Albert's sister in law,
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: his wife Nicole's sister, and she was out drinking with
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: the group the night that John died. She invited John
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: and Karen back to the Albert house and was with
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: Karen when John's body was found, so she's essentially one
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: of the first on the scene along with Karen. Michael Proctor,
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: he is the lead state police investigator on this case,
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: and it's come out that Proctor had known Chris Albert
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: for about fifteen years. It's been reported that Proctor is
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: currently under internal investigation for some undisclosed violation of department
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: policy That could literally be anything. It might be related
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: to this case, it might be completely unrelated to this case.
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: It might not exist at all. This is undisclosed, and
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: typically these types of things won't be disclosed until there
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: is a conclusion and a conclusion of finding usually wrongdoing,
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: because because if it's closed and there's nothing, then they
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: won't disclose anything.
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: I'm gonna go on Lemon's say it probably is related
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: to this case. Proctor is sort of your nightmare cop
• 22:25
  Speaker 3: if you're a prosecutor. He liked to send text messages
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: said really terrible things about the defendant, which have now
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: become part of this trial. And you know when you're
• 22:37
  Speaker 3: when you're a prosecutor and you see something like that,
• 22:39
  Speaker 3: you just want to bang your head against the table
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: because whether or not it has anything to do with
• 22:43
  Speaker 3: the case, it absolutely is going to be introduced by
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: the defense and it absolutely is going to make some
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: jurors shake their heads. So Michael Proctor, he is going
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: to come up a lot as we talk about this case.
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: Nearing the end of the list of cast of characters,
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: I think we'll add to it as the trial goes away.
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: Will there really are so many people that testified? I
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: was like, oh, this is a relatively short list for
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: the number of people who will testify, but this will
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: get you started on the trial. Kenneth Berkowitz. So, Kenneth
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: is now a retired Canton police chief and he found
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: a piece of broken tail light at the scene a
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: few days after John's death. Berkowitz also knew the Outberts
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: and had appeared at a fundraiser for Chris's political campaign.
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: Their kids played sports together and Chris called him a friend,
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: so they were close. By all accounts, their kids played together,
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: they knew each other. And then he of course finds
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: kind of a key piece of evidence that points towards
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: Karen's potential guilt in this case.
• 23:44
  Speaker 3: And as Al said, we could go on and on
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: and on with people in this case because everyone plays
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: an important role. I mean, ordinarily they're really only a
• 23:54
  Speaker 3: few key witnesses. Usually most witnesses are kind of non controversial.
• 24:02
  Speaker 3: They're just not controversial on either side. The prosecution puts
• 24:06
  Speaker 3: some monusort to set the scene, the defense may do
• 24:08
  Speaker 3: some minimal cross examination, but then that's it, right, and
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: then you move forward. In this case, so many people
• 24:15
  Speaker 3: are important because essentially what you're going to see here,
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: and we're about to get into the timeline, is you
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: have this man found outside in the cold during a blizzard.
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: He's got some sort of wounds. It's unclear exactly how
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: that happened. And as you're going to see in order
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: for this to work, you really need all three I'm
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: going to say, three of the important defense strategies to
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: come together. So, if you're a defense attorney and you're
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: defending somebody, there are a few different ways you can
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: attack a case. You can attack a case through incompetence.
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: You can say, look, the police are just incompetent. They
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: did a poor job securing the scene, they did a
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: poor job gathering evidence. They zeroed in on my client.
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: If only they looked a little harder, they would have
• 25:02
  Speaker 3: found all this evidence of someone else. Think of Leo's schofield. Right,
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: the police have those fingerprints in the car, but rather
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: than running them against known offenders in the area at
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: the time of the murder, they're so focused on Leo
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: they don't even think about it. And that's a problem. Right,
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: That's some deep tunnel vision and incompetence. That's one thing
• 25:24
  Speaker 3: you can say. Second thing, you can say, some other
• 25:26
  Speaker 3: guy did it. There's somebody else who did it, and
• 25:30
  Speaker 3: they're the person who's responsible, and maybe they even acted
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: to make it look like my client is responsible. The
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: other thing you can say is the police framed me,
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: So this might be your sort of ad non sayed
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: type thing where the police have decided they've got to
• 25:47
  Speaker 3: solve this case. They've got to pin it on somebody.
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: They pick a target for whatever reason, and then they
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: begin to plant evidence to make it look like that
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: person is guilty. They pressure witnesses, they falsify physical evidence,
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: whatever to try and move this case forward. In this case,
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: you need all three of these. All three of these
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: things have to come together. The people who are not
• 26:08
  Speaker 3: involved in the conspiracy have to be incompetent, and the
• 26:12
  Speaker 3: people who killed John O'Keefe have to be working to
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: frame Karen Reid. At the same time, they have to
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: have allies in the police who are not only incompetent
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: and tunnel vision, but are actively framing Karen Reid by
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: doing things like planning evidence. We just talked about Chief Berkowitz.
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: You know, the theory here is he didn't find that
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: piece of taille. It was planted there, either by him
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: or someone else for him to find so that this
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: could work. Right. So all these things have to come together,
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: and that's why the cast of characters is so long,
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: because so many different people are involved, from the Canton
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: Fire Department to the police department, to the state police,
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: to the Alberts, to the McKay to the dog. They're
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: all in this together, and that's why it's important to
• 27:05
  Speaker 3: remember these names and hopefully you can keep them straight.
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: It is not easy to do. We're going to try
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: and keep remind you of who these people are as
• 27:12
  Speaker 3: we talk about them. But just know this is going
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: to be a little bit of a struggle. Is a
• 27:15
  Speaker 3: move through this. Okay, the timeline, so look, every case
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: we do, we want to orient you with a timeline.
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: So the way we've done this timelines, we kept it
• 27:24
  Speaker 3: pretty short and basically this is a high level timeline,
• 27:28
  Speaker 3: just to give you some general idea. It is based
• 27:31
  Speaker 3: on public reporting. A lot of it is based on
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: what the prosecution says they can prove, some of it
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: based on what the defense says. So just know that
• 27:39
  Speaker 3: we're going to give you this, but don't consider this gospel.
• 27:42
  Speaker 3: Don't get mad if we say something and then in
• 27:44
  Speaker 3: a week there's some testimony that undermines it. This is
• 27:47
  Speaker 3: just to give you a general idea of what happened
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: that day.
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: Remember trial still going on, So this happens where you
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: call witnesses to rebut you know what the prosecution says
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: or what the defense says, and so I expect that
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: this timeline may change as trial progresses.
• 28:02
  Speaker 3: So this is Friday, January twenty eighth, heading into Saturday,
• 28:07
  Speaker 3: the twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. So this is the
• 28:13
  Speaker 3: eve of a nor'easter is about to hit Boston. It's
• 28:16
  Speaker 3: gonna dump a couple feet of snow onto the city.
• 28:19
  Speaker 3: Everybody knows that. And so what do you do when
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: a nor'easter's coming? You go out and drink. There's nothing
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: better than drinking before a blizzard, because what are you
• 28:26
  Speaker 3: gonna do the next day? You're gonna lay around wait
• 28:28
  Speaker 3: on the blizzard to die down so you can dig
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: yourself out. This is a great thing to do. And
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: around seven point thirty, John, along with a group of
• 28:35
  Speaker 3: friends are going to go to a strip on Washington
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: Street in Kenton. Canton, as I said before, is a
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: suburb of Boston lying fifteen miles southwest of downtown. Canton
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: was named after Canton, China, because they thought it was antipodal.
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: I think it's the word to Canton, so they thought
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: it was literally like on the other side of the earth.
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: It is not. That's what they thought. Canton, China, by
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: the is now known as Guangzhou, which is a small
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: Chinese city of only twenty million people.
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: By the way, great pronunciation, not just of Canton, but
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: Canton is not how you say any Chinese. But Glonzo
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: is really good.
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: Do what I could so eight fifty one PM, Kiaren
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: is seen on video entering C. F. McCarthy's, a local pub.
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: According to prosecutors, Kiaren did what she would expect a
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: person to do at a bar. She drank. So, according
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: to prosecutors, at eight fifty eight, Karen is going to
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: get a drink from the bartender. It contains a clear
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: liquid with a lime in it. Obviously that could be water.
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: I have often gotten sparkling water with a lime in it.
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: There's gonna be test money about this that it was vodka.
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: But as the defense is going to point out, there's
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: no real way to know whether or not she's mixing,
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: you know, getting a vodkatonic and then getting a water,
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: and she's she's getting a lot of drinks. So nine
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: to fifteen, she's back for another drink, nine to twenty,
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: another drink, ninety three, another drink, nine fifty seven, another drink,
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: but this time she also gets a shot of clear
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: liquid that probably is not water. Ten twenty two, another drink.
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: So there are a lot of drinks happening here. The
• 30:12
  Speaker 3: exact number is hard to say because we don't know
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: exactly what she had, but a number of drinks. People
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: are having a good time, they're having some drinks. Everybody's
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: in a good mood. So far, nothing unusual has happened.
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: So at ten forty pm, John and Karen leave the bar.
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: Karen still has the last drink that she got at
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: ten twenty two with her. At ten fifty four, the
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: two head to the Waterfall Bar and Grill in Canton,
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: so they're kind of moving along the strip. At twelve
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: ten am, Karen and two other women leave through the
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: front door. John follows behind, carrying a drink. John and
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: Karen walk together towards Washington Street. After a night of drinking,
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: Karen did the thing that other people do after going
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: out to a bar. She drove right opposed to We
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: all know, you know, fet a drink. If you even
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: think you're buzz don't don't drive. Don't drink and drive.
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: We see all those signs everywhere, but in reality, the
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: number of people who do drink and drive who are
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: above the legal limit is astronomical this case.
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: Look, if there's one thing that we can say for certain,
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: I don't know if they can't in police department is corrupt,
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: the Boston Police Department is corrupt. But there's a lot
• 31:23
  Speaker 3: of people in mcanton and Boston Police Department who drink
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: and then drive. Weren't see a lot of that in
• 31:29
  Speaker 3: the and in.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: The Boston area as why, which is also known for
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: drinking and drive. And remember this is January, which means
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: it's real cold. There's the northeaster, but generally Boston area
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: in January is incredibly cold. You don't want to be
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: standing outside waiting for an uber, especially when your car
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: is already on kind of like the busy street. You
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: don't have to figure out the next morning having to
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: come and get your car back. I'm not justifying drinking
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: and driving. I'm just telling you what people think about
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: in their heads and why they end up drinking and driving.
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: So Karen does just that. She gets in the car
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: and she drives, and the plan was to drive back
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: to the home of Brian Albert, another Boston cop. What
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: we talked about earlier where there was an after party planned.
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: At twelve fourteen am, John texts the group and he
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: says where to. There's a response in that text chain
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: and it says go to thirty four Fairview Road. According
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: to prosecutors, in between the bar and the Albert's house,
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: something went wrong. Karen left a voicemail to John that
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: said something, among other things, like quote, parents who are
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: listening with their children, there's going.
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: To be for the sake of our for the sake
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: of our our red I'm not going to say, why
• 32:46
  Speaker 3: don't you.
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not going to say it. But I also
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: if a child is listening, I'd like them to know
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: that I'm about to bleep out words that they can
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: really easily figure out what it is. And by the way,
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: trial you say all these things, so we don't censor
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: within trial because you need to know exactly what was said.
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: So this voicemail to John says, quote, you are an
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: efing loser f yourself, and John, I efing hate you.
• 33:12
  Speaker 2: But these are the kinds of things you really hope
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: you don't say to someone, especially on a recording the
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: night that they happened to die. But clearly it had
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: been a night with probably a lot of drinks. Don't
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: know what happened, but it was an impassioned voicemail with
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: a lot of f bomb's directed at the person who's
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: going to end up dead, and it's recorded. This is
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: not great for Karen.
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: And let's just say, I mean, if you're a defense downey,
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: I think you can spin this another way, which is
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: if she just killed the guy, Like if she knew
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: that she just hit him and left him for dead,
• 33:51
  Speaker 3: it's weird to leave him a voicemail and say that.
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: So you could say, look, this is evidence that they
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: did get in a fight for some reason. But maybe
• 33:59
  Speaker 3: it was because he wanted to go to this party
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: and she wanted to go home, and she was like,
• 34:05
  Speaker 3: well then fine, you can go right and she drops
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: him off. He goes into the party, she fires off
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: some mean voicemails, speeds home, goes to bed, and doesn't
• 34:14
  Speaker 3: realize anything's wrong until later. So there's that's the great
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: thing about trials. It's a great thing about evidence is
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: you can you can spend things all these different ways
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: and shade them depending on the argument you're trying to make.
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: So around twelve forty, according to witnesses Karen's black Lexus
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: pulls in near a flagpole and a fire hydrant on
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: the sort of far left side of this property. So
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: if you imagine this property, it's a home, nice home.
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: There's on the right side of the property there's a driveway.
• 34:44
  Speaker 3: There's a road running in front of this property, as
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: there are in front of most properties, and then there's
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: a flagpole sort of in the corner, and then on
• 34:52
  Speaker 3: the you know, near the curb, there's a fire hydrant.
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: So apparently she pulls in to this area about five
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: minutes later, she drives away at around one point thirty
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: and then later on it to people who are at
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: this house are starting to leave, they're getting a ride home.
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: One of them will later report seeing a dark object
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: and near this sort of flagpole fire hydrant area, but
• 35:22
  Speaker 3: she doesn't know what it is and she doesn't really
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: think that much about it. Now, it's January in Boston
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: and there is a nor'easter coming, so unsurprisingly, by this
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: point it has started to snow. It starts to snow
• 35:34
  Speaker 3: around midnight. As the night goes on, the snow gets
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: heavier and heavier and heavier. The temperatures are dropping into
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: the teens, and this blizzard that is bearing down on
• 35:45
  Speaker 3: the city would last most of the next day at
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: two twenty seven. This is a key point. This may
• 35:51
  Speaker 3: be one of the most important points in the entire case,
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: and whether or not this actually happened at two twenty
• 35:56
  Speaker 3: seven is a matter of contention. But according to the
• 35:59
  Speaker 3: defense for McKay, you may remember Brian Albert's sister in
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: law and another friend who is at the house that
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: night searches. She means to search how but she searches
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: hos long to die in cold Obviously if she's searching
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: this at two twenty seven, unless there's a major coincidence
• 36:21
  Speaker 3: here and everybody's just curious, Man, it's cold outside. I
• 36:23
  Speaker 3: wonder how long it takes to die, and she's like, well,
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: I'll search it. That would not be great, given that
• 36:28
  Speaker 3: someone is going to die in the cold that night.
• 36:30
  Speaker 3: Kind of like we were saying about, if you're Karen,
• 36:32
  Speaker 3: you don't want to have left those voicemails when someone
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: just so happens to die, And for Jennifer, you don't
• 36:36
  Speaker 3: want to have searched for this the night someone dies.
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: But it's not as simple as that. The defense says
• 36:41
  Speaker 3: it happened at two twenty seven. The prosecution will say
• 36:45
  Speaker 3: that this search happened at six point twenty three, And
• 36:48
  Speaker 3: this is going to be a battle of experts things,
• 36:50
  Speaker 3: with people looking at this data and trying to determine
• 36:54
  Speaker 3: when exactly this search happened. If it happened at two
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: twenty seven, it's bad. It's bad for Jim. If it
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: happened at six twenty three and it's at the behest
• 37:03
  Speaker 3: of Karen, then it's probably what's not as bad for
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: Jen obviously, and questionable how significant it is because by
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: that point they have found John and you can imagine
• 37:15
  Speaker 3: just trying to figure out exactly what's going on and
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: exactly how bad it is.
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, very very big difference between kind of the four
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: hours of when this would happen. And just for those
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: of you wondering, there is a typo and instead of
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: how it's hos so for those of you in the
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: chat who are laughing about maybe she just wanted to
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: search for hose, instead of how that's a possibility to
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: the code. But by the way, this is relevant though
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: because obviously we all text with typos. You can't change,
• 37:48
  Speaker 2: you know, texts to enter them into evidence. And so
• 37:51
  Speaker 2: these are things that people fight about in trial as well,
• 37:54
  Speaker 2: when there are typos, when there are kind of differing
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: something that doesn't say exactly that you wanted to say.
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: So we'll come back to that obviously. Okay, going back
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: really quick to the party, so we'll talk more about
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: what this driveway looks like, what people can and cannot see.
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: But the time they're leaving is pretty typical. That's when
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: a lot of bars close down. So one thirty to
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: two am, people leaving, getting in cars. It's been snowing
• 38:21
  Speaker 2: for a couple of hours. At this time, it's dark outside.
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: Keep all this in mind. We're not leaving in broad
• 38:26
  Speaker 2: daylight where you may have, you know, unobstructed visibility. Keep
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: in mind the time of day and also the environment
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: around them as people are leaving and whether they can
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: see something there or not. At two thirty, because it's
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: been snowing for a couple hours. And I will say
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: this much Massachusetts, you guys know how to do snow.
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: You have to start plowing immediately. You can't wait till
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: the morning once kind of the snow is accumulated to
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: really plow. So at two thirty, a snow plow driver
• 38:55
  Speaker 2: is plowing because that's when there the snow is fresh,
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: and that way you don't have to plow feet of
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: snow later.
• 39:03
  Speaker 3: And he will.
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: Say, as he plows near this house, he did not
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: notice a body lying in the yard. Now you would
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: think that the plow drivers keeping his eyes on the road,
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: that his job is to plow the snow. So he's
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: very aware, unlike maybe the guests who are leading at
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: one thirty or two. Things to think about in terms
• 39:23
  Speaker 2: of credibility and who you believe, and one other.
• 39:25
  Speaker 3: Thing I'll point out about this and we'll see whether
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: or not this comes to fruition. This is what the
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: defense says is going to happen. But if the timing
• 39:33
  Speaker 3: is correct here, then that means that John is not
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: in the snow at two thirty, which would also mean
• 39:41
  Speaker 3: that you would believe that when Jim McKay searts that
• 39:45
  Speaker 3: this was a very premeditated act, they are going to
• 39:50
  Speaker 3: put John out there in the cult sometime after the
• 39:53
  Speaker 3: snowplow goes by for the purpose of killing him. So
• 39:56
  Speaker 3: this wasn't a They beat him up and threw him
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: out of the house and then he stumbled and collapsed
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: in the snow. And died. This is we're going to
• 40:05
  Speaker 3: kill him. How long has it take to die on
• 40:06
  Speaker 3: the snow? Okay, that seems good, Let's throw him in
• 40:09
  Speaker 3: the snow. I mean that's essentially I think what you
• 40:11
  Speaker 3: have to believe is happening here. I'll just tell you
• 40:13
  Speaker 3: that snowplow drivers in Boston, I mean they pay attention
• 40:16
  Speaker 3: to like cars on the side of the road for
• 40:18
  Speaker 3: the purpose of either running into those cars on purpose
• 40:21
  Speaker 3: or covering them in snow. But I don't know how
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: observant they actually are of anything else. So we'll say
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: what ends up being testified to about this, But it's
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: an interesting point in the timeline.
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: At four fifty three Am o'keith's niece, the one that
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: he's the guardian of, called Jennifer McCabe. Karen, she said,
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: was distraught John had never come home and he wasn't
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: answering his cell phone. In fact, Karen was screaming, John
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: didn't come home. We had a fight. So this is
• 40:53
  Speaker 2: clearly the middle of the night. She's fourteen, probably going
• 40:56
  Speaker 2: to guess that she's typically not awake at four fifty
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: three am, probably woken up by the distraughtness of Karen
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: screaming he didn't come home. We had a fight, And
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: so she's trying to seek answers, reaching out to a
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: friend who may have been with him that night to
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: try and find out what's going on. At five am,
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: Karen calls another friend, Carrie Roberts, and says, quote, what
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: if he's dead. What if a plow hit him? I
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: don't remember anything from last night. We drank so much,
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: I don't remember anything. At this point, Karen gets in
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: her suv and drives around the neighborhood in town. So
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: this is about three four hours after she was seen
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: driving away from the Albert home. At five point thirty am, Karen,
• 41:43
  Speaker 2: Jennifer McCabe, and another woman go look for John. According
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: to prosecutors, Karen says that she noticed a crack in
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: her tail light and wondered if she could have been
• 41:53
  Speaker 2: the one who hit John. Later on, Karen would say
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: that she actually hit John's SUV in the driveway, breaking
• 41:59
  Speaker 2: the tail light in damaging her own Lexus, but no
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: tailight pieces were found in the driveway.
• 42:06
  Speaker 3: And so these are all I mean, like I said,
• 42:09
  Speaker 3: these are things that we think that will be an
• 42:12
  Speaker 3: issue at trial. A lot of this seems pretty damning
• 42:15
  Speaker 3: for Karen, but it's coming from people like Jennifer McCay,
• 42:18
  Speaker 3: and it's coming from people like kry Roberts, who I
• 42:21
  Speaker 3: think is the other woman who was with her at
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: the time. And I just want to repeat to you
• 42:25
  Speaker 3: why this is all important because a lot of this
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: evidence that you're going to see is dealt with through
• 42:32
  Speaker 3: the conspiracy. But because it's dealt with through the conspiracy,
• 42:35
  Speaker 3: the conspiracy has to be true. So it's not good
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: enough if you think the police are incompetent, for instance,
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: but you're not convinced of the conspiracy, well that's not
• 42:45
  Speaker 3: great for Karen Reid. She really needs you to think
• 42:48
  Speaker 3: they're incompetent and there's a conspiracy and Jennifer McCabe's in
• 42:51
  Speaker 3: on it and everybody else is in on it. Because
• 42:53
  Speaker 3: you have to show how this evidence that you're seeing
• 42:56
  Speaker 3: at various places and the things that you're hearing, you
• 42:59
  Speaker 3: have to explain it away in a way that's not well,
• 43:01
  Speaker 3: it's because Karen's guilty. And I just think it's important
• 43:04
  Speaker 3: to remember that because when you're trying to figure out
• 43:06
  Speaker 3: what happened here, I mean, the jury is going to
• 43:08
  Speaker 3: make a decision one way or the other. She's either
• 43:10
  Speaker 3: going to be convicted or acquitted. But I think most
• 43:12
  Speaker 3: of us want to know the truth, right, I mean
• 43:14
  Speaker 3: most of us, I hope at least those of us
• 43:16
  Speaker 3: who are listening to this this whole cheering squad thing
• 43:19
  Speaker 3: that's happened in the Karen Reid case where you got
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: like it's like a sporting event when the pro Karen
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: Read people and the anti Karen Read people. I'm just
• 43:28
  Speaker 3: not that interested in that. I'm interested in knowing what happened.
• 43:31
  Speaker 3: So when you're trying to think about what happened to
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: all this stuff is very important. Fast forward to six am.
• 43:36
  Speaker 3: Reid sees John lying in the snow near Brian Albert's home.
• 43:40
  Speaker 3: So she's in the car with these other two women.
• 43:43
  Speaker 3: According to the other women, no one else in the
• 43:44
  Speaker 3: vehicle sees them. Read jumps out of the car. She
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: runs straight over to where he is. Emergency responders quickly arrive,
• 43:52
  Speaker 3: and Read, who is inconsolable, repeatedly says, at least according
• 43:56
  Speaker 3: to some people, I hit him, I hit him. The
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: defense will to argue that that is not what she said,
• 44:04
  Speaker 3: and that the responders who say that she said that
• 44:07
  Speaker 3: are lying for various reasons.
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: So note what the defense is arguing here is that
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: the responders who were not at the party, who were
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: not Alberts, who are not cops, are also part of
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: the lying to create the framing here.
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: So when the first responders arrive, they will say that
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: Reid is trying to perform CPR and her face is
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: covered in John's blood. The defense will use this to say, look,
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: the only person who tried to save John's life was
• 44:34
  Speaker 3: Karen Reid. Interestingly, and this is something that's going to
• 44:37
  Speaker 3: come up again and again, how do we know that.
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: How do we know that the only person trying to
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: save his life was Karen Reid? We know it from
• 44:46
  Speaker 3: the same people who also apparently are lying to try
• 44:50
  Speaker 3: and convict her. So the same first responders who say
• 44:53
  Speaker 3: they heard her say I hit him are also the
• 44:55
  Speaker 3: people who said she was trying to save his life,
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: she was covered in blood. And this is sort of
• 44:59
  Speaker 3: an interesting thing that's gonna happen with a lot of
• 45:02
  Speaker 3: these witnesses who are going to be positive by the
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: defense as key parts of the conspiracy. If you're gonna
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: give testimony, this really good for Karen Reid, and this
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: is just the first example of that.
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: So we have testimony, right, whether you believe it or not,
• 45:16
  Speaker 2: that Karen says I hit him. I hit him at
• 45:18
  Speaker 2: the time that she finds his body. There are other
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: ways that the defense could go with this type of
• 45:24
  Speaker 2: bad evidence for Karen. Right, that doesn't sound great no
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: matter what, you're gonna have to deal with it because
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: it's in evidence. They chose one way, which is to
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: say that the person who testified of her saying I
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: hit him to have lied. There are other ways to
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: explain it away. She's in shock. She had nothing to
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: do with this. The first time you see someone dead,
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: especially if it's someone you're in a relationship that you love,
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: you say all types of things, whether they are true
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: or not. We know this of people who had nothing
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: to do with someone's death saying I killed him. Not
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: literally I killed him, but like you feel the guilt
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: of having been the one who was supposed to go
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: home with them, and instead of going home with him,
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: you went home and didn't make sure he got home,
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: for example. Right, So, there are other arguments that could
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: have been made with this bad evidence, and this is
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: not going to be the only bad evidence for Karen.
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: So note that just because you have bad evidence doesn't
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: mean you have to immediately default to they lied or
• 46:20
  Speaker 2: there's a framing. These are conscious decisions and strategies by
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: the defense to do these things. I'm not necessarily even
• 46:25
  Speaker 2: say it's a good strategy bad strategy. I'm merely pointing
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: out this is not the only explanation for what she's saying.
• 46:31
  Speaker 3: And I'm glad Alice brings that up, because this is
• 46:35
  Speaker 3: a conscious decision by the defense. Now they might have
• 46:38
  Speaker 3: made it for many different reasons, but at some point
• 46:41
  Speaker 3: they made a conscious decision to go with this defense strategy.
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: And the problem with this defense strategy is it sort
• 46:47
  Speaker 3: of precludes you from saying it was an accident. Now, look,
• 46:52
  Speaker 3: maybe that's because I don't know that you could argue
• 46:55
  Speaker 3: this and not be guilty of something. But we're going
• 46:58
  Speaker 3: to talk about the charger. She has minute, But you
• 47:01
  Speaker 3: could have said, look, she dropped him off, she was
• 47:04
  Speaker 3: mad because she wanted to go home, she left, had
• 47:08
  Speaker 3: no idea she hit him. And then she wakes up
• 47:11
  Speaker 3: the next morning and he's not there, and she starts
• 47:13
  Speaker 3: to think, you know, and sort of a recovering now
• 47:17
  Speaker 3: from her drunken haze. Oh my god, what if when
• 47:20
  Speaker 3: I was leaving, what if I hit him? I never
• 47:22
  Speaker 3: actually saw him walk in. I didn't wait, you know,
• 47:25
  Speaker 3: I had to back up to get out of there.
• 47:26
  Speaker 3: What if I hit him? Right? And then she ends
• 47:29
  Speaker 3: up driving over to where she parked, which she remembers
• 47:33
  Speaker 3: where they parked when she dropped him off, And that's
• 47:36
  Speaker 3: why she sees him because she's already has this sinking,
• 47:39
  Speaker 3: horrible feeling that maybe she did hit him, and then
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: there he is, and all of her worst fears come
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: crashing down on her. And that explains everything, right, I mean,
• 47:48
  Speaker 3: that explains everything. And then you're basically just arguing it
• 47:51
  Speaker 3: was an accident at worst, this is some sort of
• 47:54
  Speaker 3: douy type thing. But you know, douys are hard to prove,
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: and as we're going to see, there's a lot of
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: debate about the actual amount of alcohol that was consumed here.
• 48:05
  Speaker 3: You might be able to get a clean sweep on that,
• 48:08
  Speaker 3: but they have kind of foreclosed that as a possibility
• 48:12
  Speaker 3: because of the defense they've chosen to put on.
• 48:15
  Speaker 2: And I would go one step further for DUI's being
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: difficult to prove, is that we all know that when
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: something terrible happens to our loved ones, we blame ourselves, right,
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: Like if your child gets in a terrible accent, the
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: parent is always going to think I had something to
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: do with it, even if it's incredibly far removed. So
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: it would be natural you could argue, if you're the defense,
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: of course, she's going to put blame on herself because
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: she loves him. That's what you do when you love someone.
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: You think of the worst case scenario, how you had
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: some blame. But there's actually no evidence. Is she doesn't
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: even actually know that she hit him, So we're arguing
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: that she didn't. She wasn't the one who hit him
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: at all. Right, you create I can see complete reasonable
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: doubt there because she doesn't remember, They don't remember. But
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: I find that to be a believable story. Right, we
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: all know everyone who's drinking that night. You could have
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: all these same witnesses getting up there talking about the
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: number of drinks they had, backed up by cameras. You know,
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: footage of them going back up to the bar, drink
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: after drink after drink, and they go back to an
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: after party, drink after drink after drink, and they leave.
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: This is a very believable story, one that I don't
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: think is difficult to sell. But I will say this much. Yeah,
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: probably wouldn't be hearing about it in the news as
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: much if that was the defense's theory.
• 49:26
  Speaker 3: And look, one interesting question, and we might as well
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: talk about this because there's nowhere actually gonna get to
• 49:30
  Speaker 3: the openings. Like I said, we'll start the next episode
• 49:33
  Speaker 3: of those. One interesting question is how much did pre
• 49:37
  Speaker 3: trial publicity influence the defense strategy in vice versa, because
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: this case, like Delphi, has been one where there's been
• 49:45
  Speaker 3: a lot of talk about the conversation between the defense
• 49:48
  Speaker 3: and by a lot of the people in the media
• 49:50
  Speaker 3: who have supported Karen Reid, and the people who've supported
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: Karen Reid have been very aggressive that she is completely innocent,
• 49:58
  Speaker 3: that this arises from corrupt in the police department, and
• 50:01
  Speaker 3: that she was framed, and they've really pushed that narrative,
• 50:04
  Speaker 3: and that narrative has generated a lot of support for
• 50:06
  Speaker 3: Caen Reid, a lot of money for her defense. I mean,
• 50:09
  Speaker 3: she has top flight defense attorneys who I assume are
• 50:12
  Speaker 3: being paid for through some sort of defense fund. I mean,
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: maybe she has the money paid for them. I'm not sure,
• 50:16
  Speaker 3: but I mean, these are really good defense attorneys, and
• 50:18
  Speaker 3: I almost wonder how much of this decision was influenced
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: by that, because if you don't make that argument, the
• 50:25
  Speaker 3: argument that's been made in the public, are you going
• 50:28
  Speaker 3: to lose that support. So even if there's a pretty
• 50:31
  Speaker 3: good strategic decision that you could make there to kind
• 50:36
  Speaker 3: of accept some responsibility but not criminal responsibility, you can't
• 50:40
  Speaker 3: do it because of the public situation. I'm sure we'll
• 50:43
  Speaker 3: talk about that more. This is this is a very
• 50:45
  Speaker 3: I mean, this fascinating case. It really is, and you'll
• 50:47
  Speaker 3: just have to deal with us because we're gonna ramble
• 50:49
  Speaker 3: a little bit on this one. Because when we talk
• 50:51
  Speaker 3: about these fascinating cases, we ramble. I think that's why
• 50:53
  Speaker 3: some of you listen to us. That's why some of
• 50:55
  Speaker 3: you hate us. Okay, it's six point twenty three, coming
• 51:00
  Speaker 3: back around. According to prosecution, Jennifer McKay searches hosts how
• 51:06
  Speaker 3: Long to Die in Cold? This is the search that
• 51:10
  Speaker 3: the defense argues was actually made four hours earlier, at
• 51:13
  Speaker 3: two twenty seven. Whatever the case is. At six point
• 51:16
  Speaker 3: thirty four, Reed will text a friend he's dead. As
• 51:21
  Speaker 3: the day continue, the police are searching through mounds of
• 51:24
  Speaker 3: growing snow during this ongoing blizzard, they will find a
• 51:28
  Speaker 3: broken cocktail glass and pieces of tail light at the scene.
• 51:34
  Speaker 3: They also find a shoe matching the one that John
• 51:37
  Speaker 3: was missing. According to the prosecution, the tail light pieces
• 51:40
  Speaker 3: will later be found to have John's DNA on them.
• 51:44
  Speaker 3: After the snow melts some more even more tail light
• 51:46
  Speaker 3: pieces will be found. According to the defense, these pieces
• 51:50
  Speaker 3: were planted to help bolster this case the DNA. There
• 51:56
  Speaker 3: will be accusations by the defense that essentially evidence that
• 52:00
  Speaker 3: was collected during this period was collected in a way
• 52:03
  Speaker 3: that would not have secured that evidence and would have
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: allowed someone if they so desired, to plant DNA on
• 52:10
  Speaker 3: these pieces of taillight and on Karen's as TV.
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: One thing to know here is that these tailight pieces
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: are found really within hours of when you think, let's
• 52:25
  Speaker 2: go back to about midnight twelve thirty when Karen drives away,
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: so really within six hours. So if there was a
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: conspiracy to make it look like Karen was the one
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: who hit him with a car, this all had to
• 52:38
  Speaker 2: be fabricated pretty early on because we yes, we know
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: that tailit pieces were found later on when the snow melts,
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: but there's also tailight pieces found at the time of
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: this blizzard. Those of you who've been through a blizzard
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: know that this is no joke. When there is a
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: blizzard and there's snow literally rising and covering up things,
• 52:53
  Speaker 2: that is not an environment I would like to have
• 52:55
  Speaker 2: to search. So the fact that they found anything at all,
• 52:58
  Speaker 2: honestly is kind of amazing because this snow is still
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: coming down at the time. So I'm not saying conspiracies
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: not possible, but think of the timeline in which this
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: had to happen. This wasn't something that kind of came
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: to fruition a couple days later. This had to have
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: been done basically at the same time that whoever you
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: think planted the body had to plant these pieces at
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: the same time.
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and like the broken cocktail glass was found very
• 53:23
  Speaker 3: early on, and we know for a fact that John
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: left the bar with the cocktail glass, And yeah, I
• 53:31
  Speaker 3: mean the wheels had to start turning pretty soon. Basically,
• 53:34
  Speaker 3: what you have to think is happening is while he's
• 53:36
  Speaker 3: laying out there in the snow, calls are being made,
• 53:39
  Speaker 3: texts are being made whatever to various people in various
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: organizations to begin this cover up to call in a
• 53:46
  Speaker 3: lot of favors to make this happen, and then either
• 53:50
  Speaker 3: at the time or subsequently, additional people are added into
• 53:53
  Speaker 3: this conspiracy, including first responders, members of the fire department,
• 53:57
  Speaker 3: to bolster what's going on. And you'll see that as
• 54:01
  Speaker 3: we go through the witnesses. There are a ton of them,
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: and the prosecution made a very conscious decision about how
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: to present their evidence. They're doing it in chronological basically,
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: so the first few witnesses, the first a lot of
• 54:13
  Speaker 3: witnesses are the scene, so you see initially it's all
• 54:18
  Speaker 3: the people at the scene who were showing up finding
• 54:22
  Speaker 3: the body, the first responders, the police on the scene,
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: you know what I mean. Those people, they're the initial witnesses.
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: And then they sort of go back a little bit
• 54:30
  Speaker 3: to that night and they're calling people who were at
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: the bar, and they're calling people who were at the
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: Albert's house, and they're going to move through it like that,
• 54:36
  Speaker 3: and every single one of these witnesses on cross the
• 54:40
  Speaker 3: defense is starting to try and build this theme that
• 54:43
  Speaker 3: somehow these people were involved in this conspiracy. It's a
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: fascinating thing to watch, and if you are not watching
• 54:50
  Speaker 3: this trial, it is worth watching, and unlike some trials,
• 54:54
  Speaker 3: it is televised, so you can watch every single second
• 54:56
  Speaker 3: of it if you want to. So at nine to
• 54:58
  Speaker 3: eight am, blood is drunk. She's actually we're going to
• 55:02
  Speaker 3: talk about this some but she's she's saying things that
• 55:06
  Speaker 3: some members of her family and some police officers think
• 55:09
  Speaker 3: may be suicidal. So she's actually in We'll have the
• 55:14
  Speaker 3: exact term when we get to the witnesses, but basically
• 55:16
  Speaker 3: a mental health hold is put on her. She's taken
• 55:18
  Speaker 3: to the hospital. In addition to other things. Her blood
• 55:21
  Speaker 3: is drun Her blood alcohol level at the time is
• 55:25
  Speaker 3: point oh seven to point eight, so she is legally drunk.
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: At the time of this. It's nine o'clock in the morning.
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: It's like eight hours after she leaves the Albert home.
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: Right, and according to a witness who is going to
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: sort of do this backwards, right, I mean, this is
• 55:40
  Speaker 3: an inexact science. But if she stops drinking at that point,
• 55:45
  Speaker 3: so she drops John off, goes home and goes to bed,
• 55:48
  Speaker 3: that would put her BAC at between point one point
• 55:52
  Speaker 3: three and point two nine around the time of the
• 55:55
  Speaker 3: supposed strike. Like I said, that's a huge range, and
• 56:00
  Speaker 3: it is a testament to how your body processes alcohol
• 56:03
  Speaker 3: and how everyone is different in how they process alcohol,
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: that that range is so massive. Now, Karen, she's not
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: a big person, She's a woman. Typically women don't process
• 56:16
  Speaker 3: alcohol or handle out call as well as men. Not
• 56:18
  Speaker 3: saying that there aren't women out there can drink men
• 56:19
  Speaker 3: under the table absolutely don't be offended. But because of
• 56:23
  Speaker 3: sort of her body top, you would expect that if
• 56:26
  Speaker 3: she drank as much as the prose execution is going
• 56:28
  Speaker 3: to say, that number is probably closer too point two
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: nine than it is two point one point three.
• 56:33
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's striking alone that eight hours after she
• 56:36
  Speaker 2: last left the house she is still legally drunk, right,
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: That is the fact we have. So, of course there's
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: going to be an autopsy done on John's body, and
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: on January thirty first, the autopsy finds that John died
• 56:49
  Speaker 2: of blunt impact injuries to the head, with hypothermia as
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: a contributing factor. The medical examiner finds no obvious signs
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: of an altercation or fight, though On February second, twenty
• 57:02
  Speaker 2: twenty two, just a couple days after the autopsy comes back,
• 57:05
  Speaker 2: Karen is charged with manslaughter motor vehicle homicide and leaving
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: the scene of a motor vehicle collision. Four days later,
• 57:12
  Speaker 2: on February sixth, hundreds of officers lined the streets for
• 57:16
  Speaker 2: O'Keefe's funeral, which is also attended by the Mayor of Boston,
• 57:21
  Speaker 2: Michelle Wu. So he has served on the force for
• 57:24
  Speaker 2: sixteen years. He is seemingly a very well liked man
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: in his community, within his workplace, and it is not unusual,
• 57:34
  Speaker 2: of course, when a fellow officer is fallen that you
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: pay your respects by lining the streets, attending, etc. And
• 57:41
  Speaker 2: this one really draws out everyone. He doesn't die in
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: the line of duty, but he dies kind of in
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: his prime. He is a young man, he's only forty
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: six years old. He's already served on the force for
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: sixteen years. And this draws a lot of attention, of
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: course to Karen Reid, who just days earlier had been
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: charged with his death. On June tenth, twenty twenty two,
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: Karen is indicted, so she was charged previously right with
• 58:06
  Speaker 2: the manslaughter motor vehicle charges. Essentially these charges are essentially
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: elevated to a higher crime on June tenth, when she's
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: indicted on second degree murder, manslaughter while under the influence
• 58:20
  Speaker 2: and leaving the scene. This is not that unusual. We've
• 58:25
  Speaker 2: talked about this before, especially when you have enough evidence
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: to charge something like it's clear something has happened, then
• 58:32
  Speaker 2: you can go ahead and charge the lower crime. And
• 58:35
  Speaker 2: as your investigation progresses, the autopsies come back, et cetera,
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: et cetera, read text messages you get and you think
• 58:41
  Speaker 2: you can charge something higher and prove it, you can
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: come back and enhance those charges. And that's exactly what
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: happened here.
• 58:47
  Speaker 3: And you gotta remember, the grand jury is hearing the
• 58:51
  Speaker 3: prosecutions story without the benefit of the defense story. And
• 58:57
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think everyone could agree that the prosecution's
• 59:00
  Speaker 3: story without the conspiracy. If you assume the police are
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: not planning evidence, if you assume you can believe the
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: first responders, you can see why the grand jury would
• 59:10
  Speaker 3: reach the conclusion it did. Obviously, that is going to
• 59:13
  Speaker 3: be disputed at trial, and that's what we're talking about now. Initially,
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: the defense's position is kind of what we said earlier.
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: It's like, look, this is horrible. They vastly overcharged her.
• 59:24
  Speaker 3: This was an accident. She didn't even know she hit him,
• 59:27
  Speaker 3: said sort of that line of things, But by May
• 59:31
  Speaker 3: of twenty twenty three, that story has changed. Now Ree's
• 59:35
  Speaker 3: defense team is alleging that, in fact, John was involved
• 59:38
  Speaker 3: in a fight inside the Albert home. After he was beaten,
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: his former friends dumped his body in their front yard.
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: The defense even claims, as we said earlier, that the
• 59:48
  Speaker 3: wounds to John's arm were created by an attack by
• 59:52
  Speaker 3: the Albert's dog, Chloe. The defense will claim quote that
• 59:57
  Speaker 3: every single one of the people in in the house
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 3: that night, including Brian Albert, Jennifer McKay, various other people
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: were involved in John's murder and cover up in some way.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 3: The cover up also included the Canton Police Department, first responders,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 3: people in the state Police. A vast swath of people
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 3: in Canton are involved in this. And the reason for
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 3: this is because the Alberts were pillars of this community
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 3: and if they needed help, the community was going to
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 3: come together and help them. To Karen Reid's detriment, because
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 3: she was an outsider, she was not part of this community.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: Note one thing in this change story from the defense,
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 2: We're hearing a lot about who is doing the conspiring,
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: But you may all be thinking, what is the mayor
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: of Boston who showed up to the funeral have to
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: do with this. A city select councilman, you know, people
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: who ram campaigns for them. Who is John O'Keefe. Why
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: is the entire city of Canton conspiring to kill him?
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: That is not something we've heard yet back in May
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, And that's an important question to ask
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: because kind of like in the ad non case, conspiracies exist.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 2: We're not saying people are not capable of conspiracies, but
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 2: I think an important counter kind of part of the
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: story is why why all of this conspiracy for this
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 2: particular person.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think it's a really good point Alice
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 3: to put her finger on, and it's something to remember.
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 3: The reason the defense will say is because the Alberts
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 3: were cops, and cops protect cops. But the weird thing
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 3: about this conspiracy, John's a cop too, and cops don't
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 3: like it when cops get killed. And you would think
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 3: there would at least be divided loyalties in the various
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 3: police departments and the state police and everywhere else, and
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 3: some people who really wanted John to get justice, even
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 3: if it meant another cop was going to go down.
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 3: Because he killed him. But you have to believe that
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 3: that this really is sort of they had to pick
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 3: you know, John's dead, sort of one of those Look,
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 3: he's already dead, we can't do anything for him. Will
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: honor him at a funeral, We'll all show up in
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 3: our dress blues and march down the streets of Boston.
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 3: But then we got to protect our other police officer friend.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 3: Even though he's responsible for John's death. We have to
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 3: protect him. And if that means framing an innocent woman,
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 3: so be it. We have to do that. That's sort
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 3: of what you have to believe. And at the same
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 3: time that the defense is coming out with this, a
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 3: blogger named Aiden Kearney, who had, to his credit, done
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 3: some good work on uncovering police corruption through his postings
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 3: on Turtle boy News, was engaged in what he would
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 3: describe as an attempt to uncover this conspiracy against Karen Reid.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: The prosecution didn't see it that way, saying that instead
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 3: Kearney was harassing and intimidating witnesses. He'd eventually be arrested
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 3: on October eleventh, twenty twenty three, in charge with at
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: least sixteen felony charges related to these claims, things would
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: get worse for Kearnie when his bail was revoked over
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: charges he had assaulted his ex girl. He'd spend two
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 3: months in jail until released again. For his part, Curney
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 3: claims he is the victim of persecution for exercising his
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 3: First Amendment rights. He has been attending the trial to
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 3: some extent. I believe he's excluded whenever someone testifies that
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 3: he's accused of harassing, and he's been in there otherwise.
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 3: There have been accusations that he's doing things like filming
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 3: the jury and other stuff. No idea if any of
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 3: that's true. He has a very controversial figure. So on
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 3: March twelfth, twenty twenty four, the defense claimed, and this
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: is like a weird curveball in all this case, which
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 3: has led to some really great conspiracy theories. The defense
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 3: claimed that the FBI, working as part of a federal
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 3: investigation into the Karen Read case, concluded that the damage
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: to the SUV was inconsistent with hitting John's body, and
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 3: this would become sort of a thing in this case
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 3: that in fact, the FBI and the US Attorney's Office
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 3: in Massachusetts was investigating this case from a different angle
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 3: that at any moment the FBI was going to show
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 3: up in the courtroom and arrest everyone, that maybe the
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 3: trial itself was actually an affront to get all these
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 3: people to go on the stand and pursure themselves, and
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 3: then they're all going to be arrested for perjury and
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 3: then this case is going to be removed to federal court.
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 3: Just some wild stuff. I'm not exactly sure what all
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 3: is going on with the FBI and the US Tore's office,
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: but one thing I can say for certain is the
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 3: FBI is not going to raid this trial. That is
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 3: not the way this goes. So you can put that aside.
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: But it's funny because at one point, this trial is
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 3: constantly interrupted by sirens because it's near I don't know
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 3: if it's near the police station or what where the
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 3: courthouse is, but there was a while where every time
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 3: there was a siren, people would be like, is that
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 3: it is this? It's the FBI? Are they here? Are
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: they raiding the courthouse? Not going to happen.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: Let me just tell you the FBI, if for some
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 2: reason that was going to happen, the FBI would like
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: to talk to the judge and be like this is
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 2: what's going to go down. We're not going to call
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: the entire press and the gallery and all the jurors
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: who are like innocent bystanders. We're not gonna have this
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: public takedown where all these innocent people will be at risk.
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: Right when you have a takedown, those are you try
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 2: to control those environments as much as possible. That's why
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 2: takedowns of like America's most wanted don't happen in crowded restaurants.
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: They happen at the person's home at three am to
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: catch them surprised. So I'm just giving you a little
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 2: bit of background. I'm not giving like great state secrets
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: over here. It's just the truth. There was no way
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: if there was a takedown, the FBI would do it
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: in a room full of innocent citizens.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 3: Not to mention, can you imagine a plan where we're
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 3: gonna let this woman be tried for murder and then
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 3: at some point in the middle of the trial, that's
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 3: when we're going to spring our trap. That's that's something
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 3: particularly given that all these people have already testified in
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 3: front of grand jury. So if you were going to
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 3: get in for perjury, you can already get in for
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 3: perjury because it test find grand jury. But I don't know.
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 3: We'll see what happens. I guess maybe I'll be proven Rome.
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: I guess we're just we're being cold water prosecutors already.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 2: It's just some of these things. This is damaging, right.
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 2: We shouldn't be watching a trial waiting for the FBI
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: to bust and arrest everybody, or like have a shootdown,
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: because guess what, You're not going to arrest people about guns.
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: This is what I mean when I say they're not
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: going to put all these innocent lives at risk because
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: entire SWAT teams come in with massive artillery to protect
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 2: the FBI when they do a takedown. It's not going
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 2: to happen in this courthouse. Nothing couldn't happen in general.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 2: It's just not going to happen in the middle of trial.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: On March thirteenth, Massachusetts State Police opened an internal investigation
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: into Trooper Michael Proctor, someone we noted earlier was the
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 2: lead investigator on the Karen Reid case. The police do
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 2: not say what prompted this investigation, and he remains on
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 2: full duty, which probably means it's still pending that they
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 2: haven't concluded anything, Yet the defense would allege that Proctor
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 2: hid personal ties to people involved in the case. Now,
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: Proctor did send a lot of text messages, and unfortunately,
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: you never want to be part of a case that
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: you're investigating or prosecuting. But his text messages become a
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 2: major part of Karen Reid's case. In April, the court
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: denies both a defense's motion to dismiss and a prosecution
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 2: motion to prevent Karen reads defense from making the some
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: other dude did it defense. So kind of a loss
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: and a win for either side. Right, you would expect
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: the defense to file a motion to dismiss, essentially saying
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: she hasn't been properly charged, there's not enough evidence. All
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: these things, we don't even go to trial. Judge, just
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 2: kick it out on the papers. Judge said, no, that's
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: not surprising. By the way, these types of cases very rarely,
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: there's going to be a defect in the indictment for
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: the motion to dismiss to succeed.
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 3: Shout out to say Lil Brise. By the way, another
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 3: dude did it.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 2: Defense, the Saudi defense, Some other dude did it and
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 2: you should listen to it as well. Our other podcast
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: where we talk about the some other dude did it defense,
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 2: because some of you have asked before, when can you,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: as a defense argue, hey, did it somebody did it,
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: doesn't matter who, just not me. Well, you can't just
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 2: assert these things that there's no evidence. And so that's
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 2: what the prosecution was trying to do here. They knew
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 2: that because of the kind of public statements that the
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: defense had made, they were going to say that Karen
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 2: Reid was framed so like the ultimate some other dude
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: did it right, and so they tried to seek to
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: keep it out and say there wasn't evidence to suggest
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: that type of theory. The judge said no, all out
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 2: after those two major rulings, which was a loss and
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: a win for both sides. April twenty ninth of this year,
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 2: the trial began and it continues as of us recording
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 2: this first episode.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 3: And we're in June. So that just gives you an idea.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: It's a long time going. As we speak. The prosecution
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 3: is still presenting its case. The defense says it's going
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 3: to have the case, so this one could be going
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 3: on for quite some time. We're gonna try and be
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 3: with you the whole time.
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 4: In case.
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 3: I'll probably be decided before we finish up, but we'll
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 3: tell you at the end what we think should have happened,
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 3: and we'll tell you what we think actually happened that night.
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: And look, I think this is this is an interesting case.
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 3: I mean, I will be completely frank with you, as
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 3: I have said before, when you make extraordinary claims, I
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 3: need extraordinary evidence. So if I'm going to believe the
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 3: cover up, I'm gonna need to see a lot from
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: the defense over these next few weeks to prove that.
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 3: To me. The better question, I think is the weird
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 3: thing about this is I want to say, can they
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 3: get to reasonable doubt? But the way the defense has
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 3: structured their defense, you almost either have to believe that
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 3: Karen did it and she's guilty, or that the conspiracy
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 3: is true. They haven't left a whole lot of room
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 3: in the middle. There is still room in the middle.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 3: You could have a jury that says, look, we thought
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 3: the defense was full of crap, but when we looked
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 3: at what the prosecution put on, they didn't meet their burden.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 3: That would be a really savvy, good jury, and that
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 3: would be a jury that really understands its role. Usually
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 3: when the defense is leading you down a certain path.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 3: It's the jury is gonna either follow that path or
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 3: they're going to go with the prosecution. So we have
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 3: to see what happens. It'd be fascinating to see. I
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 3: think there's a lot of really interesting stuff between Karen
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 3: Reid committed second degree murder, which, as we talked about before,
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 3: a second degree murder. Second degree murder is not first
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 3: degree murder because first degree murder requires premeditation, so that
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 3: you have to decide you're going to kill someone and
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 3: make it happen. It is worse than manslaughter, which involves
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 3: negligence or some sort of gross negligence. It's in this
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 3: sort of fuzzy gray area where you do something that
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: you should have known was incredibly dangerous and you do
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: it anyway. So the example people often use is firing
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 3: a gun into a crowded room. You're not try and
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 3: hit anybody. You don't care if you hit anybody. You're
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 3: certainly not aiming at anyone. But it's such a dangerous
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: thing to do. It's such a reckless disregard for human
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: life that if you do hit someone, we're going to
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 3: punish you worse than just manslaughter in this case. I
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 3: think what she would have to believe is that Karen
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 3: Reid did not intend necessarily to hit John, or maybe
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 3: she did intend to hit John, but she did not
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 3: intend to kill him, but she hit him on purpose,
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: or she left him in the snow on purpose and
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 3: then drove away, and that that action was such a
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 3: reckless disregard for his life that when he then subsequently died,
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 3: she was guilty of the crime. I think that's what
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: you have to believe to get to second degree murder.
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 3: There are sort of lesser included here. The lesser charge
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 3: of manslaughter due to intoxication is basically, this was an accident.
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 3: She was really drunk, She hit him and probably didn't even
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 3: realize she hit him, drove home, the left the scene
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 3: of an accident is sort of the same thing. If
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 3: she was so drunk she didn't realize it, that's enough
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 3: to get there. She doesn't have to have intended to
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: leave it. So there's sort of a gradation of what
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 3: you could see here. You could see the prosecution win
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 3: in a clean suite, lose in a clean sweep, or
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 3: something in the middle, and we'll be with you every
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 3: step of the way. Okay, Alice, before we do a
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 3: question tonight, is there anything else you want to say
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 3: about this case.
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 2: There's a lot to say, but we'll leave it at
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 2: the first episode because there really is a lot more
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 2: to say. But I hope you are hearing our skepticism,
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: not necessarily. Look, there's a lot more to the trial
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: to come. There are a lot more people to testify,
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: But these are questions that you should be asking all
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 2: along the way. You should have skepticism as you listen
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 2: to these witnesses. A lot of people say, well, wait
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: until you hear all the evidence. No, it's completely okay
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 2: to ask these questions as you are presented with the evidence,
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 2: and it's something that you should do and it's part
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 2: of critical thinking along the way. So these questions that
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 2: we have may be answered by subsequent testimony in the trial,
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking them now. So don't
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 2: view trials as well. I have to just accept everything
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: that's told to me and sit back and until I
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 2: hear all the evidence at once. No, you're ability to
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 2: reason and critically think isn't suspended just because the full
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 2: evidence hasn't been presented. If something smells funny, as someone
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: sessifying that's okay to point out, and if that question
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 2: is not answered at the end, then that's a problem
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 2: that goes to the credibility of whether you should believe
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: that witness and that line of argument.
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just going to agree with everything Alice has said,
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: and once again not to dwell on this. But ordinarily
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 3: the defense has no burden. The defense cannot ask They
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 3: can choose not to ask a single question of any witness.
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 3: They can choose not to put on a single witness.
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 3: They can choose to waive their opening and their clothes.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 3: They can do all those things, and still the defendant
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 3: be acquitted if the prosecution doesn't meet their burden. And
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 3: I'm not trying to burden shift here. I'm not trying
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 3: to put a burden on the defense, but the defense
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: in a real way, has taken on a burden here.
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: I was going to say they created their own burden.
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: They really did. You know, we always say in opening
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: statements that essentially what you're doing is you're building the shelf.
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 2: You get to build the shelf as the prosecution and
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: the defense. It could be a T shaped shelf, it
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 2: could be a round shelf. It could be a shelf
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: with no shelves. You actually get to decide what the
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 2: story will look like. And what that shelf is going
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 2: to do is hold the evidence you're going to present.
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 2: When I say no shelves, I mean you don't have
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: to present any evidence that's completely valid. You can present
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: an invisible shelf as the defense and say simply there's
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 2: no evidence period. That is actually a very very common strategy.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 2: But what they've done the defense by saying Karen Reid
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 2: was framed within the first sentence of the opening statement,
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 2: is to build a very complex shelf with a lot
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 2: of intricacies that they have to fill with evidence. By
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: their own words, that's not burden shifting. That's them building
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 2: a shelf that they're going to have to now fill.
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 3: Okay, we can't wait. Dear what you guys think about this? Guys,
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 3: you've been asking for us to do this, cause we're
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 3: gonna do it. I know this case is incredibly divisive,
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 3: and that's fine. Half of you a're gonna hate us
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 3: when we finish it, hopefully half of you still love us.
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 3: Is to lose all listeners at some point, So that's
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 3: just what we're trying to do. Try to be divisive.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 3: We're trying to all the time. So I mean, at
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 3: least you know we're not just telling you what you
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 3: want to hear. So be with us, stick with us, listen,
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 3: know what you think at Prosecutor's Pod for all your
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 3: social media Prosecutorspod at gmail dot com. If you want
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 3: to send us an email, go to Prosecutors Podcast our
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 3: website for various things of randomness, including a lot of links.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 3: Look great coverage of this case. The Boston Globe been
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 3: doing yeomen's work on this really excellent stuff. Great resource.
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 3: You can watch every single episode episode day of trial
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 3: which seemed like episodes on YouTube and various different sources.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 3: Do it go to the source, as we always say,
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 3: because I will tell you this is a case where
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 3: having watched a lot of this trial, we're going to
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 3: tell you how this goes. We're going to tell you
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 3: what witnesses say. Credibility in this one matters so much,
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 3: and hearing these people tell the story it is so
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: different from reading it on the dry page or on
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 3: Twitter or wherever you are. So if you really want
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 3: to know, don't listen to us, watch the trial. So
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 3: but also listen to us because we'relucky when you listen
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 3: to us. Thank you to our patrons. So glad you
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 3: guys are here tonight. Hope you'll be with us throughout
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 3: this case. Okay, all that, all the business aside, Let's
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 3: do a question. We'll run a little along, so we'll
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 3: do one, but we'll do one. This is a good one. Okay.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 3: So this is from Missy Lexi and Missy Lexi wants
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 3: to know, Alice and Bratt if you could have any
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 3: animal in the world as a pet, what would it be.
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 2: We're going through this fight right now with my kids,
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 2: and my answer is no animals. Yes, they've asked for
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 2: a rattlesnake, they've asked for oh yeah, exactly, they've asked
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 2: for amanatee. The list can go on. But let me
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 2: just say that question kind of hits a sensitive nerve
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 2: because I've said no to a lot of the animals
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: that I say we cannot have. First of all, because
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 2: a lot of them would be legal to have. So
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 2: I'm not just a mean person, but I'm a dog lover.
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 2: I'm a dog lover. I was gonna say there's nothing
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 2: else I want. I want dogs.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 3: Dogs are the best they are, They're best. I think people. Okay,
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 3: number one, I think if I'm if I want an
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 3: animal that's not a dog, then we're gonna have to
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 3: create miniaturization. If I can have a miniature elephant or
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 3: a miniature giraffe, I'm talking like a little what I
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 3: can hold my hand, that would be pretty cool. But otherwise,
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 3: if it's in the realm of actual animals, give me
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 3: a dog. You know, ten thousand years, dogs and mankind
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 3: have been together, like fighting together to survive in this
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 3: harsh world. We love each other for a reason. There's
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 3: no connection like between men and dogs, like they are
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 3: our best friends for a reason, and do not shun
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 3: them for some of their animal That would be cool.
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 3: To have a cheetah cheata would be fun, But I
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 3: want a dog. I'm going the dog.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, glad we agree.
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 3: Okay, Well, now that we've brought everybody together before tearing
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 3: everyone asunder, we'll go ahead and say good night for now,
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 3: but we will be back next week. Probably there will
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 3: have been at least two days of trial between now
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 3: and then next week with more on this case. But
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 3: until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice, and we are
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 3: the prosecutors going live going live.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 2: The things that people don't hear you say.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 3: I'm going live, going live, doing.
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 4: It, live, doing it.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 3: Someone has the murder Joe first, so we can come.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, Oh my goodness.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 3: Anyways, Okay, you ready, Hey, let's do this.
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 2: Let's elevate this.
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 3: Let's elevate it. Let's elevate it. There you go.
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 2: Sorry, guys, inside joke.
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, sometimes y'all miss the the green Ram conversation.
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 2: Thank you Mallory for recognizing I am my own greatest
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 2: fan for jokes. If you don't laugh at your own jokes,
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 2: you know, stuck double the fun, tell and laugh at it.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 3: The word I'm gonna use to describe you, it's not
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 3: a pun, but it is more related to the case
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 3: than you said.
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 5: Don't don't be insulted
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 2: In